Atavisms

[AV1611VET]

Let's call this YHWH's revenge.

Feel free to do so.

If I gave my honest opinion of [the word] "YHWH", I'd get a yellow card from upstairs.

 

[Cabal]

That's right.

I'm not obligated to accept any science that contradicts the Bible; and even less if scientists themselves don't agree with each other.

So you're saying we shouldn't accept creationism either, by that standard? Lord knows they don't agree with other.

Feel free to do so.

If I gave my honest opinion of [the word] "YHWH", I'd get a yellow card from upstairs.

Oh, fine, whatever term you care to use for God. (Same difference, but I'm making the parallel clear between your responses in this thread and what you accuse us of doing)

 

[Mike Elphick]

Is a hiccup an atavism?

Why yes!

Hiccups reveal at least two layers of our history: one shared with fish, another with amphibians, according to one well-supported hypothesis. We inherited the major nerves we use in breathing from fish. One set of nerves, the phrenic, extends from the base of the skull and travels through the chest cavity and the diaphragm, among other places. This tortuous course creates problems; anything that interrupts the path of these nerves along their length can interfere with our ability to breathe. Irritation of these nerves can even be a cause of hiccups. A more rational design of the human body would have the nerves traveling not from the neck but from a spot nearer to the diaphragm. Unluckily, we became heir to this design from fishy ancestors with gills closer to a diaphragm well below it.

If the strange pathway of the nerves is a product of our fish origin, the hiccup itself may have arisen from the past we share with amphibians. It turns out that the characteristic pattern of muscle and nerve activity of hiccups occurs naturally in other creatures. And not just any creatures. More specifically, they turn up in tadpoles that use both lungs and gills to breathe. When tadpoles use their gills, they have a problem— they need to pump water into their mouth and throat and then across the gills, but they need to keep this water from entering their lungs. So what do they do? They shut the glottis to close off the breathing tube, while sharply inspiring. In essence, they breathe with their gills using an extended form of hiccup.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/Darwin_day/2009/english/SA_old_bodyShubin.pdf

 

[Vatis]

I'm not a creationist but I don't see what genetic anamolies have to do with the idea of evolution. When conjoined twins are born are we supposed to deduce that all earlier lifeforms had two heads?

Ah but conjoined twins have nothing to do with a gene defect, the conjoining of twins occurs in the womb and is strictly mechanical, the two growing eggs grew together. The DNA of conjoined twins can be completely fine.

 

[MoonLancer]

That's right.

I'm not obligated to accept any science that contradicts the Bible; and even less if scientists themselves don't agree with each other.

funny I dont feel obligated to accept any religion that contradicts reality. less if followers of that particular religion cant agree with each other.

If you compere the two, science will always have more people who can agree on any given idea then creationists or fundamentalists. This is because they are dealing with the empirical, while creationists simply believe anything they must to protect what they already believe, (like embedded or different states). Its pretty impressive considering scientists make a good living out of destroying the work of other scientists.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you compere the two, science will always have more people who can agree on any given idea then creationists or fundamentalists.

If one compares the two, it would also behoove one to take into consideration which came first.

In addition, the fact that [Bible disrespecting] science is growing faster than [Bible respecting] science is what we call a "sign of the times".

 

[rockaction]

If one compares the two, it would also behoove one to take into consideration which came first.

In addition, the fact that [Bible disrespecting] science is growing faster than [Bible respecting] science is what we call a "sign of the times".

Why does science need to "respect" the Bible? If the Bible was right about everything, how could science disrespect it?

Remember that many different fields of science independently verify evolution. In order to deny evolution, you have to deny molecular biology, microbiology, virology, embryology, genetics, nuclear physics, paleontology, and many more fields. You can't just pick and choose fields of science to accept! (Like you would say you can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible to accept)

 

[MoonLancer]

If one compares the two, it would also behoove one to take into consideration which came first.

In addition, the fact that [Bible disrespecting] science is growing faster than [Bible respecting] science is what we call a "sign of the times".

People where pretty hard up for explanations back then. Its amazing the stuff they "created".

Also, they have been saying its a sign of the times ever since the rediscovery that the earth is NOT center of the universe. at least 800 years. Your really late to come to this idea that science no longer syncs with the bible. That's what happens when evidence is used.

I mean we are talking all the way back when Aristotle's "Physics" was translated into Latin.

edit: sorry i got my dates wrong, its more like 300 years after Aristotle's physics was translated that it was rediscovered that the earth was not the center of the universe. Christians dislike Aristotle for other reasons.

 

[Raithie]

No Creationists willing to defend themselves against atavisms?

I only ever get silence when I bring it up. It's getting annoying.

 

[AV1611VET]

No Creationists willing to defend themselves against atavisms?

I only ever get silence when I bring it up. It's getting annoying.

Make up your mind.

The post is addressed at the Creationists who dismiss evolution as being true in an attempt to express validity for ID.

Do you want broadband or narrowband?

 

[Raithie]

Make up your mind.

Do you want broadband or narrowband?

The post has always been looking for Creationists to explain atavisms. So far, none have. You have only entered the evolution & creation subforum, and whined that you don't need to defend your position. If you honestly believe that, I don't care - but stop trolling this discussion thread with irrelevant comments.

Regarding your comment, I assumed Creationists believe that they are intelligently designed. Hence, why I brought it up. ID is Creationism disguised in an attempt to sound scientific.

So, anyone? I'd love to know.

 

[AV1611VET]

ID is Creationism disguised in an attempt to sound scientific.

So why ask them then, if they're in disguise?

Why don't you ask Creationists?

If ID is nothing more than creationism in disguise, it's not a very effective disguise, is it?

 

[Raithie]

So why ask them then, if they're in disguise?

Why don't you ask Creationists?

If ID is nothing more than creationism in disguise, it's not a very effective disguise, is it?

...

I AM asking Creationists.

So far none have answered. Are there even Creationists here? (That try to defend their position, not unrelated meandering, as contributed by AV1611VET.)

 

[AV1611VET]

So far none have answered.

Answered what? your OP needs another ingredient:

I'm just curious as to how Creationists reconcile atavisms (evolutionary throwbacks).

Eg, mutant whales being born with femurs/tibia/fibula/toes or people being burn with functional tails etc.

So what's the Creationists response?

Reconcile atavisms with what? the creation week? theistic evolution?

Please be specific, or don't expect an answer.

What exactly?

If you answer "the creation week", then again, there would have been no atavisms present and, in point of fact, whales came before Adam & Eve.

I can't stress this enough, Raithie: atavisms have nothing to do with the creation week.

 

[Raithie]

Answered what? your OP needs another ingredient:
Reconcile atavisms with what? the creation week? theistic evolution?

Please be specific, or don't expect an answer.

What exactly?

If you answer "the creation week", then again, there would have been no atavisms present and, in point of fact, whales came before Adam & Eve.

I can't stress this enough, Raithie: atavisms have nothing to do with the creation week.

With Creationism and its beliefs of being designed intelligently by God. Thus, Creationism. Atavisms are distinct reversions to the ancestral type. This directly contradicts the idea of a god creating species as they are today. Thus why I'm interested in the Creationist response.

Theistic evolution is not creationism, definitely not in the typical sense, which is what I am referring to since this is the evolution & creation subforum. I am in no way referring to the creation week. Only the ending result - that God created species as they are today with no evolution involved.

Now please either stop meandering and establish some form of relevant argument or leave the thread. I only made this post because I'm genuinely interested to see how Creationists deal with them in defense of their beliefs. If you're happy with not addressing anything contradictory to your ideas, that's fine - but there's absolutely no point in you participating in this thread if so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Theistic evolution is not creationism, definitely not in the typical sense, which is what I am referring to since this is the evolution & creation subforum.

If you want me to stop responding with respect to my beliefs and just lurk, I'll be glad to accommodate you; but for the record, I think you're confused.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

If ID is nothing more than creationism in disguise, it's not a very effective disguise, is it?

Correct:

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism."

Taken from here: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AV1611VET]

Correct:

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism."

Taken from here: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What I think of Intelligent Design is a little more colorful than that -- but for the record, Intelligent Design is an embarrassment to Christianity in general and owes Creationism an apology.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

What I think of Intelligent Design is a little more colorful than that -- but for the record, Intelligent Design is an embarrassment to Christianity in general and owes Creationism an apology.

And creationism owes science, humanity, and religious people the world over an apology and a refund.

 

[Raithie]

If you want me to stop responding with respect to my beliefs and just lurk, I'll be glad to accommodate you; but for the record, I think you're confused.

I'm not confused and I have no problem with you responding. However, so far you have not brought anything to the table, other than stating that you don't need to defend your position. If you want to believe that, that's fine - but I don't see why you would bother engage in the evolution and creation subforum if all you have to contribute is that you don't need to contribute...

If you're willing to explain to me how atavisms would fit in with your beliefs (why they're there etc.), I'm all ears. As well as any other Creationist. All I ever get is silence or a divergence - like what just happened.

Once again... ANY Creationist?