Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[Jimmy D]

Do you have the editions Luskin cited?

• Sylvia S. Mader, Jeffrey A. Isaacson, Kimberly G. Lyle-Ippolito, Andrew T. Storfer, Inquiry Into Life (13th ed., McGraw Hill, 2011).
• Sylvia S. Mader, Biology (McGraw Hill, 10th ed., 2010).
• Sylvia S. Mader, Biology (McGraw Hill 2007).

Luskin was careful to exclude those with corrected texts.

No, do you? The picture I posted was used in the 2011 edition though.

What exactly was incorrect about about what Mader wrote about embryology?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

PART 1
Creationists are seemingly programmed to deny the very existence of vestigial structures, and engage in all manner of intellectual gymnastics to prop up their case. They will do this even to the point of embarrassing themselves in their zeal to deny that, darn it, the coccyx is vestigial.

Doesn't the coccyx support and stabilize the man while he is in a sitting position? Isn't it also used for defecation?

In another thread, I made a comment around the age for circumcision in the bible of 8 days being the optimal time, and received all manner of comments from evolutionists about foreskin having a use. If evolutionists can identify a purpose for a flap of skin that certain groups have lived without for millennia, I find it highly unlikely they will identify another body part or organ (i.e. a vestigial structure) that has less demonstrable use than this.

If you really believe the coccyx or other part is vestigial, where are the groups of people who have had this useless part removed, and the studies on these people? I am certain thorough studies will identify problems in all groups where so-called vestigial parts were removed.

 

[Brightmoon]

Some people don’t have a coccyx. It’s mainly a vestigial tail. A tail you can see in a pharyngula stage human fetus . Creationist blathering about it is either completely untrue or they’re exaggerations

 

[USincognito]

Doesn't the coccyx support and stabilize the man while he is in a sitting position? Isn't it also used for defecation?

In another thread, I made a comment around the age for circumcision in the bible of 8 days being the optimal time, and received all manner of comments from evolutionists about foreskin having a use. If evolutionists can identify a purpose for a flap of skin that certain groups have lived without for millennia, I find it highly unlikely they will identify another body part or organ (i.e. a vestigial structure) that has less demonstrable use than this.

If you really believe the coccyx or other part is vestigial, where are the groups of people who have had this useless part removed, and the studies on these people? I am certain thorough studies will identify problems in all groups where so-called vestigial parts were removed.

Vestigial =/= useless. It never did.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

This is one of Hutton’s unconformities. See if it matches the nonsense you tell yourself about it. This unconformity is obviously hard rock layers that were laid horizontally, then pushed vertically, then eroded down flat, then overlaid by other horizontal rock layers. Both layers are sedimentary. View attachment 230444

Check out this article:

"The unconformity at Siccar Point is evidence of catastrophe on a grand scale. It is wholly consistent with the events described in the book of Genesis, that the entire earth was deluged by a globe-encircling Flood. Perhaps Hutton did not appreciate the magnitude, or the tectonic nature,17 of that global event. Early in the Flood, sediments were deposited continuously by underwater avalanches in a deep marine environment. Soon after, these were cemented, uplifted and eroded by continental-scale water movements. Then followed more deposition as the global inundation continued—rapidly depositing the Old Red Sandstone over Europe." [Tasman B. Walker, "Unmasking a Long-Age Icon." Journal of Creation, 2004] ​

Unmasking a long-age icon - creation.com​

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

This isn't a serious attempt [by Tomkins] at comparing human and chimpanzee DNA. It's a masquerade that looks like science but isn't.

The jury is still out on your methodology, Stephen. There simply does not seem to have been enough time (enough generations) for the many millions of differences to have become fixed.

Dan

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The jury is still out on your methodology, Stephen. There simply does not seem to have been enough time (enough generations) for the many millions of differences to have become fixed.

Dan

How do you know?

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I'll be honest though chief, I couldn't care less if Haeckel lied, exaggerated or molested a turtle. Embryology has moved on since 1847,

It would be no problem, Jimmy, if fraudulent and deceptive Evolution Icons were not so darn hard to get rid of.

Dan

 

[Speedwell]

It would be no problem, Jimmy, if fraudulent and deceptive Evolution Icons were not so darn hard to get rid of.

Dan

They wouldn't be, if creationists didn't keep bringing them up.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Well Dan, we'll just have to disagree about that. As a graduate geologist and an autodidact in evolutionary biology I see no magic, but mountains of evidence in a variety of fields, that cross validate the theory. I sense you are getting your information from creationist websites and publications - these are not necessarily reliable when it comes to an objective examination of that evidence.

How would you know if they are reliable or not? Creation articles and lectures were the first to awaken me to the inconsistencies of the fossil record and geological column as determined by evolutionists. But even then I was skeptical for a very long time. After all, creation science was a new field, and there were few scientists willing to challenge the orthodoxy. Less than a decade ago I still believed in a local flood; but now I look back and it all seems silly.

It would be entertaining, if you are interested, to take a look at the easy rebutall of any "flaky evolutionary geology" theory you care to select. I'd be happy to address whatever evidence or argument you have that you feel effectively rebuts the theory, or - should it so arise - to concede that you have a point.

Let's begin with your explanation of the high degree of lamination of the sedimentary layers. Explain why there is little or no bioturbation.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Are you an "evolutionary geologist" or a regular old geologist?

LOL! I am a retired engineer.

Dan

 

[USincognito]

Let's begin with your explanation of the high degree of lamination of the sedimentary layers. Explain why there is little or no bioturbation.

There is bioturbatoin all through the geologic column which falsifies the claim that it was laid down in a single Flood year. A number of trace fossils like insect and worm burrows, plant root systems, egg nests, raindrops, footprints, etc. are simply impossible in the Flood scenario, but they appear in layers throughout the geologic column.

Bioturbation
r/DebateEvolution - Via r/creation: What are the most specific predictions made by creationism? This should be fun...
This one even has an index to rate bioturbation. If it's such a rare or supposedly nonexistent phenomena, then why were geologists able to come up with a rating index?
https://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors14/win14/4_bioturbation.pdf

Trace fossils.
Fossil Tracks and Other Trace Fossils Refute Flood Geology

 

[Bible Research Tools]

View attachment 230493 You mean this chromosome 2 . I would think it’s rather obvious especially since all of the other 22 pairs line up too.

It is not obvious at all. There is no universal agreement that fusion even happened. If it was a fusion, it was not a simple fusion. And since all humans have the same chromosome 2, it is obvious that all humans descended from a common human ancestor, and that is about all that is "obvious".

Have you read this paper?

https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v6/human-chromosome-fusion.pdf​

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

You're pulling that old, beaten horse corpse out? Really?

I love to flog that beast -- the beast who has done so much to destroy western civilization.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Care to actually address the content of that essay?

Not really.

Oooo! My favorite Creationist gambit. Tell us how many times did Darwin, and you can round it to the nearest ten, refer to humans in Origin.

I am not sure, but negro is mentioned 112 times in "The Descent of Man", 1888.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

What the heck is "evolutionism"? Why do creationists feel the need to make up words?

Evolutionism is the name of a faith-based religion which some call Darwinism.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

why do creationists keep spreading this lie. Darwin was a fervent abolitionist and unusually for someone of his social class in the 19th century , he actually learned taxidermy from a Black man . He hated slavery. Now as far as his usage of races in the title; modern scientists would probably say subspecies . Darwin thought that humans were a single species and also thought that societal inequalities were due to education ( or the lack there of).

You ever read this?

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then, be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." [Charles Darwin, Affinities and Genealogies, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." 1888, Chap VI, p.156] ​

I agree that Darwin opposed slavery; but there was little doubt he believed the European "race" to be superior.

Darwin actually figured out how atolls form so he could wear that geologist hat too

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

In all the times that creationists have tried this dodge -- quoting the title of a book that has nothing to do with races as if it proved Darwin a racist -- have you ever seen one retract the claim or apologize for spreading falsehoods?

How do you interpret this, Stephen?

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then, be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." [Charles Darwin, Affinities and Genealogies, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." 1888, Chap VI, p.156] ​

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

There's more than a little hyperbole in that account it seems.

Back at ya.

Please do. If you're only getting creationist sources for it, you're getting a very slanted perception of the actual history.

Likewise, if you are getting only evolutionist sources, you are getting a very slanted perception of the actual history.

For the record, I read both papers and books from both sides. I was an evolutionist for most of my life. But if you want me to read something, please recommend books and articles (and even videos) that I do not have to purchase.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

That doesn't appear to be what AiG or the ICR believe. Like I said, creationism seems about protecting a very specific religious dogma from anything perceived as contradicting it. Nothing more.

One could make a reasonable argument that evolutionism is about protecting a specific religious dogma from anything perceived as contradicting it.

The Flood as described by modern YECs is blatantly contradicted by every branch of natural science as well as social sciences (e.g. history/archaeology).

Nonsense. Every branch of natural science, and even paleontology and history, support the flood narrative. Archaeology supports the biblical narrative at least as far back as Sodom and Gomorrah.

The Urey-Miller experiment demonstrated evidence for what it sought to demonstrate: the formation of organic compounds from precursors. In that respect, it was successful. Not having seen the books in question myself, I can't comment.

If was over-represented in text books, and perhaps still is in some. Evolution Icons die hard!

What does "proves evolution" mean? What do you think evolution is?

A faith-based religion.

Transitional fossils are evidence of evolutionary events that occurred in the past (namely the morphological changes that occurred throughout life's history). It's silly to demand that something be "proved" before one compiles evidence for the thing they are trying to demonstrate.

There is no such thing as a transitional fossil until it can be proven that macroevolution is even possible.

I don't know what "evolutionism" is.

A faith-based religion.

Dan