Creationists cant answer....

Steezie · Apr 22, 2008

RobertByers said:
Vestigal organs makes the case for creationism.
Toe has everything coming from a different thing so many times that vestigal organs should be the standard details of all creatures living today.

They actually are

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA

Just because they PHYSICALLY arent there, doesnt mean theres nothing there

instead they are few and far between. Water mammals and snakes have anatomical evidence of previous lifestyles. However these fit fine in creationist models (though many creationists don't see water mammals as originally from land).

Really? How does whales having vestigial legs fit into creationism?

Otherwise cratures lose eyes or wings or this or that due to non use here and there.

Which we can demonstrate happens. Many species of aquatic creatures that live in caves have lost sight alltogether because of they dont need it. Think of it like your bones in zero gravity. Your body doesnt need such strong bones to support its weight so it begins dumping calcium. The same is true, albeit much slower, when organisms lose limbs or organs due to non-need

Evolution is forced to predict vestigal organs exist and yet can't show them as they should because of coarse evolution is a untested, unevidenced guess misunderstanding nature.
Robert Byers

....Huh?

ChordatesLegacy · Apr 22, 2008

RobertByers said:
Vestigal organs makes the case for creationism.
Toe has everything coming from a different thing so many times that vestigal organs should be the standard details of all creatures living today.
instead they are few and far between. Water mammals and snakes have anatomical evidence of previous lifestyles. However these fit fine in creationist models (though many creationists don't see water mammals as originally from land).
Otherwise cratures lose eyes or wings or this or that due to non use here and there.
Evolution is forced to predict vestigal organs exist and yet can't show them as they should because of coarse evolution is a untested, unevidenced guess misunderstanding nature.
Robert Byers

Wrong again: There are plenty of vestigal organs in nature

Panda Teeth are the teeth of a carnivore, but Pandas eat bamboo, not to mention the Pandas guts.

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?i...v=/images?q=Panda+teeth&gbv=2&um=1&hl=en&sa=N

Horses only use one toe, the other are vestigal

http://www.tribeequus.com/feet2.jpg

Blind catfish with vestigal eyes

flatworm · Apr 22, 2008

RobertByers said:
Vestigal organs makes the case for creationism.
Toe has everything coming from a different thing so many times that vestigal organs should be the standard details of all creatures living today.

Just because they're inherited doesn't mean they need to be degenerate. Examples of inherited non-vestigial features include cellular membranes (common to all life), a membrane-bound nucleus (common to all eukaryotes), a spinal cord (common to all chordates)... need I go on?

If creationism explains vestigial traits, perhaps you could enlighten us as to the purpose of the erector pilae in humans?

FishFace · Apr 22, 2008

RobertByers said:
Vestigal organs makes the case for creationism.
Toe has everything coming from a different thing so many times that vestigal organs should be the standard details of all creatures living today.
instead they are few and far between. Water mammals and snakes have anatomical evidence of previous lifestyles. However these fit fine in creationist models (though many creationists don't see water mammals as originally from land).

How do they "fit" with creationist models? What's the extensor coccygis muscle for? Why are our ear bones homologous to reptilian jaw bones? Why do we have an appendix that does nothing but looks exactly as if it was once a store for cellulose-digesting bacteria?

Otherwise cratures lose eyes or wings or this or that due to non use here and there.

Lamarckism is a falsified theory.

Evolution is forced to predict vestigal organs exist and yet can't show them as they should because of coarse evolution is a untested, unevidenced guess misunderstanding nature.
Robert Byers

Humans are descended from animals which have a tail, says the theory of evolution. So we predict that there should be remnants of the tail. Indeed, we have a coccyx - the fused bones of a tail, and a muscle that can't do anything, but, if we had a tail, would.

Naraoia · Apr 22, 2008

LittleNipper said:
The falicy is that we have organs and body parts that we could live better without. Yes, GOD has designed a body that can get by missing teeth, an eye, hearing, and an appendix, tonsils, gallbladder; however, the fact is that the healthy human body works far more efficently with them than without them. They are often the first line of defense in protecting other far less expendable organs... So there is your answer. We live in a fallen world with a dying body and GOD has allowed that body to conpensate for the imperfections.

Pray tell, how does an appendix or a wisdom tooth protect you against anything? These things, AFAIK, are more likely to kill you than help you. Now that's an imperfection.

Naraoia · Apr 22, 2008

Vene said:
How about the cecum in humans? It's between the large and small intestines, but it doesn't actually do anything. In other animals it plays a role in cellulose digestion, but humans can't digest cellulose. It can be removed with no harm at all the person (actually, a lot of the intestines can be removed without any harm).

This makes me wonder, could we digest cellulose if we populated the human caecum with the right microbes? Could the right microbes make a stable settlement there?

I hate science. It spawns way too many questions

atomweaver · Apr 22, 2008

Naraoia said:
Pray tell, how does an appendix or a wisdom tooth protect you against anything? These things, AFAIK, are more likely to kill you than help you. Now that's an imperfection.

There's some evidence that the appendix now has a different function; to re-populate the gut after illnesses such as cholera or dysentary;
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=7fffc60e4c890fd153296118d5e1fbdb

...As for wisdom teeth, you can have 'em, as far as I'm concerned. (Yeah, I've got one of those wisdom teeth stories...)

LittleNipper · Apr 22, 2008

Loudmouth said:
How does the extensor coccygis improve the function or effeciency of the human body? The extensor coccygis is a muscle which spans the fused joints in the human coccyx. In other animals it lifts the tail. In humans . . . well, it just sits there spanning the distance between two bones it can never move.

I might suggest that it allows one to sit more comfortably.

LittleNipper · Apr 22, 2008

Steezie said:
Problem is thats not actually true.

Most dentists state that wisdom teeth actually put you at GREATER risk for tooth decay as they are harder to reach with a toothbrush and are less often cleaned

Obviously with an appendix you are at a greater risk for appendicitis (A potentially lethal condition if un-treated) than someone without one.

A tonsillectomy doesnt seem to put anyone at greater risk of infection and decreases the chances of tonsillitis.

I hate to tell you this, but you recent ancestors likely didn't brush. It teeth rot, why have them at all? We could eat fungus.

LittleNipper · Apr 22, 2008

Simply because a person has no clue what something does or doesn't do, does not make it unuseful. It does make that person arrogant to discredited it.

Naraoia · Apr 22, 2008

LittleNipper said:
I might suggest that it allows one to sit more comfortably.

Eh, I don't know about you, I sit on my bottom cheeks, not my tailbone (I actually experimentally checked that - sat on my bed, sat on my desk, set on the floor, and no, my tail doesn't touch the thing I'm sitting on). In any case, I don't think the e. coccygis is thick enough to provide any sort of cushioning.

Vene · Apr 22, 2008

LittleNipper said:
Simply because a person has no clue what something does or doesn't do, does not make it unuseful. It does make that person arrogant to discredited it.

So, what's the cecum do? How about the plantaris muscle which can not only be removed with no ill effects, but doesn't even exist in 9% of the human population? What does that do?

Loudmouth · Apr 22, 2008

LittleNipper said:
Simply because a person has no clue what something does or doesn't do, does not make it unuseful. It does make that person arrogant to discredited it.

But we can know if a feature has the same function as seen in other species. If it does not have this function then it is vestigial by definition.

This is why I use a burned out TV as an example. I can think of a dozen useful functions for a burned out TV, but this in no way refutes the fact that the TV doesn't work as it was intended. I could use the burned out TV for a boat anchor, paper weight, shelf, footstool, etc., but I can't use it as a TV. In the same way, humans do not use our appendix as a store house for commensal, cellulose digesting bacteria. It is the equivalent of a burned out TV.

MasterOfKrikkit · Apr 22, 2008

LittleNipper said:
Simply because a person has no clue what something does or doesn't do, does not make it unuseful. It does make that person arrogant to discredited it.

Way to miss the irony that flatworm pointed out so beautifully: this is an argument against ID!

IDers: lookit, it's a TV, it must be designed in toto because it's useless without every part just so.
Evos: it's useless as a TV, but it could function perfectly well as something else... say a boat anchor (stealing from Loudmouth)
IDers: Noes!!!11!! It's a TV and always has been!

So, let me just repost flatworm for Great Truth:

No, we're asking you to second-guess the idea that human bodies are perfectly designed. Our actual anatomy shows that we most definitely are not. Trying to hand-wave away the actual anatomical evidence based on some "mysterious ways" argument essentially makes the original contention meaningless: how can you say we are perfectly designed if we are not capable of judging perfection?

Come to think of it, how can you say we can see design in nature if don't admit we can discern bad design?

Steezie · Apr 22, 2008

LittleNipper said:
I hate to tell you this, but you recent ancestors likely didn't brush.

Not actually true. Chewsticks to clean teeth have been found pre-dating writing, and the toothbrush as we know it dates back to at least 1400.

If teeth rot, why have them at all? We could eat fungus.

Because its not until fairly recently in human history (The development of concentrated sugars) that tooth decay became a problem.

POSW · Apr 22, 2008

RobertByers said:
Vestigal organs makes the case for creationism.
Toe has everything coming from a different thing so many times that vestigal organs should be the standard details of all creatures living today.
instead they are few and far between. Water mammals and snakes have anatomical evidence of previous lifestyles. However these fit fine in creationist models (though many creationists don't see water mammals as originally from land).
Otherwise cratures lose eyes or wings or this or that due to non use here and there.
Evolution is forced to predict vestigal organs exist and yet can't show them as they should because of coarse evolution is a untested, unevidenced guess misunderstanding nature.
Robert Byers

First of all, evolution never says we should have vestigial traits all over. If we, or any other animal, did have as many vestigial traits as you claim evolution says we should, we wouldn't be evolutionarily viable.

And for that matter, we do have a fair number of vestigial traits - the appendix, the coccyx, wisdom teeth, ear muscles, and the plica semilunaris (the red thing on the inside of your eye). Goosebumps and junk DNA are two more good examples. What exactly do you mean that evolution can't show vestigial organs?

Evolution is also far from a guess. It is the explanation for why different species exist, and it is accepted by 99.99% of scientists.

YEC-ism, on the other hand, doesn't just contradict evolutionary biology, it also contradicts physics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, and itself.

flatworm · Apr 22, 2008

LittleNipper said:
It teeth rot, why have them at all? We could eat fungus.

Try living on an all-fungus diet sometime, LN.

Then try living on fungus without buying it - through farming and foraging alone.

I think you'll quickly appreciate why our ancestors favoured meat and carbohydrate-rich crops.

RobertByers · Apr 23, 2008

Steezie said:
They actually are

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA

Just because they PHYSICALLY arent there, doesnt mean theres nothing there

Really? How does whales having vestigial legs fit into creationism?

Which we can demonstrate happens. Many species of aquatic creatures that live in caves have lost sight alltogether because of they dont need it. Think of it like your bones in zero gravity. Your body doesnt need such strong bones to support its weight so it begins dumping calcium. The same is true, albeit much slower, when organisms lose limbs or organs due to non-need

....Huh?

Nope. Vestigial organs are rare comparative to the great evolution claimed to have occured.

This creationists accepts water mammals as having a terristial origin and only going into the seas after the flood. Actual evidence of a previous anatomical life.

Steezie · Apr 23, 2008

RobertByers said:
Nope. Vestigial organs are rare comparative to the great evolution claimed to have occured.

You didnt even read the link

This creationists accepts water mammals as having a terristial origin and only going into the seas after the flood. Actual evidence of a previous anatomical life.

So why do they still have these organs? Take whales, they have vestigial legs, they're useless for swimming and whales are FAR too big to walk, so the leg sizes must have changed over time....which sounds like evolution

RobertByers · Apr 23, 2008

FishFace said:
How do they "fit" with creationist models? What's the extensor coccygis muscle for? Why are our ear bones homologous to reptilian jaw bones? Why do we have an appendix that does nothing but looks exactly as if it was once a store for cellulose-digesting bacteria?

Lamarckism is a falsified theory.

Humans are descended from animals which have a tail, says the theory of evolution. So we predict that there should be remnants of the tail. Indeed, we have a coccyx - the fused bones of a tail, and a muscle that can't do anything, but, if we had a tail, would.

I haven't studied human parts and must leave to other creationists what the use of this or that is.
Remember we were originally exclusively non flesh eaters and so our bodies might have some evidence of this.
I believe creationism has dismissed the tail thing. However remember our bodies are very close to primates because of the common design God worked from. We possibly have the ability to have anything any creature ever had. Our bodies were simply the best ones there were in creation for our needs.
Our ancesters needs for stronger teeth, post flood, would of required bigger jaws and wisdom teeth because the previous shape of our mouths was different.
The big equation however is that vestigial organs showing previous evolutionary states of creatures is few when there should be zillions.
A poster said it would be erased to make viable the living creature however still they should be there in every bug and bird.

Creationists cant answer....

Steezie

Guest

Senior Member

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Apprentice Biologist

Apprentice Biologist

Senior Member

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Apprentice Biologist

In memory of ChordatesLegacy

Contributor

Regular Member

Steezie

Guest

Junior Member

Veteran

Regular Member

Steezie

Guest

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency