Creationists cant answer....

[Vene]

A frog's skin is much better suited to its environment than ours is.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Are you saying that our skin isn't suited to a frog's environment (which would be correct) or that the skin of a frog is better suited to it's environment than our skin is suited to our environment? Because our skin does a great job at keeping moisture in our bodies and does a good job at regulating our body temperature (sweat). It's also quite sensitive to tactile pressure and changes in temperature. Plus, our skin can take a lot of damage and still heal.

Thats another good point, our skin is easily damaged by sun exposure.

Depends on melanin content. Those of us with pale skin have this issue a lot more than those of us with darker skin.

But not efficiently. Our teeth arent strong enough to crush hard nuts or chew on tough plant matter and they arent sharp enough to rip meat off a bone.

Mostly because we don't need to do those things. And that's the issue with versatility, it allows for a lot of options, but poor performance at each.

A testament to how thin our skin is

Well, with a bite, you'd be surprised how much pressure a human can bite with. As for bruising, that's not the fault of the skin, that's damage to blood vessels.

Ants can lift large weights relative to their body size, chimpanzees are incredibly strong for their size.

Our muscles are so strong that if we use 100% of the cells its possible to rip the tendons off our bones. (which can stand somewhere between 1000 to 5000 J/Kg of force)

Its in-efficient, we lose a good amount of nutrients through our digestion, we cant digest hardcore food materials, and we often have digestive problems. Although to be fair, many digestive problems can be linked to our poor diet. We also require large amounts of food to keep ourselves going, we have to eat constantly to keep from feeling weak or sick

Yes, we can't digest cellulose. That can be called poor design. As can out inability to synthesize Vitamin C. But, all organisms need to eat or they will feel weak or sick. Rodents have it much worse than we do by the way. And we can last for weeks without food. Water, not so much.

We are the only animals that need this skill for survival.

And it works quite well (by the way, so do other primates. I'd like to see a monkey swing in the trees without opposable thumbs and a rotating shoulder).

Most animals, even diurnal animals, have passable night vision. We do not

It's not needed, that's why. And if you wanted to talk about inefficiency of the eye, I'd mention the blind spot.

Not actually true, vultures can smell rotting flesh from miles away.

They are the exception, not the rule. You'd do better to point out that birds have better vision than us.

How does color vision assist us in our survival?

First off, we are highly visual beings. Anything that aids our sight is an advantage. Second, fruit identification.

Understandable I dont mind a challenge

Me either, that was enjoyable.

 

[Steezie]

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Are you saying that our skin isn't suited to a frog's environment (which would be correct) or that the skin of a frog is better suited to it's environment than our skin is suited to our environment? Because our skin does a great job at keeping moisture in our bodies and does a good job at regulating our body temperature (sweat). It's also quite sensitive to tactile pressure and changes in temperature. Plus, our skin can take a lot of damage and still heal.

A frog's skin is ideally suited to the environment that its in. Our skin is not. It is easily damaged by even moderate sun exposure, it dries out and becomes itchy easily, the skin is broken easily, it isnt good at keeping body heat in and must be protected in moderate cold.

Depends on melanin content. Those of us with pale skin have this issue a lot more than those of us with darker skin.

Which is why Creationism makes no sense, why design one set of people to deal with the sun and one who cannot?

Mostly because we don't need to do those things. And that's the issue with versatility, it allows for a lot of options, but poor performance at each.

Poor performance requires extra effort to meet basic needs. In-efficiency is the hallmark of a bad design

Well, with a bite, you'd be surprised how much pressure a human can bite with. As for bruising, that's not the fault of the skin, that's damage to blood vessels.

We dont bite very hard in comparison to other animals and our biteforce isnt strong enough for tougher foods.

Our muscles are so strong that if we use 100% of the cells its possible to rip the tendons off our bones. (which can stand somewhere between 1000 to 5000 J/Kg of force)

Which is nothing when compared to other animals in the animal kingdom.

Yes, we can't digest cellulose. That can be called poor design. As can out inability to synthesize Vitamin C. But, all organisms need to eat or they will feel weak or sick. Rodents have it much worse than we do by the way. And we can last for weeks without food. Water, not so much.

Other organisms weaken much further after eating, we can only go several hours before we begin to feel the effects of hunger. Our bodies are far larger than rodents and our energy requirements are much higher.

It's not needed, that's why. And if you wanted to talk about inefficiency of the eye, I'd mention the blind spot.

That and our distance viewing is not terrific

They are the exception, not the rule. You'd do better to point out that birds have better vision than us.

That is also true

First off, we are highly visual beings. Anything that aids our sight is an advantage. Second, fruit identification.

Why not use scent? Or why not recognize only certain colors, the most common fruit colors. If we are such visual beings, why is our vision so poor?

Me either, that was enjoyable.

This is what makes evolutionary ideas of higher substance than Creationism because we can discuss, let go of ideas that have been proven wrong, and change our views with what we know to be true, verifiable, and provable

 

[Vene]

A frog's skin is ideally suited to the environment that its in. Our skin is not. It is easily damaged by even moderate sun exposure, it dries out and becomes itchy easily, the skin is broken easily, it isnt good at keeping body heat in and must be protected in moderate cold.

To be fair, we evolved in an environment where keeping warm wasn't an issue.

Which is why Creationism makes no sense, why design one set of people to deal with the sun and one who cannot?

Yeah, it doesn't make sense. No argument there. Crazy white people and their mutations.

Poor performance requires extra effort to meet basic needs. In-efficiency is the hallmark of a bad design

True. But, our jaw and teeth do the job and that's all that matters as far as natural selection goes.

We dont bite very hard in comparison to other animals and our biteforce isnt strong enough for tougher foods.

We don't need to bite as strongly as other animals. I highly doubt that any biologist would say that humans are better developed than other animals.

Which is nothing when compared to other animals in the animal kingdom.

The muscle part or the tendon part? I for one don't want my tendons to snap when I use my muscles.

Other organisms weaken much further after eating, we can only go several hours before we begin to feel the effects of hunger. Our bodies are far larger than rodents and our energy requirements are much higher.

Either that or modern society has spoiled us. As for rodents, their metabolism is much, much higher than ours. Our total energy requirement may be higher (I haven't checked), but the energy we need per pound is lower. Our design is better than some, worse than others.

Why not use scent? Or why not recognize only certain colors, the most common fruit colors. If we are such visual beings, why is our vision so poor?

It's the nature of natural selection. If something works, it tends to propagate. Our vision works just fine for the tasks that we do. And I wouldn't call our vision poor considering how quickly and effortlessly we can switch from focusing on a distant object to a near one and how easily we can identify different colors, and how easily motion catches our attention.



By the way, I will state that the human body is well designed in the sense that it works, heals most injuries, and is actually quite durable. But, it's far from perfect. For being the product of a natural process, it's great. For being the product of an omnipotent being, there's a lot to be desired.

 

[Naraoia]

A frog's skin is much better suited to its environment than ours is.

How? First, how is ours not suited to our environment, and then, how is frogs' any better?

Thats another good point, our skin is easily damaged by sun exposure.

I'm sure we aren't the only animals that get sunburnt. Also, white skin is easily damaged. I don't suppose dark-skinned people burn that easily. Do we have any black people here to offer first-hand testimony?

(Heh, actually placental mammals as a whole suck at this, they lack the enzymes that repair UV damage in a much less complicated way than nucleotide excision repair does. Basically everyone alive has photolyases except for placental mammals.)

But not efficiently. Our teeth arent strong enough to crush hard nuts or chew on tough plant matter and they arent sharp enough to rip meat off a bone.

That's called an evolutionary tradeoff. Although we aren't as good at handling any specific food item than things specialised for that sort of food, we can still eat a wider range of food than specialists like a lion. Lion teeth aren't good for anything but chomping on corpses. And being a generalist can save your bacon when times are lean.

A testament to how thin our skin is

And I presume we by far aren't the only animals with this property.

Ants can lift large weights relative to their body size,

Ants are tiny. The mechanics of biological systems change vastly with scaling.

chimpanzees are incredibly strong for their size.

I believe you if you provide a source

Its in-efficient, we lose a good amount of nutrients through our digestion,

How much exactly? Interestingly, what I dimly recall is that humans actually digest and absorb quite a lot of the nutrients in their food, but unfortunately I can't find the information now. Bah. I need a searchable reference library of all things I've ever heard or read.

And I also need stats comparing the efficiency of human digestion to various other animals ^_~

we cant digest hardcore food materials,

Well, few things can digest hardcore food materials (I assume you mean things like cellulose?), and most of those things can only do so because they have other things doing the job for them. So that's nothing to scorn humans for

and we often have digestive problems.

Do you know anything about the incidence of digestive problems in other animals, or are you just assuming they don't have any? How about the parrots that have to nibble clay regularly as an antidote to plant toxins?

Although to be fair, many digestive problems can be linked to our poor diet. We also require large amounts of food to keep ourselves going, we have to eat constantly to keep from feeling weak or sick

Constantly? Ask a shrew what eating constantly means. Or in fact a horse.

We are the only animals that need this skill for survival.

Barnacles are the only animals that need a grotesquely long penis to pass on their genes. Bombardier beetles are the only things that have to shoot boiling acid to avoid being eaten. Why are you discrediting an excellent adaptation that can be used for a huge number of purposes just because we (and, to be fair, our close relatives) are the only ones that use it? You seem to have a notion that brute force somehow has more adaptive value than dexterity. Why?

Most animals, even diurnal animals, have passable night vision. We do not

Source? And when have you last tried your night vision? I was actually surprised how good mine is when for once in my wretched urbanised life there were no street lights to interfere.

Not actually true, vultures can smell rotting flesh from miles away.

I said average bird.

How does color vision assist us in our survival?

Say, fruits are colourful? And also tasty, I'm told.

Understandable I dont mind a challenge

Glad we're both having fun

 

[Naraoia]

By the way, I will state that the human body is well designed in the sense that it works, heals most injuries, and is actually quite durable. But, it's far from perfect. For being the product of a natural process, it's great. For being the product of an omnipotent being, there's a lot to be desired.

QFT.

 

[RobertByers]

?

Ah, but why are there numerous transitional whale fossils if the adaptation was instantaneous? And why do we not see the same kind of instantaneous adaptation nowadays?
Anyone can translate this for me? [/QUOTE]

I would say there are not transitional whales but simply "whales" living in different lifestyles. You must admit yourself these fossils would be evidence thatthese whales were living lives fine in the way they wee. They were not headed for some direction. The true whales would of been around while these so called transitional ones were.

 

[RobertByers]

narioa and Steezie
You both seem incredulous that women are separate and unique in having pain at childbirth and animals not.
Its true.
Women because of the shape of thier body and the childs size produce a unique and long episode of pain at that time.
Female animals do not have the pain because of the shape of animals bodies.
Evolution admits to this and says its because of humans walking upright.
It isn't.

 

[Steezie]

I would say there are not transitional whales but simply "whales" living in different lifestyles.

Huh?

You must admit yourself these fossils would be evidence thatthese whales were living lives fine in the way they wee.

Thats not the point, evolution doesnt stop when something works "well enough" its constantly improving the design of every living thing on earth

They were not headed for some direction.

And again fossils do not bear that out

The true whales would of been around while these so called transitional ones were.

Not necessarily. The transition happens over many many successive generations so you dont one day have a group of whales without legs born amongst a population of legged whales, the change is so slow that looking at five, ten, maybe even twenty generations, you wont see that much of a VISIBLE difference. Once you start getting up to a hundred generations, five hundred, a thousand, then you start to notice that the back legs are disappearing and the front legs are changing into flippers. So there would have been no real discernible difference between different animals in the same species if you were to go back to that era in time, the change is noticeable on a longer scale of time represented by fossils

narioa and Steezie
You both seem incredulous that women are separate and unique in having pain at childbirth and animals not.
Its true.

And again, animals DO feel birthpain. They may not express it the same way we do, but they most assuredly feel pain. They have nerves in thier birth canals and vaginas the same as humans do and those nerves sense pain and pain in this case is skin being stretched far beyond its normal parameters. Since we KNOW for a fact that animals have nerves in thoes areas, and that stretching skin on animals causes pain, AND we know that giving birth stretches skin, we can therefore infer that animals feel birthing pains. Also, having seen animals and footage of animals giving birth, I can attest to the fact that animals do, most assuredly, feel birthing pains

Women because of the shape of thier body and the childs size produce a unique and long episode of pain at that time.

Again, not true at all. Animals can have periods of labor that fall well short of or greatly exceed human standards.

Female animals do not have the pain because of the shape of animals bodies.
Evolution admits to this and says its because of humans walking upright.

What difference, exactly, does walking upright make in childbirth? Dont just say "the shape" I want SPECIFICS how it effects childbirth.

 

[RobertByers]

Steezie and others.
Its true that female animals do not have pain like or even close to actual of our woman.
This is because of the human baby needing to twist its way thruie a cramped position etc.
evolution admits to this and says this unique situation is because of humans standing upright at some point.
It isn't the reason

 

[IzzyPop]

Steezie and others.
Its true that female animals do not have pain like or even close to actual of our woman.
This is because of the human baby needing to twist its way thruie a cramped position etc.
evolution admits to this and says this unique situation is because of humans standing upright at some point.
It isn't the reason

You are right. It isn't because we walk upright. It is because of our giant freaking heads.

 

[flatworm]

narioa and Steezie
You both seem incredulous that women are separate and unique in having pain at childbirth and animals not.
Its true.
Women because of the shape of thier body and the childs size produce a unique and long episode of pain at that time.
Female animals do not have the pain because of the shape of animals bodies.

Spotted hyena. Look it up.

 

[FishFace]

Make the baby's body move out of the mother easier, perhaps? I mean what do we really know? You are making assumptions based on what you believe is the fact of evolution. You seem to to be able to reason in any other way. Darwin certainly didn't birth a baby, in fact I might suggest that most dortors remember little of what Darwin had to say. So it is very logical that the head and hips area of the baby need to flex in order for a birth to be safe in anyway for a natural birth.

So, in order to make childbirth easier, God gave babies extra bones which then fused in adulthood, including a muscle to move those bones, which does nothing except at birth, when it isn't needed anyway.

Gee, you believe some strange things. A vestigial tail explains it better, thanks.

 

[FishFace]

I know this stuff and don't like internet links. i've read it a thousand times.

The whales didn't evole but instantly adapted to new conditions. In fact probably within a creatures lifetime. So as long as the legs are out of the way there is no need for more atrophy. Same as birds who don't use their wings.
That few other creatures do not have vestigial organs is great evidence that they did not have different anatomical lives before. Like whales they would of kept bit and pieces of anything they no longer used.

Biology doesn't work like that. If it did, then we wouldn't need to clip chickens wings any more because after the first generation, the wings would instantly atrophy and no more chickens would be born with wings.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Biology doesn't work like that. If it did, then we wouldn't need to clip chickens wings any more because after the first generation, the wings would instantly atrophy and no more chickens would be born with wings.

Clipping their wings wouldn't work anyway -- wouldn't they just grow back? ("instantly adapted to new conditions")

 

[atomweaver]

Biology doesn't work like that. If it did, then we wouldn't need to clip chickens wings any more because after the first generation, the wings would instantly atrophy and no more chickens would be born with wings.

No more chicken wings..?

Byers-style Creationism disproved!!!!one111!!!

(and by a delicious treat, to boot)

 

[FishFace]

Clipping their wings wouldn't work anyway -- wouldn't they just grow back? ("instantly adapted to new conditions")

I'm not sure how, to be honest. After all, what incentive is there for the chicken to grow half a wing?

 

[LittleNipper]

So, in order to make childbirth easier, God gave babies extra bones which then fused in adulthood, including a muscle to move those bones, which does nothing except at birth, when it isn't needed anyway.

Gee, you believe some strange things. A vestigial tail explains it better, thanks.

You believe we are either developing or losing a tail. I'm simply telling you that scientists have never made an indepth study. They assume that evolution must be correct and that since evolution is "correct" unuseful body parts are a given. I've provided you with possibilities. I have no access to childbirth situations. Do the study and prove me wrong...

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

You believe we are either developing or losing a tail. I'm simply telling you that scientists have never made an indepth study. They assume that evolution must be correct and that since evolution is "correct" unuseful body parts are a given. I've provided you with possibilities. I have no access to childbirth situations. Do the study and prove me wrong...

The tailbone is evolving to help us fight Invisible Pink Unicorns from Omicron Persei VIII. I'm just providing you with a possibility. Do the study and prove me wrong.

Or, alternatively, look up the concept of "burden of proof".

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

I'm not sure how, to be honest. After all, what incentive is there for the chicken to grow half a wing?

To fly away and avoid become atomweaver's picture, perhaps? Or maybe both wings should instantly disappear (that'd also avoid the problem). We need to do a scientific study that involves eating lots of chicken wings.

 

[Naraoia]

I would say there are not transitional whales but simply "whales" living in different lifestyles.

Yes, they were living different lifestyles. Ones that, for some mysterious reason, become progressively more aquatic as you approach the present.

You must admit yourself these fossils would be evidence thatthese whales were living lives fine in the way they wee.

I've never said they weren't. If they weren't, they'd probably never have become abundant enough to leave fossils.

They were not headed for some direction.

I've never said they were. "Transitional" as an evolutionary concept only works in retrospect.

The true whales would of been around while these so called transitional ones were.

Why? I mean: EVIDENCE?