Creationists cant answer....

[Baggins]

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

Why no? Humans aren't the only animals that care for their teeth.

 

[Steezie]

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.

Yeah but see the thing is, they DONT. We have canine teeth and organs that used to serve as digestive aid when we ate lots of meet

I believe creationism has dismissed the tail thing.

No it hasnt

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.

But then why are our bodies so BADLY put together?

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.

How did their mouths change?

The big equation however is that vestigial organs showing previous evolutionary states of creatures is few when there should be zillions.

Again, they DO show up on the genetic level because enough time has passed that they physically have disappeared

 

[LittleNipper]

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.

It has more to do with the flexablity in the bending process...

 

[Naraoia]

It has more to do with the flexablity in the bending process...

Let's go through this again.

This muscle spans a joint that doesn't move. The joint is fused.

How on earth would a joint that can't possibly move have anything to do with flexibility?

 

[RobertByers]

You didnt even read the link

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

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.

 

[RobertByers]

Yeah but see the thing is, they DONT. We have canine teeth and organs that used to serve as digestive aid when we ate lots of meet

No it hasnt

But then why are our bodies so BADLY put together?

How did their mouths change?

Again, they DO show up on the genetic level because enough time has passed that they physically have disappeared

Fine with the teeth. Yes in post flood days we had a more vigourous diet of meat.
Our bodies are fine. I don't know the actual original body of Adam and so some changes may be in order.

For example originaly women were not to have birthpain . However God gave Eve the punishment of birthpain, which female animals don't have, and since this pain comes from womens unique body shape then we must conclude there bodies were changed at the fall.
Still sexy but might of even been better.

 

[divalishous]

I never understand the purpose of these posts. Are you really trying to get Creationists to say,
"aha I can't explain it so therefore there really wasn't intelligent design?"
Seriously, this is a very sad teeter-totter of nonsense. Here is the truth, my truth anyway, if you are interested:
I have absolutely no idea why God gave me parts that don't work as well in me as they do in a dog, but I do believe He gave them to me, and (Gasp) I also believe He gave them to the dog (or whatever, please forgive my ignorance)
You'll forgive me won't you if I don't grow a pair, after all i think that would really further your agenda, but instead just say,
This is not the only thing Creationists can't explain to your satisfaction, just as there are many things you can not explain to Creationists or Christians. So really what is it that you seek when you make a post like this?

sincerely curious,
divalishous

...may you become foolish, so that you may become wise...

 

[ranmaonehalf]

or if they can they certainly wont.

I've asked this question multiple times and no one has had the stones to step forward and try to answer this question.

How do Creationists account for or explain vestigial traits in the biological world?

If you want an explanation complete with examples
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial

So why will the Creationists not answer this?

Im guessing because they dont have one

well the typical answers i get is.

there are none.
or there are only vestigical structures in "kind"

or
god didi it.

 

[flatworm]

For example originaly women were not to have birthpain . However God gave Eve the punishment of birthpain, which female animals don't have,

Ever heard of the spotted hyena?

 

[Steezie]

I know this stuff

I would beg to differ

and don't like internet links

And I dont like the form of Capitalism that has been clamped down on our backs for generations, but we all gotta deal with the unavoidables

i've read it a thousand times.

And apparently absorbed none of it

The whales didn't evole but instantly adapted to new conditions.

You...DO understand that that is physiologically, biologically, and scientifically impossible, dont you?

And if this occured HOW did it occur?

In fact probably within a creatures lifetime.

I repeat my previous statement

So as long as the legs are out of the way there is no need for more atrophy.

The problem for you is the fossil record shows us that the legs HAVE atrophied over generations due to non-use

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.

You...have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Fine with the teeth. Yes in post flood days we had a more vigourous diet of meat.

So why do we have a jaw, teeth, facial muscles, appetites, organs, and nutritional requirements ALL built for meat eaters? Again, if you're going with the instant magic change theory, Im gonna have to, yet again, inquire as to how that works.

Our bodies are fine.

Our boddies are NOT fine, they are very poorly constructed, easily damaged, grossly in-efficent, and strewn with useless and problem causing parts. The human body is perhaps the least well equipped life form in the natural world. Our skin is soft and easily broken, our blood vessels are close to the surface which makes exangination easy, our teeth are not particularly specialized nor are they sharp enough to use as weapons, we arent very strong when compared with other animals, we have a crappy digestive system, the way we move is contrary to the design of our spine, we dont have very sharp claws and what claws we do have bend and break easily, our night vision is abysmal at best, our senses of hearing, smell, and sight are very poor in comparison to our animal brethren....we are the Ford of the natural world. The only thing we have going for us is our brains, and even THOSE dont work too well, we only use a small percentage of them.

For example originaly women were not to have birthpain . However God gave Eve the punishment of birthpain, which female animals don't have, and since this pain comes from womens unique body shape then we must conclude there bodies were changed at the fall.

Wow, you...really dont know what you're talking about, do you. Animals most certainly feel pain when birthing and I invite you to watch the birth of puppies or kittens if you dispute this

 

[Vene]

I never understand the purpose of these posts. Are you really trying to get Creationists to say,
"aha I can't explain it so therefore there really wasn't intelligent design?"
Seriously, this is a very sad teeter-totter of nonsense. Here is the truth, my truth anyway, if you are interested:
I have absolutely no idea why God gave me parts that don't work as well in me as they do in a dog, but I do believe He gave them to me, and (Gasp) I also believe He gave them to the dog (or whatever, please forgive my ignorance)
You'll forgive me won't you if I don't grow a pair, after all i think that would really further your agenda, but instead just say,
This is not the only thing Creationists can't explain to your satisfaction, just as there are many things you can not explain to Creationists or Christians. So really what is it that you seek when you make a post like this?

sincerely curious,
divalishous

...may you become foolish, so that you may become wise...

Except that we do know where they came from. Evolution explains perfectly why we have pointless structures in our body. Evolution explains perfectly why our bodies are flawed. And no, it doesn't invalidate Christianity or the idea of any god. At least, not anymore so than heliocentricism did back in the middle ages.

 

[Naraoia]

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

With no ill effects, eh?

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.

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?

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.

Anyone can translate this for me?

 

[Naraoia]

Fine with the teeth. Yes in post flood days we had a more vigourous diet of meat.
Our bodies are fine. I don't know the actual original body of Adam and so some changes may be in order.

*rolleyes*

IIRC there was supposed to be plenty of meat-eating pre-flood. Didn't Abel herd sheep or something?

For example originaly women were not to have birthpain . However God gave Eve the punishment of birthpain, which female animals don't have, and since this pain comes from womens unique body shape then we must conclude there bodies were changed at the fall.
Still sexy but might of even been better.

Where, where, where do you get that non-human females don't have birth pain? And how exactly does it come from women's unique body shape?

 

[LittleNipper]

Let's go through this again.

This muscle spans a joint that doesn't move. The joint is fused.

How on earth would a joint that can't possibly move have anything to do with flexibility?

What about child birth? I would submit that none of a baby bones are fused. Their head certainly isn't?

 

[Naraoia]

Opposition just for the fun of it

Our boddies are NOT fine, they are very poorly constructed, easily damaged, grossly in-efficent, and strewn with useless and problem causing parts. The human body is perhaps the least well equipped life form in the natural world. Our skin is soft and easily broken,

But loads better for terrestrial life than, say, frog skin...

our blood vessels are close to the surface which makes exangination easy

And heat loss when the tropical sun tries to fry you.

our teeth are not particularly specialized

and thus can be used to deal with all sorts of food.

nor are they sharp enough to use as weapons,

I assure you, I'd rather not be bitten by a human. I know from experience that you can get pretty nasty bruises, if not deep bleeding wounds.

we arent very strong when compared with other animals,

Which other animals? Things like tigers are a bit bigger than us...

we have a crappy digestive system,

How?

the way we move is contrary to the design of our spine,

I grant you that.

we dont have very sharp claws and what claws we do have bend and break easily,

On the other hand, we have hands that manipulate stuff like no other forelimb can.

our night vision is abysmal at best,

Because we are diurnal animals?

our senses of hearing, smell, and sight are very poor in comparison to our animal brethren....

We probably have a better sense of smell than your average bird, and our colour vision is better than most mammals'.

we are the Ford of the natural world. The only thing we have going for us is our brains, and even THOSE dont work too well, we only use a small percentage of them.

Is this one of those "facts" everyone knows but no one knows where they come from?

Sorry, I just had to

 

[Naraoia]

What about child birth?

Indeed, what about child birth?

I would submit that none of a baby bones are fused. Their head certainly isn't?

The head isn't, but how would the tailbone (if unfused, which I don't think it is, but someone could help me out on this) influence the success of childbirth? I mean, it's not big or sticking out or anything.

 

[LittleNipper]

Indeed, what about child birth? The head isn't, but how would the tailbone (if unfused, which I don't think it is, but someone could help me out on this) influence the success of childbirth? I mean, it's not big or sticking out or anything.

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.

 

[Steezie]

But loads better for terrestrial life than, say, frog skin...

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

And heat loss when the tropical sun tries to fry you.

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

and thus can be used to deal with all sorts of food.

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.

I assure you, I'd rather not be bitten by a human. I know from experience that you can get pretty nasty bruises, if not deep bleeding wounds.

A testament to how thin our skin is

Which other animals? Things like tigers are a bit bigger than us...

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

How?

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

On the other hand, we have hands that manipulate stuff like no other forelimb can.

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

Because we are diurnal animals?

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

We probably have a better sense of smell than your average bird

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

and our colour vision is better than most mammals'.

How does color vision assist us in our survival?

Sorry, I just had to

Understandable I dont mind a challenge

 

[Naraoia]

Make the baby's body move out of the mother easier, perhaps?

How would it?

I mean what do we really know?

That the human tail is a puny little piece of bone that doesn't really do anything.

You are making assumptions based on what you believe is the fact of evolution.

What assumptions?

You seem to to be able to reason in any other way.

You, on the other hand, seem not to be able to reason in any sensible way.

Darwin certainly didn't birth a baby, in fact I might suggest that most dortors remember little of what Darwin had to say.

Am I the only one not seeing the connection here?

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.

Very logical that a baby needs to flex a bit of it that isn't of any significant size and doesn't stick out anywhere it could hinder its passage? Come on. The tailbone isn't the hips. BTW, this has nothing to do with evolution now, it's plain common sense.

 

[flatworm]

Make the baby's body move out of the mother easier, perhaps? I mean what do we really know?

That the usual presentation for human childbirth is head-first, for one.

That if the bones of the coccyx were unfused, the most the extensor coccygix could accomplish would be to produce a small bump a the top of the gluteal cleft, for another.

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.

The extensor coccygyx is not in any sense part of the head or hips.