Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

The above denial of reasons for accepting evolution was written by a human with the nerve for his larynx that goes from brain down to heart and back up to his larynx . . . . just like the corresponding nerve for every tetrapod since our original fishy ancestors left the sea. It doesn't make much difference to us humans . . . but it is very weird to see the same thing happen in the giraffe. In the embryonic stage, you see, it goes under a loop of a major blood vessel of the heart, and evolution has never found a mutation to get it gradually out of that route.

Its easy to see evolution as the reason for this situation. Hard to see this as the work of an intelligent designer.

Reality brings evidence to us for evolution.

Any part of the body must be functional during development. During development explain how this would be a better design if done differently. Specifically please.

 

[Oncedeceived]

God was clearly not involved in the design phase directly; otherwise, we would not see such things as I and others have pointed out. However, it is my faith that God set the parameters of our universe so that life would arise and evolve naturally. You cannot undo my direct perception of the problems with a uretha running straight through the prostrate gland.

If it is such a problem, why didn't evolution weed it out? It seems that the design works quite well in the over all development and needs in the human body.

I am not sure what you mean by directly here. Do you feel that God must create each living form each and every time it is produced?

IF God had nothing to do with the process of life, are you claiming that we are just a chance happening? WE were not as humans being intelligent beings were not planned by God from the start?

 

[Loudmouth]

If it is such a problem, why didn't evolution weed it out?

If you want to plug in the TV, do you run a 50 foot extension cord clear across the room, around the sofa, and then back to an outlet that is 2 feet away from the TV?

It seems that the design works quite well in the over all development and needs in the human body.

That is exactly what evolution does, produce designs that work well despite the oddities that no intelligent designer would include.

I am not sure what you mean by directly here. Do you feel that God must create each living form each and every time it is produced?

Do you? If you don't accept common descent, then wouldn't God need to create separate species? When creating separate species, why would God need to conform to a nested hierarchy? Why not mix characteristics such as feathers and three middle ear bones, or feathers and mammary glands? Why snake the RLN under the aorta as if that species had an evolutionary history that included fish?

IF God had nothing to do with the process of life, are you claiming that we are just a chance happening? WE were not as humans being intelligent beings were not planned by God from the start?

If the natural force of gravity moves planets, does this mean that God is not involved?

 

[Loudmouth]

Any part of the body must be functional during development.

Why? We have a muscle that spans a fused joint in our coccyx, the extensor coccygis. It doesn't raise a tail as it does in other species. It has lost that function. How do you explain that? Why do vestigial functions map to evolutionary histories? For example, we don't see any vestigial feathers in mammals. We don't see any vestigial mammary glands in birds. Why make sure that vestigial features fall into a nested hierarchy that we would expect from evolution when no such thing is required of a designer that creates separate species?

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you want to plug in the TV, do you run a 50 foot extension cord clear across the room, around the sofa, and then back to an outlet that is 2 feet away from the TV?

You are acting like the only purpose is the one, that is not the case. You are also dismissing the need for function in all phases of development.

That is exactly what evolution does, produce designs that work well despite the oddities that no intelligent designer would include.

That is just your assertion. There are good reasons for the design to be the way it is.


Do you? If you don't accept common descent, then wouldn't God need to create separate species?[/Quote]
No.

When creating separate species, why would God need to conform to a nested hierarchy?

God didn't conform to a nested hierarchy. He created it. Life is created where there are different kinds of life forms that follow from that kind.

Why not mix characteristics such as feathers and three middle ear bones, or feathers and mammary glands? Why snake the RLN under the aorta as if that species had an evolutionary history that included fish?

It is called common design. Kinds follow the same kinds and common designs flow throughout creation.

If the natural force of gravity moves planets, does this mean that God is not involved?

If God created as claimed, God created Gravity just as He created life.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are acting like the only purpose is the one, that is not the case. You are also dismissing the need for function in all phases of development.

Those are two assertions that you have not supported.

That is just your assertion. There are good reasons for the design to be the way it is.

And yet you can't produce any of those reasons.

No.

If the species didn't come about through common descent, then where did they come from?

God didn't conform to a nested hierarchy. He created it.

Same thing.

Life is created where there are different kinds of life forms that follow from that kind.

Why do the different kinds fall into a nested hierarchy when they don't need to from a design standpoint? Cars don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Buildings don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Paintings by the same artist do not fall into a nested hierarchy. So why create separate kinds so that they fall into a nested hierarchy?

It is called common design. Kinds follow the same kinds and common designs flow throughout creation.

A species that has common design elements from birds and mammals would fit into your description of common design. Those same species would not fall into a nested hierarchy. There is nothing about common design that requires a nested hierarchy.

If God created as claimed, God created Gravity just as He created life.

And yet every time we are told what God claims it is a human making the claim.

 

[lifepsyop]

Why? We have a muscle that spans a fused joint in our coccyx, the extensor coccygis. It doesn't raise a tail as it does in other species. It has lost that function. How do you explain that?

You guys really have to stop spreading these myths of non-function....

The coccyx... is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments—which makes it necessary for physicians and patients to pay special attention to these attachments when considering surgical removal of the coccyx. Additionally, it is also a part of the weight-bearing tripod structure which acts as a support for a sitting person. When a person sits leaning forward, the ischial tuberosities and inferior rami of the ischium take most of the weight, but as the sitting person leans backward, more weight is transferred to the coccyx.

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

Why do vestigial functions map to evolutionary histories? For example, we don't see any vestigial feathers in mammals. We don't see any vestigial mammary glands in birds. Why make sure that vestigial features fall into a nested hierarchy that we would expect from evolution when no such thing is required of a designer that creates separate species?

There's a pretty simple answer to this. Mammal anatomy was well studied long before evolution theory. If mammals had shown a pattern of bird-like traits, such as a stage of feather development, then mammals would have been "nested" closer to birds in the evolutionary narrative of the emerging theory. Your "nested hierarchy" could have been arranged many different ways to fit with the data.

It's one more illusion in the evolutionists' smoke and mirror magic show...

 

[Loudmouth]

You guys really have to stop spreading these myths of non-function....

The coccyx... is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments—which makes it necessary for physicians and patients to pay special attention to these attachments when considering surgical removal of the coccyx. Additionally, it is also a part of the weight-bearing tripod structure which acts as a support for a sitting person. When a person sits leaning forward, the ischial tuberosities and inferior rami of the ischium take most of the weight, but as the sitting person leans backward, more weight is transferred to the coccyx.

You can use a broken TV as a paper weight. That doesn't change the fact that it is broken. Vestigial structures can have rudimentary function and still be vestigial.

There's a pretty simple answer to this. Mammal anatomy was well studied long before evolution theory. If mammals had shown a pattern of bird-like traits, such as a stage of feather development, then mammals would have been "nested" closer to birds in the evolutionary narrative of the emerging theory. Your "nested hierarchy" could have been arranged many different ways to fit with the data.

But that didn't happen. You don't get to invent evidence to falsify a theory. Please use real observations.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why? We have a muscle that spans a fused joint in our coccyx, the extensor coccygis. It doesn't raise a tail as it does in other species. It has lost that function. How do you explain that? Why do vestigial functions map to evolutionary histories? For example, we don't see any vestigial feathers in mammals. We don't see any vestigial mammary glands in birds. Why make sure that vestigial features fall into a nested hierarchy that we would expect from evolution when no such thing is required of a designer that creates separate species?

The same as I have just mentioned in the earlier example. Common design and the adaptation of certain life forms passing them on to their offspring.

 

[Loudmouth]

The same as I have just mentioned in the earlier example. Common design and the adaptation of certain life forms passing them on to their offspring.

That doesn't explain it. A common designer of birds and mammals could create a species with vestigial feathers and mammary glands, or feathers and three middle ear bones. A nested hierarchy is the last thing you would expect from common design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That doesn't explain it. A common designer of birds and mammals could create a species with vestigial feathers and mammary glands, or feathers and three middle ear bones. A nested hierarchy is the last thing you would expect from common design.

Why?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why?

I just showed you why. If common design is true, is there any reason why we shouldn't see a species with a mixture of bird and mammal features? Your inability to answer the question demonstrates why common design does not predict a nested hierarchy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Those are two assertions that you have not supported.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6881071

And yet you can't produce any of those reasons.

See above.

If the species didn't come about through common descent, then where did they come from?

Evolution still works even if you don't have common descent.

Same thing.

What do you mean same thing?



Why do the different kinds fall into a nested hierarchy when they don't need to from a design standpoint? Cars don't fall into a nested hierarchy.[/Quote]

Yes, they can. Why can't they?

Buildings don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Paintings by the same artist do not fall into a nested hierarchy. So why create separate kinds so that they fall into a nested hierarchy?

Buildings could fall into nested hierarchy as well. There has been an evolution of types of dwellings. We could go back to caves, and go on to huts and on throughout history.

A species that has common design elements from birds and mammals would fit into your description of common design. Those same species would not fall into a nested hierarchy. There is nothing about common design that requires a nested hierarchy.

Birds are a different kind from mammals.

And yet every time we are told what God claims it is a human making the claim.

So?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I just showed you why. If common design is true, is there any reason why we shouldn't see a species with a mixture of bird and mammal features? Your inability to answer the question demonstrates why common design does not predict a nested hierarchy.

I answered. Birds and mammals are not the same kind.

 

[Loudmouth]

I answered. Birds and mammals are not the same kind.

What about reptiles and mammals? Same kind or different kinds?

 

[Loudmouth]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6881071

Why couldn't that same function be filled by a nerve that exits the spinal column, enervates the larynx, and then terminates at the aorta? What function is added by looping under the aorta and then terminating in the larynx?

Evolution still works even if you don't have common descent.

Doesn't make the evidence for common ancestry go away.

What do you mean same thing?

If you create things so that they fall into a nested hierarchy you are conforming to a nested hierarchy.

Yes, they can. Why can't they?

There are trucks that are compact and gas guzzlers. Your nested hierarchy fails.

Buildings could fall into nested hierarchy as well.

Prove it. Using the physical characteristics of buildings, show how they fall into an objective nested hierarchy.

Birds are a different kind from mammals.

Are reptiles a different kind from mammals? What about fish and amphibians? Humans and apes?

So?

It shows where the claims are really coming from, and it isn't from a deity.

 

[lifepsyop]

You can use a broken TV as a paper weight. That doesn't change the fact that it is broken. Vestigial structures can have rudimentary function and still be vestigial.

The coccyx is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments

This trait is very important to human fitness. What are you having trouble with about this?

But that didn't happen. You don't get to invent evidence to falsify a theory. Please use real observations.

I wasn't trying to "falsify a theory". You claimed it was some great fulfillment of evolution theory that "vestigial" structures align with the "nested hierarchy". I explained that the nested hierarchy would simply have been arranged differently to accommodate different character traits. Mammals could have been placed somewhere different. The "nested hierarchy" of universal common descent was formed ad-hoc around the data. Evolution is a fog settling around the landscape.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What about reptiles and mammals? Same kind or different kinds?

Are mammals reptiles?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The coccyx is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments

This trait is very important to human fitness. What are you having trouble with about this?




I wasn't trying to "falsify a theory". You claimed it was some great fulfillment of evolution theory that "vestigial" structures align with the "nested hierarchy". I explained that the nested hierarchy would simply have been arranged differently to accommodate different character traits. Mammals could have been placed somewhere different. The "nested hierarchy" of universal common descent was formed ad-hoc around the data. Evolution is a fog settling around the landscape.

Exactly. It can hardly be explanatory when it has been devised to classify life according to known similarities.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why couldn't that same function be filled by a nerve that exits the spinal column, enervates the larynx, and then terminates at the aorta? What function is added by looping under the aorta and then terminating in the larynx?

It serves more purpose rather than just having the sole purpose the larynx.

Doesn't make the evidence for common ancestry go away.

What evidence does common ancestry explain better than common design?

If you create things so that they fall into a nested hierarchy you are conforming to a nested hierarchy.

They fall into a nested hierarchy because they were created in the way they were.

There are trucks that are compact and gas guzzlers. Your nested hierarchy fails.

There are life forms that have similar elements that are not ancestral...your hierarchy fails.

Prove it. Using the physical characteristics of buildings, show how they fall into an objective nested hierarchy.

Single floor buildings --two floor buildings---three floor buildings.

Are reptiles a different kind from mammals? What about fish and amphibians? Humans and apes?

Life is classified by what we have labeled them. WE have certain attributes that we ascribe to a group of living forms such as mammals. Are reptiles the same group that we call mammals? My point is that the classification systems we use are in regard to life forms already created. Life's history is what we base this on and this is the way God created. Please provide the evidence that mammals evolved from reptiles.

It shows where the claims are really coming from, and it isn't from a deity.

That is your opinion.