How do Creationists explain vestigal organs?

SkyWriting · Sep 25, 2012

Skaloop said:
He didn't say he was quoting you. He said, and I quote, "You said, and I can quote..." [emphasis mine].
He can quote you verbatim, but he didn't that time. He paraphrased you, and it doesn't change the substance of what you actually said.Also, before you start calling someone out for spelling errors, it is 'verbatim' not verbatum'. You got it half the time.Anyway, your original statement was "You have not documented even one ability considered by professionals
to be better than human abilities." Do you still stand by that after he's given you three of many such abilities?

No one cares if a guy has the ability to quote but is too lazy to do it.
I can make my own spelling errors, thank you.

He wasn't the person I was talking to at the time. But the idea still remains. An eagle has better precision sight good for long distances and tiny motion. Imagine looking through a very small pair of binoculars as you walk. Oh, and you give up taste and smell.

All professional people who study biology or bio-mechanics understand that abilities are a balance of a huge number of factors. There are no such people who think humans could gain some super-human ability on the order of what some animal posses, without compromising other factors. They ALL recognize that our abilities are balanced for our environments and gaining one ability would be at a detriment to other abilities.

Only children long for super-human powers. Adults know better.

Jro · Sep 25, 2012

SkyWriting said:
He wasn't the person I was talking to at the time. But the idea still remains. An eagle has better precision sight good for long distances and tiny motion. Imagine looking through a very small pair of binoculars as you walk. Oh, and you give up taste and smell.

All professional people who study biology or bio-mechanics understand that abilities are a balance of a huge number of factors. There are no such people who think humans could gain some super-human ability equal to what some animal posses, without compromising other factors. They ALL recognize that our abilities are balanced for our environments and gaining one ability would be at a detriment to other abilities.

Only children long for super-human powers. Adults know better.

I'm actually a professional person who has studied biology and bio-mechanics and you're wrong. The human blind spot for example, does not need to exist. Octopi have very similar eyes with no such problem.

Skaloop · Sep 25, 2012

SkyWriting said:
No one cares if a guy has the ability to quote but is too lazy to do it.
I can make my own spelling errors, thank you.

He wasn't the person I was talking to at the time.

Welcome to the internet.

But the idea still remains. An eagle has better precision sight good for long distances and tiny motion. Imagine looking through a very small pair of binoculars as you walk. Oh, and you give up taste and smell.

All professional people who study biology or bio-mechanics understand that abilities are a balance of a huge number of factors. There are no such people who think humans could gain some super-human ability on the order of what some animal posses, without compromising other factors. They ALL recognize that our abilities are balanced for our environments and gaining one ability would be at a detriment to other abilities.

All of which I agree with (in principle). And it's a result of evolutionary processes.

But keep in mind that we're not asking to have such things; we're wondering why God didn't give them to us. If humans are supposed to be His best design, why aren't we the best in any area outside of intelligence? Surely God wouldn't be restricted by bio-mechanics. Surely He could figure out a way to maintain balance with all the best abilities in one organism. Surely He could have had our retinas not have nerves running over their rods and cones. Better eyesight, no drawbacks. He did it for other lowly animals, why not us?

But none of what you said was your argument anyway. You said, and I quote you yet again, "You have not documented even one ability considered by professionals to be better than human abilities." You did not talk about a collection of abilities, or an optimum balance of abilities, you talked about "even one ability". Three have been provided, so you are wrong.

SkyWriting · Sep 25, 2012

Skaloop said:
Welcome to the internet.

I wasn't complaining.

Skaloop · Sep 25, 2012

SkyWriting said:
I wasn't complaining.

It sounded like you were. Apologies.

Now, care to address the rest of what I said? Or are you just gonna stick to nitpicking the least important part while avoiding the real meat of the discussion?

SkyWriting · Sep 25, 2012

Jro said:
I'm actually a professional person who has studied biology and bio-mechanics and you're wrong. The human blind spot for example, does not need to exist. Octopi have very similar eyes with no such problem.

Actually it does. Humans have much higher energy requirements due to higher light levels than Octopi do. A magnifying glass, like found in our eyes, causes much less heat at 5000 meters depth. The higher cooling needs results in the nerve bundle placement and humans have greater computational power to cover the spot anyway. In evolution terms, our blind spot has no effect on our survival rates. An evolutionary biologist knows that.

However, if you do publish your view in peer reviewed journal that humans would be better off it they had eyes like an Octopus, I would admit someone had the nerve to put their professional reputation on the line for their childhood fantasies.

Please note the sunglasses to protect the eyes.

Wikipedia.org/Doctor Octopus

SkyWriting · Sep 25, 2012

Skaloop said:
It sounded like you were. Apologies.
Now, care to address the rest of what I said? Or are you just gonna stick to nitpicking the least important part while avoiding the real meat of the discussion?

Vestigal organs? The case is very weak that any exist and the entire idea that any exists has taken great damage as science has progressed. The list of "Vestigal organs" has been whittled down one by one as doctors have cut parts out of people only to regret what they have done. No new structures have been added to the list and many have been dropped. In time, the entire concept will be gone.

"In 1893, Robert Wiedersheim published a book on human anatomy and its relevance to man's evolutionary history. This book contained a list of 86 human organs that he considered vestigial..."

Only a handful remain and all arguments are weak and admittedly based on ignorance by definition. "We don't know ______".

Jro · Sep 25, 2012

SkyWriting said:
Actually it does. Humans have much higher energy requirements due to higher light levels than Octopi do. A magnifying glass, like found in our eyes, causes much less heat at 5000 meters depth. The higher cooling needs results in the nerve bundle placement and humans have greater computational power to cover the spot anyway. In evolution terms, our blind spot has no effect on our survival rates. An evolutionary biologist knows that.

Do go on. Please explain how nerve bundle placement assists in cooling the eye. Octopus do not always live at 5000m depth, but sometimes quite shallow water that's warmer than say, Norway. Our blind spot may have no effect on survival rates, that does not mean it is the optimal design, or that this optimal design is unachievable without sacrificing some other ability.

However, if you do publish your view in peer reviewed journal that humans would be better off it they had eyes like an Octopus, I would admit someone had the nerve to put their professional reputation on the line for their childhood fantasies.

Uh huh. Please tell me more about all the cameras that have been designed with blind spots in them.

Please note the sunglasses to protect the eyes.

Wikipedia.org/Doctor Octopus

Chewbacca doesn't make any sense!

Skaloop · Sep 25, 2012

SkyWriting said:
Vestigal organs? The case is very weak that any exist and the entire idea that any exists has taken great damage as science has progressed. The list of "Vestigal organs" has been whittled down one by one as doctors have cut parts out of people only to regret what they have done. No new structures have been added to the list and many have been dropped. In time, the entire concept will be gone.

"In 1893, Robert Wiedersheim published a book on human anatomy and its relevance to man's evolutionary history. This book contained a list of 86 human organs that he considered vestigial..."

Only a handful remain and all arguments are weak and admittedly based on ignorance by definition. "We don't know ______".

I never mentioned vestigial organs in the post you negated to fully reply to. We were talking about animals that have abilities and features that are far superior to our own. Here's what I said, since you either missed it accidentally or are being deliberately obtuse. I'm hoping for the former. I said:

"But keep in mind that we're not asking to have such things; we're wondering why God didn't give them to us. If humans are supposed to be His best design, why aren't we the best in any area outside of intelligence? Surely God wouldn't be restricted by bio-mechanics. Surely He could figure out a way to maintain balance with all the best abilities in one organism. Surely He could have had our retinas not have nerves running over their rods and cones. Better eyesight, no drawbacks. He did it for other lowly animals, why not us?

But none of what you said was your argument anyway. You said, and I quote you yet again, "You have not documented even one ability considered by professionals to be better than human abilities." You did not talk about a collection of abilities, or an optimum balance of abilities, you talked about "even one ability". Three have been provided, so you are wrong."

Skaloop · Sep 25, 2012

SkyWriting said:
Actually it does. Humans have much higher energy requirements due to higher light levels than Octopi do. A magnifying glass, like found in our eyes, causes much less heat at 5000 meters depth. The higher cooling needs results in the nerve bundle placement and humans have greater computational power to cover the spot anyway. In evolution terms, our blind spot has no effect on our survival rates. An evolutionary biologist knows that.

However, if you do publish your view in peer reviewed journal that humans would be better off it they had eyes like an Octopus, I would admit someone had the nerve to put their professional reputation on the line for their childhood fantasies.

Please note the sunglasses to protect the eyes.

Wikipedia.org/Doctor Octopus

What about fish that live at the same depths in the sea? Why do they have a blind spot? Why does every single vertebrate have one, regardless of environment (from fish deep in the sea to eagles scanning the ground from thousands of feet in the air)?

And please do demonstrate how the optic nerve running through the retina is involved in cooling of the eye.

Smidlee · Sep 25, 2012

Jro said:
I'm actually a professional person who has studied biology and bio-mechanics and you're wrong. The human blind spot for example, does not need to exist. Octopi have very similar eyes with no such problem.

And the blind spot does not exist to anyone who keeps both eyes open. The blind spot test requires you shutting one eye which causes you to lose about 70 degrees of vision on the close side plus lose the 3d image. This is why smart people walk around with both eyes open.

Skaloop · Sep 25, 2012

Smidlee said:
And the blind spot does not exist to anyone who keeps both eyes open. The blind spot test requires you shutting one eye which causes you to lose about 70 degrees of vision on the close side plus lose the 3d image. This is why smart people walk around with both eyes open.

There's still no need for it. Plus, an octopus has two eyes, so it would do fine with blind spots too. Yet it doesn't have any. We do. Why does the octopus get a superior eye design?

Smidlee · Sep 25, 2012

Skaloop said:
There's still no need for it. Plus, an octopus has two eyes, so it would do fine with blind spots too. Yet it doesn't have any. We do. Why does the octopus get a superior eye design?

We don't have any either. Can an octopus read this text?
A blind spot while driving a car is the area where another car in not visible in neither mirror. If you can see a car in any mirror then it's not a blind spot. Thus If a car in not visible in one mirror but is visible in another then it is not a blind spot since mirrors are designed to be used together.

Skaloop · Sep 25, 2012

Smidlee said:
We don't have any either.

Yes we do, we just compensate for them. Why should we have to compensate for them?

Can an octopus read this text?

Nope. But we're talking about vision, not reading.

A blind spot while driving a car is the area where another car in not visible in neither mirror. If you can see a car in any mirror then it's not a blind spot. Thus If a car in not visible in one mirror but is visible in another then it is not a blind spot since mirrors are designed to be used together.

But we're not talking about cars, we're talking about eyes. And as evidenced by octopus eyes, blind spots are not at all necessary. So why do we have them? Sure two eyes can make up for them, but that doesn't explain why we have them in the first place, especially when they aren't needed for anything.

Promethean · Sep 25, 2012

Skaloop said:
There's still no need for it. Plus, an octopus has two eyes, so it would do fine with blind spots too. Yet it doesn't have any. We do. Why does the octopus get a superior eye design?

God loves the cephalopods more than the humans

OllieFranz · Sep 25, 2012

Skaloop said:
There's still no need for it. Plus, an octopus has two eyes, so it would do fine with blind spots too. Yet it doesn't have any. We do. Why does the octopus get a superior eye design?

[Joking] Its because of their ink! When they darken the water, they create blind areas. A fish's blind spots lining up with the clear areas means that it can't see anything. The octopus, not having a blind spot can see where to go to escape. [/Joking]

As poor an explanation as this is, I doubt Smidlee can do any better, even though he will be serious when he tries to advance it.

GoldenBoy89 · Sep 26, 2012

I think it's obvious which side is winning this debate....

SkyWriting · Sep 26, 2012

Skaloop said:
"But keep in mind that we're not asking to have such things; we're wondering why God didn't give them to us.

Click to expand...

Because God already knows you're not asking to have such things. He can tell by reading our blogs that we don't want to have super human animal powers.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=God knows your heart.

10 Animals with Super Powers | Fork Party

8 Animals With Real Superpowers | Cracked.com

Super natural! Animals with amazing powers - NY Daily News

If humans are supposed to be His best design, why aren't we the best in any area outside of intelligence? Surely God wouldn't be restricted by bio-mechanics. Surely He could figure out a way to maintain balance with all the best abilities in one organism. Surely He could have had our retinas not have nerves running over their rods and cones. Better eyesight, no drawbacks. He did it for other lowly animals, why not us?

Click to expand...

2 Corinthians 9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.

But none of what you said was your argument anyway. You said, and I quote you yet again, "You have not documented even one ability considered by professionals to be better than human abilities." You did not talk about a collection of abilities, or an optimum balance of abilities, you talked about "even one ability". Three have been provided, so you are wrong."

Click to expand...

You did not document even one ability nor had you done so before I made the, still 100% accurate, claim:

"You have not documented even one ability considered by professionals to be better than human abilities."

You are wrong. My statement is correct.

In addition, I noted that the human blind spot does not create a hardship for us and our eyesight is perfectly suited for our combination of high and low light conditions.

http://bible.cc/luke/11-34.htm

SkyWriting · Sep 26, 2012

Skaloop said:
And as evidenced by octopus eyes, blind spots are not at all necessary. So why do we have them? Sure two eyes can make up for them, but that doesn't explain why we have them in the first place, especially when they aren't needed for anything.

Human eyes deal with higher heat levels both from the nerves doing the processing and heat from the light. As such, the nerves must be short and "leave the area" by the shortest route possible. Our eyes are a vastly superior design for how we use them.

Plus ours can adapt fairly quickly to new environments.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/Superior Underwater Vision in a Human Population

"Charles Darwin was stumped by the human eye."
http://mylocalconnect.com/a-closer-look-at-the-human-eye-10-fascinating-facts/

SkyWriting · Sep 26, 2012

Promethean said:
God loves the cephalopods more than the humans

I think all 800 species are believed to be colorblind.

How do Creationists explain vestigal organs?

The Librarian

Jro

Guest

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

The Librarian

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

The Librarian

The Librarian

Jro

Guest

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Veteran

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Veteran

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Junior Member

Senior Member

We're Still Here

The Librarian

The Librarian

The Librarian

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency