How do Creationists explain vestigal organs?

[Tiberius]

If you say that life was more complex when it started than now, then we agree.

Do you have evidence that life 3 billion years ago was more complex than life today?

Or heck, do you have any evidence that CELLS were more complex 3 billion years ago was more complex than cells today?

 

[SkyWriting]

Do you have evidence that life 3 billion years ago was more complex than life today?

Or heck, do you have any evidence that CELLS were more complex 3 billion years ago was more complex than cells today?

Yes. You can search my old posts for "cells" you might find it.

 

[OllieFranz]

Then you don't know the meaning of imaginary, because that's exactly what they are, imagined.

So we only imagine that people, dogs, cats, horses, birds, etc. --in fact, every land-walking vertebrate -- has exactly four limbs, not two, not six, and definitely not any odd number, and that the bones in those limbs can be matched up one-for-one. Homologous structures are certainly not imaginary

Only if assuming there is any connection.

You need not assume connection to see homology. But homology, once recognized, does suggest some connection, even if it were only a common Designer, as many Creationists claim.

Evidence is only evidence, not a conclusion.



Easy enough to rebuke if you'd like to make a point. But that way it's worded.....I mean obviously they wouldn't support a outdated version of a theory.

 

[OllieFranz]

You mean the use of a word people have defined is wrong because it doesn't sit well with you?

No. The word is nonsense. Evolution has no set direction, so change in any direction is still evolution. Devolution has no meaning. It is only used to mean "evolution in the wrong direction" by people who do not accept evolution in the first place. It is not used by evolutionists and not accepted by Creationists. It is nonsense.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes. You can search my old posts for "cells" you might find it.

I did. I searched this thread for any instances of the word "Cells" and found only two posts from you. Posts 157 and 205.

In the first, you only use the word cells when saying that the "mitochondrial-rich photoreceptors of the retina, which have the highest metabolic rate and demands for oxygen and nutrients per gram of tissue of all cells in the human body."

First of all, since you are quoting a website, it doesn't count. Secondly, you are not discussing the comparative complexity of cells either.

So one of the two is down.

In the second post, you only refer to cells when you say, "The discovery of ... non-specific immune cells... in the semilunar plica suggest that it plays an important role as a specialized organ in human eye protection."

Again, no mention of comparative differences in complexity of cells.

Now, perhaps you meant it was in another thread, but I'm not going to be searching through ALL of your posts on this whole website. You got a particular post that contains this information, you give me a link. But don't expect me to do the hard work for it. If you're going to tell me that it's out there somewhere, you better provide evidence of it.

 

[SkyWriting]

So we only imagine that people, dogs, cats, horses, birds, etc. --in fact, every land-walking vertebrate -- has exactly four limbs, not two, not six, and definitely not any odd number, and that the bones in those limbs can be matched up one-for-one. Homologous structures are certainly not imaginary.

Yes they are. You're asking me to imagine a link between the image of two similar looking structures and to see similarities. It's ALL imagination, top to bottom. Such comparisons and structures exist only in the imagination.

 

[SkyWriting]

No. The word is nonsense. Evolution has no set direction, so change in any direction is still evolution. Devolution has no meaning. It is only used to mean "evolution in the wrong direction" by people who do not accept evolution in the first place. It is not used by evolutionists and not accepted by Creationists. It is nonsense.

O.K.
So you don't like this word and have disdain for people who use words you don't like.
Got it.



dev·o·lu·tion/ˌdevəˈlo͞oSHən/
Noun:
The transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, esp. by central government to local or regional administration.
Descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

devolution [ˌdiːvəˈluːʃən]
n
1. the act, fact, or result of devolving
2. a passing onwards or downwards from one stage to another
3. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) another word for degeneration [3]
4. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a transfer or allocation of authority, esp from a central government to regional governments or particular interests
[from Medieval Latin dēvolūtiō a rolling down, from Latin dēvolvere to roll down, sink into; see devolve]
devolutionary adj
devolutionist n & adj
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Devolve - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Skaloop]

Yes they are. You're asking me to imagine a link between the image of two similar looking structures and to see similarities. It's ALL imagination, top to bottom. Such comparisons and structures exist only in the imagination.

Are you saying that they're not similar? Forget about whether there's a link or not; are they similar?

 

[SkyWriting]

Are you saying that they're not similar? Forget about whether there's a link or not; are they similar?

Lots of things look similar.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes they are. You're asking me to imagine a link between the image of two similar looking structures and to see similarities. It's ALL imagination, top to bottom. Such comparisons and structures exist only in the imagination.

No, it's not.

We're not talking about vague similarities. We are talking about complex structures that contain many different parts. What are the odds of two completely unrelated creatures evolving parts that share such common features?

If you saw two books, and there was a 2000 word passage in both of them that was just about identical, would you conclude that each author had come up with it by themselves?

 

[SkyWriting]

No, they haven't. Vestigial does not mean without function. Finding a function for a vestigial organ does not refute the vestigial argument. The human coccyx does not support a tail, therefore it is vestigial. The functions it does have are rudimentary functions in the same way that a typewriter acting as a paperweight is a rudimentary function for the typewriter. You also made the claim that none of the human ancestors had tails. Still waiting for the evidence to back up this claim. Where is it?

When fetuses do occasionally grow tails, they are not functional or in the right place or give indication that they are a vestigial structure.

 

[Skaloop]

Lots of things look similar.

True. But I didn't ask if they looked similar; I asked if the are similar. Because the things we're talking about as being homologous are similar in a whole bunch of ways besides how they look. Structure, orientation, location, composition, development, etcetera, etcetera. They are similar on multiple levels besides how they look. Sometimes they don't even look similar, but upon further inspection the similarities abound.

 

[Skaloop]

When fetuses do occasionally grow tails, they are not functional or in the right place or give indication that they are a vestigial structure.

His post never even mentioned human fetuses that occasionally grow non-functional tails. So why don't you address what he actually said.

 

[SkyWriting]

True. But I didn't ask if they looked similar; I asked if the are similar. Because the things we're talking about as being homologous are similar in a whole bunch of ways besides how they look. Structure, orientation, location, composition, development, etcetera, etcetera. They are similar on multiple levels besides how they look. Sometimes they don't even look similar, but upon further inspection the similarities abound.

The evidence does point to a common designer.
That's always been my stand.

As a software designer, I see it all the time.
But similar and even identical code can come from a common source

OR

a completely unrelated source that needs to accomplish the same result.


Another example, there is a person in my town who I get mistaken for.
I even have conversations with people and can not convince them that I am not him.
Your point fails, dead in the water.

 

[Skaloop]

The evidence does point to a common designer.
That's always been my stand.

As a software designer, I see it all the time.
But similar and even identical code can come from a common source

OR

a completely unrelated source that needs to accomplish the same result.


Another example, there is a person in my town who I get mistaken for.
I even have conversations with people and can not convince them that I am not him.
Your point fails, dead in the water.

Software (nor any other creation/design) does not fall into a nested hierarchy. Especially if a god is doing the common designing, it's not at all necessary. But it is an inevitable result of evolution. Lo and behold, life falls into a nested (double-nested, even) hierarchy.

Technically, yes, the evidence can point to a common designer. But ANY ARRANGEMENT OF LIFE AT ALL could point to a common designer. And yet we have the aforementioned nested hierarchy, an arrangement that is a necessary result of evolution.

The fact that a "common designer" could explain anything isn't really even evidence at all, especially when the alternative is dependent on a very specific situation that matches what is observed.

Say I have two chefs who want to cook a meal for me. The first, I tell him to make whatever he feels like. Anything at all. The second, I secretly tell that he must cook me an 11" thin-crust pizza with tomatoes, hot peppers, mushrooms, onions, and double cheese.

My first meal comes. It is an 11" thin-crust pizza with tomatoes, hot peppers, mushrooms, onions, and double cheese. Based on the meal presented, which chef do you think prepared that meal, #1 or #2? Chef #1 certainly could have prepared it; he's capable of making a 11" thin-crust pizza with tomatoes, hot peppers, mushrooms, onions, and double cheese. He's capable of making anything at all! But the fact he's capable of making it doesn't mean he did, and can't really serve as evidence that he did. The fact that chef #2 had to make a 11" thin-crust pizza with tomatoes, hot peppers, mushrooms, onions, and double cheese and that's what I got is strong evidence that he was the chef that prepared the meal. Similarly, all relevant evidence (yes, all) is just what you'd expect if evolution were chef #2.

 

[Tiberius]

The evidence does point to a common designer.
That's always been my stand.

As a software designer, I see it all the time.
But similar and even identical code can come from a common source

OR

a completely unrelated source that needs to accomplish the same result.

So if someone writes a program for typing letters, there's a chance they'll end up recreating Microsoft Word?

Oh, and I can't help but notice that you;ve ignored my last post...

 

[SkyWriting]

Software (nor any other creation/design) does not fall into a nested hierarchy. Especially if a god is doing the common designing, it's not at all necessary. But it is an inevitable result of evolution. Lo and behold, life falls into a nested (double-nested, even) hierarchy.Technically, yes, the evidence can point to a common designer. But ANY ARRANGEMENT OF LIFE AT ALL could point to a common designer. And yet we have the aforementioned nested hierarchy, an arrangement that is a necessary result of evolution.The fact that a "common designer" could explain anything isn't really even evidence at all, especially when the alternative is dependent on a very specific situation that matches what is observed.Say I have two chefs who want to cook a meal for me. The first, I tell him to make whatever he feels like. Anything at all. The second, I secretly tell that he must cook me an 11" thin-crust pizza with tomatoes, hot peppers, mushrooms, onions, and double cheese.My first meal comes. It is an 11" thin-crust pizza with tomatoes, hot peppers, mushrooms, onions, and double cheese. Based on the meal presented, which chef do you think prepared that meal, #1 or #2? Chef #1 certainly could have prepared it; he's capable of making a 11" thin-crust pizza with tomatoes, hot peppers, mushrooms, onions, and double cheese. He's capable of making anything at all! But the fact he's capable of making it doesn't mean he did, and can't really serve as evidence that he did. The fact that chef #2 had to make a 11" thin-crust pizza with tomatoes, hot peppers, mushrooms, onions, and double cheese and that's what I got is strong evidence that he was the chef that prepared the meal. Similarly, all relevant evidence (yes, all) is just what you'd expect if evolution were chef #2.

I had no idea you were a programmer. When you start using nested hierarchy your programs will gain a lot of utility.
Simple linear programs can accomplish some work, but very little. A LOOP will help you out a lot.
In your example, you'll get a pizza with one sausage and one tomato slice and one mushroom.
You could add two lines of code and get double servings of cheese.



Calling Nested Programs
Nested programs give you a method to create modular functions for your application and maintain structured programming techniques. Nested programs allow you to define multiple separate functions, each with its own controlled scope, within a single compilation unit. They can be used like PERFORM procedures with the additional ability to protect local data items.

Nested programs are contained in the same module as their calling program when they are compiled. Therefore, nested programs always run in the same activation group as their calling programs.

Structure of Nested Programs
An ILE COBOL program may contain other ILE COBOL programs. The contained programs may themselves contain yet other programs. A contained program may be directly or indirectly contained within a program.

Figure 51 describes a nested program structure with directly and indirectly contained programs.

Figure 51. Nested Program Structure with Directly and Indirectly Contained Programs
Help -Calling Nested Programs

 

[OllieFranz]

Yes they are. You're asking me to imagine a link between the image of two similar looking structures and to see similarities. It's ALL imagination, top to bottom. Such comparisons and structures exist only in the imagination.

Either you are being extremely disingenuous, or you are a borderline solopist. It is possible, even necessary, to acknowledge that certain similarities exist independent of our opinions about them, or else to doubt the existence of anything but our own ideas. So unless you are claiming that you believe that your own mind is the only thing that you can know to be real -- that you don't know if the world around us is real, or if anyone else really exists, your attempts at metaphysics is fatally flawed and you know it.

If the world, other people, and everything you know about God are nothing more than your imagination, why do you argue so vociferously? Why not just imagine a world where everyone agrees with you?

 

[OllieFranz]

O.K.
So you don't like this word and have disdain for people who use words you don't like.
Got it.



dev·o·lu·tion/ˌdevəˈlo͞oSHən/
Noun:
The transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, esp. by central government to local or regional administration.
Descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

devolution [ˌdiːvəˈluːʃən]
n
1. the act, fact, or result of devolving
2. a passing onwards or downwards from one stage to another
3. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) another word for degeneration [3]
4. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a transfer or allocation of authority, esp from a central government to regional governments or particular interests
[from Medieval Latin dēvolūtiō a rolling down, from Latin dēvolvere to roll down, sink into; see devolve]
devolutionary adj
devolutionist n & adj
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Devolve - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I never said it does not exist as a word. I simply said no one believes what it is claimed to describe. It is nonsense. SupercalifragilisticExpealidocious is a valid word, but it has no real meaning. It is nonsense. So is devolution, and for the same reason.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, it's not.We're not talking about vague similarities. We are talking about complex structures that contain many different parts. What are the odds of two completely unrelated creatures evolving parts that share such common features?If you saw two books, and there was a 2000 word passage in both of them that was just about identical, would you conclude that each author had come up with it by themselves?

No. I'd say they had a common author.

But the physical books may be identical from different printers in two separate countries.