How do Creationists explain vestigal organs?

[SkyWriting]

And that's what makes them nonsense. Just like "devolution."
Neither evolutionists, who say evolution has no preferred direction, nor Creationists, who say evolution is notreal believe in evolution happening "backwards."
Neither has "devolution," unless you count disbelief. In which case you also have to count the changes that disbelief in the other entities enabled.
So which is it do they offer no value, or do they retain their value as imaginary concepts? Either way, "devolution" has exactly the same value.

 

[Skaloop]

That would be co-evolution. The authors each created the same masterpiece but with no information exchanged between them. They both experienced similar environments and just so happened to create amazing results identical to each other. It happens in nature "all the time."

Examples? Because it actually happens in nature "none of the time".

 

[OllieFranz]

That would be co-evolution. The authors each created the same masterpiece but with no information exchanged between them. They both experienced similar environments and just so happened to create amazing results identical to each other. It happens in nature "all the time."

Examples? Because it actually happens in nature "none of the time".

Fish and dolphins experience similar environments, and the physics of locomotion through water has given them a similar streamlined shape. But it ends there. All other similarities are no greater than the similarities of fish to any other mammal. Fish are cold-blooded; dolphins are warm-blooded. Fish have tail fins; dolphins have flukes -- internally completely separate in structure. Fish have gills; dolphins have lungs. Fish lay eggs; dolphins have wombs and the fetuses are nourished directly from the mother via a placenta. Etc. etc. etc.

And on land its even worse. Kangaroos fill the environmental niche in Australia that deer fill on the other continents. But they are nothing at all like deer.

Once a population has split into two species, there is no going back. They will continue to become more and more different. Even if the environmental niches are the same and some similarities are forced by that fact (so-called "convergent evolution"), it is only on the surface. Both the feline and canine lines of carnivores developed similar body shapes, especially when contrasted with the original body shape, more-or-less preserved in other lines, such as badgers, ferrets, skunks, etc. But there is no mistaking a dog for a cat, or a wolf for a tiger.

And in the world of literature the evidence presented would not be seen as evidence of "co-evolution" but as evidence of plagiarism and copyright violation.

 

[OllieFranz]

Take note. On this date, Skywriting has done a 180 and now agrees with my refutation of his previous position. I doubt it will last, though.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's because you would need to be able to reproduce the event.

You have not presented evidence that the event even happened.

Again, we observe that common DNA is produced through common ancestry.

So you would have no way of proving your case, if that's what you believed.
Your belief must rely on Faith.

I have evidence, so why would I need faith?

 

[Loudmouth]

I admit it. For the same of argument, whatever you claim looks similar, I agree. It does. Now what?

Now we compare the functions that these similar structures have. What we find is that, at times, similar structures do not have all the same functions. For example, the coccyx in monkeys and humans is similar. In monkeys, the coccyx has the function of supporting a tail and a rudimentary function of supporting small muscles that tie to internal organs. However, the shape of the coccyx is clearly tied to its function as a base for the tail. In humans we find the same shape to the coccyx, but it does not support a tail. The human coccyx still has the rudimentary function of serving as an anchoring point for internal organs, but nearly any shaped bone could serve this function. Instead, the human coccyx is shaped as the base of a tail, a tail that humans don't have. Therefore, the coccyx is vestigial.

We could also talk abou the typewriter paperweight if you want to use a non-biological example. Would you pay 500 dollars for a typewriter that did not type? If the store refused to refund your money after you discovered that it does not type based on the argument that it still has function as a paperweight, would you feel ripped off?

 

[Tiberius]

That would be co-evolution. The authors each created the same masterpiece but with no information exchanged between them. They both experienced similar environments and just so happened to create amazing results identical to each other. It happens in nature "all the time."

This is so wrong that it's beyond belief.

It never happens in nature.

 

[Skaloop]

And on land its even worse. Kangaroos fill the environmental niche in Australia that deer fill on the other continents. But they are nothing at all like deer.

Yup. And that's a case of having homologous structures that don't "look" alike (vertebrate limbs being one of the most demonstrative). When mammals as diverse as sperm whales, mice, kangaroos, deer, lions, seals, humans, and bats have basically the same bone structure arrangement, just arranged differently, that says a lot. That it also applies to all vertebrates, and all vertebrates exclusively, but not invertebrates or even other chordates, that says even more.

There's also things like the bill of the platypus and the duck, where they "look" alike but aren't at all homologous.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is so wrong that it's beyond belief.

It never happens in nature.

Sorry. My mistake. I wasn't referring to co-evolution which we all
know is completely differentt

Evolution 101: Coevolution

I was referring to parallel evolution. But you all know that and are just teasing me.

Parallel evolution - definition from Biology-Online.org

Convergent vs. Parallel Evolution

 

[Skaloop]

Sorry. My mistake. I wasn't referring to co-evolution which we all
know is completely differentt

Evolution 101: Coevolution

I was referring to parallel evolution. But you all know that and are just teasing me.

Parallel evolution - definition from Biology-Online.org

Convergent vs. Parallel Evolution

Even parallel evolution doesn't lead to identical traits, though, so you're still wrong.

 

[SkyWriting]

Now we compare the functions that these similar structures have. What we find is that, at times, similar structures do not have all the same functions. For example, the coccyx in monkeys and humans is similar. In monkeys, the coccyx has the function of supporting a tail and a rudimentary function of supporting small muscles that tie to internal organs. However, the shape of the coccyx is clearly tied to its function as a base for the tail. In humans we find the same shape to the coccyx, but it does not support a tail. The human coccyx still has the rudimentary function of serving as an anchoring point for internal organs, but nearly any shaped bone could serve this function. Instead, the human coccyx is shaped as the base of a tail, a tail that humans don't have. Therefore, the coccyx is vestigial.

The human structure may have been first.
Or a parallel evolved structure.
Or is a perfect match for it's function and other "uses" may be inferior.

So the vestigial label is imaginary.

 

[SkyWriting]

Even parallel evolution doesn't lead to identical traits, though, so you're still wrong.

No two creatures are "identical" so I misspoke.

 

[Skaloop]

No two creatures are "identical" so I misspoke.

No, you're wrong. Whether you misspoke or not, the basis of your argument is wrong.

 

[SkyWriting]

Take note. On this date, Skywriting has done a 180 and now agrees with my refutation of his previous position. I doubt it will last, though.

Ya need to understand the concept of Christian Charity.
It's when you decide not to engage in conflict for the sake of peace.

 

[SkyWriting]

I have evidence, so why would I need faith?

Suppose you were on trial and the evidence was all set against you. One example.

You have no evidence that your results in hand will be there next time.
That takes faith. The results can always change next time you check your facts.
Only faith keeps one going forward based on old data.

That's two kinds of faith so far.

 

[Skaloop]

Suppose you were on trial and the evidence was all set against you. One example.

You have no evidence that your results in hand will be there next time.
That takes faith. The results can always change next time you check your facts.
Only faith keeps one going forward based on old data.

That's two kinds of faith so far.

You're describing Creationism/Christianity. Evolution will have the evidence every time.

 

[SkyWriting]

You're describing Creationism/Christianity. Evolution will have the evidence every time.

No. I'm describing the nature of science.
I'm surprised? you didn't recognize it.

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof” | Psychology Today

Five Things Science Can’t Explain « Power to Change

 

[Skaloop]

No. I'm describing the nature of science.
I'm surprised? you didn't recognize it.

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof” | Psychology Today

Five Things Science Can’t Explain « Power to Change

There are all kinds of things science can't explain (at the moment). The things in your link are nonsense or aren't even in the realm of science.

FACT: You are wrong. Frankly, I'm more certain of that than I am of evolution. And I'm pretty damn sure about evolution.

I'll also note that you haven't yet been able to provide any examples of how when you meant parallel evolution you accidentally said co-evolution. Nor have you demonstrated any "amazing results identical to each other" that happen in nature "all the time."

Do you have any examples of parallel evolution that led to identical results? Do you have any legitimate explanation about why all vertebrates have an analogous bone structure regardless of environment, and yet invertebrate creatures that share those same environments NEVER have that same bone structure?

 

[Diakoneo10]

Whether or not Western medicine recognizes it... Every part of the human body has purpose and function. We may be able to live without some of them, but not without stressing other parts or suffering health-wise. Therefore, nothing is vestigial as you are describing...

 

[Skaloop]

Whether or not Western medicine recognizes it... Every part of the human body has purpose and function. We may be able to live without some of them, but not without stressing other parts or suffering health-wise. Therefore, nothing is vestigial as you are describing...

THAT'S NOT WHAT VESTIGIAL MEANS!!!!!

Fer F's sake, have you not even read any of this thread?