Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
How do Creationists explain vestigal organs?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Loudmouth" data-source="post: 61125573" data-attributes="member: 11790"><p>Even so, the coccyx is still vestigial.</p><p> </p><p>"An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other . . ."--Charles Darwin</p><p> </p><p>The coccyx has lost its primary function which is supporting a tail. We even retain the extensor coccygis muscle which lies on the dorsal side of the coccyx and spans several FUSED joints. In other animals, this muscle lifts the tail.</p><p> </p><p>Using the coccyx to support interal musculature is like pounding in nails with a computer keyboard. Yes, it will get the job done, but it is quite obvious that the computer keyboard has other functions that it is not being used for.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>You are thinking of the excuse that creationists use for ignoring the legs on transitional whales. In the case of modern whales these bones are so small as to be ignored for all function.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Actually, you can start with a single bacterium that is sensitive to antibiotics and over time you will find mutants that are resistant to antibiotics. This is not a case of pre-existing variation.</p><p> </p><p>Also, macroevolution is simply the accumulation of these very mutants over time.</p><p> </p><p>But back to vestigial organs . . .</p><p> </p><p>Vestigial does not mean lacking all function. That is the mistake that all creationists tend to make. My example of using a computer keyboard to pound in nails is a good analogy for what I am talking about. What we observe with vestigial organs is a complex organ being used for a very simple task. The human appendix is the holdover from a larger caecum found in other species. This is a complex organ that is used to digest plant material. In humans, it has the very simple task of holding immune cells. The caecum in other species does the same task as well as the primary task of digesting cellulose. The function in humans is a less important and rudimentary function. Again, this is what is meant by vestigial.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Loudmouth, post: 61125573, member: 11790"] Even so, the coccyx is still vestigial. "An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other . . ."--Charles Darwin The coccyx has lost its primary function which is supporting a tail. We even retain the extensor coccygis muscle which lies on the dorsal side of the coccyx and spans several FUSED joints. In other animals, this muscle lifts the tail. Using the coccyx to support interal musculature is like pounding in nails with a computer keyboard. Yes, it will get the job done, but it is quite obvious that the computer keyboard has other functions that it is not being used for. You are thinking of the excuse that creationists use for ignoring the legs on transitional whales. In the case of modern whales these bones are so small as to be ignored for all function. Actually, you can start with a single bacterium that is sensitive to antibiotics and over time you will find mutants that are resistant to antibiotics. This is not a case of pre-existing variation. Also, macroevolution is simply the accumulation of these very mutants over time. But back to vestigial organs . . . Vestigial does not mean lacking all function. That is the mistake that all creationists tend to make. My example of using a computer keyboard to pound in nails is a good analogy for what I am talking about. What we observe with vestigial organs is a complex organ being used for a very simple task. The human appendix is the holdover from a larger caecum found in other species. This is a complex organ that is used to digest plant material. In humans, it has the very simple task of holding immune cells. The caecum in other species does the same task as well as the primary task of digesting cellulose. The function in humans is a less important and rudimentary function. Again, this is what is meant by vestigial. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
How do Creationists explain vestigal organs?
Top
Bottom