questions for evolutionist that they can't answer

[Skaloop]

i don't believe i was speaking to you.

I don't believe you were, either. But here we are. It is a public forum, after all.

But thank you for da love.

I wouldn't quite call it love.

 

[Skaloop]

I can't wait to see some of the struggling responses to this.

Well, you're gonna have to, because you haven't actually raised any points that even deserve a response, let alone points that would cause a struggle. But, people will respond, and then you'll be the one struggling.

 

[Mike Elphick]

I didn't want my first thread to be like this, but I've seen some others like it so I thought I would start one.

I've changed a lot of peoples minds on this, so I found it necessary.

1 - What would be the purpose of a half wing?
2 - What evidence do you have for the TRex being a meat eater? Don't say because of it's teeth. This is like finding the bones of a tall man and assuming he was a basketball player!
3 - If humans are animals, why don't we act like it?
4 - If the appendix is 'vestigial', why is it part of the digestive system?
5 - If we share a common ancestor with apes, how do they have two more chromosomes than we do. YES WE DO! Look it up yourselves. I've never gotten ANY explanation for this.
6 - ALL dead organisms leave behind dead bodies. So why do evolutionist claim that we only have like 100 transitional forms?
7 - Why don't Monkey's have babies today?
8 - Why have so many humans claimed to have seen dinosaurs in the congo and Lockness?


Evolution requires faith.

I can't wait to see some of the struggling responses to this.

Can this garbage really be true? It must be a joke, surely? If not, it's certainly the worst anti-evillusionist verbiage I've seen in my life. This post is completely void of any knowledge about evolution. How can that be possible in this day and age? How can a guy with zero knowledge of evolution think he can change people's minds? Surely only the minds of similar people who are ignorant of evolution!

 

[HasturX]

I have read both pro-evolution and pro-creation books that give examples of people seeing dinosaurs in the congo and other areas of the world.

Should we also take mermaids, yeti and fairy seriously too?

 

[plindboe]

It isn't vestigial. It may well harbor and protect bacteria that are beneficial to the function of the colon. It may also play a roll in the immune system.

You should know better than this, Washington. Vestigial doesn't mean useless.

The appendix is vestigial. It might have a slight positive role, though I'm not sure how strong the evidence is. People seem to do fine without it though.

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

Please don't respond it, or any other off-topic reply he may make here.

It's not off-topic.

Please don't tell me we have some inbred desire to procreate and protect our young, when in reality many of them are being killed in the name of 'non-viability' before they even have a chance to see the world.

What animal does that?

 

[Washington]

Isn't it also true that fruit bats have sharp teeth like a meat eater? Again, I don't think it's fair to mock the idea that sharp teeth do not = meat eater.

Fruit bats have canines (four) like carnivores but that's the only similiarity. Their incisors, primairly the uppers, are chisel-shaped teeth. Carnivore incisors are typically dull edged. And the molars are quite different. Carinivore molars are sharp and highly cusped so as to easily break down fibrous flesh for ease of swallowing. Molars of the fruit bat, some of which appear to be cusped, are actually flat and wide in order to crush the fruit so as to extract the juice. They spit out the fibrous pulp. So, while on first look (at just the fruit bat's canines) it would appear they could very well be carnivores, taking all their teeth into consideration it's easy to see they're not.

This is why science looks at all the relevant factors (all the teeth in this case) of an issue rather than taking an single aspect (just the canines) and jumping to conclusions.

 

[Washington]

Double post. Double post.

 

[Washington]

You should know better than this, Washington. Vestigial doesn't mean useless.

And just what is it I should know better? I took hailtofire's meaning of the word just as it's described in your link.

"Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms that have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution"
​

Of course it would have been nice had he explained himself, but I have an idea this may well be his last post.

 

[AV1611VET]

You sound like that idiot with the banana.
You know abortion is quite a recent development in our history because it was once too risky for the mother, today we have the technology to do it for the benefit of mothers for quite a few reasons, admittedly some people have it done for the wrong reasons but it is definitely a good thing on the whole.
Do you condemn all preachers because there are a few bad apples using religion for their own ends?

A lot of animals wait until their offspring are born before killing and eating some of them, quite a few are cannibals, quite a few abandon their young if they feel that they themselves are in danger.

We are all animals, we have just evolved a little further.

If your daughter was raped and was pregnant would you let it ruin her life or would you have it aborted and try to forget it ever happened?

I'll repeat the question: what animal performs abortions on its own kind?

If the OP is suggesting we're animals because we, just like the animals do, have some inbred desire to procreate and protect our young, then I submit that we are not animals.

OTOH, if the OP is not suggesting that, then just forget I said anything here.

 

[Washington]

I don't believe you were, either. But here we are. It is a public forum, after all.

It's just one of her stock phrases she uses when she's in a corner, just like her "move on." Don't take it personally or seriously.

 

[plindboe]

And just what is it I should know better? I took hailtofire's meaning of the word just as it's described in your link.

"Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms that have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution"
​

Of course it would have been nice had he explained himself, but I have an idea this may well be his last post.

There must be some miscommunication here. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, as you normally appear to know about these kinds of things.

You said the appendix wasn't vestigial. The link says it's vestigial, and uses it as a prime example of vestigiality.

You followed that statement by saying that it had a use, so it seems like you think that vestigial=useless. The link, and your quote, doesn't say it's useless, it says the original function is what has been lost. The penguins wings for instance is an example of a vestigial but extremely useful trait.

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

The penguins wings for instance is an example of a vestigial but extremely useful trait.

Are they wings or fins?

 

[MoonLancer]

I'll repeat the question: what animal performs abortions on its own kind?

If the OP is suggesting we're animals because we, just like the animals do, have some inbred desire to procreate and protect our young, then I submit that we are not animals.

OTOH, if the OP is not suggesting that, then just forget I said anything here.

All it took was 5 seconds using google. We are not the only animals that abort its young.

Pregnant Male Pipefish Abort Young : Discovery News

Also a Gazelle can abort its young too when its trying to get away from a predator.

http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazin...Animals/Archives/1992/Mothers-in-Waiting.aspx

Humans abort the young OF predators.

We are animals with a powerful mind and the desire to be special. Your points a refuted AV. now Drop it.

 

[MoonLancer]

Are they wings or fins?

they are X-wings.... har har har.

 

[plindboe]

questions for evolutionist that they can't answer

No offense meant, but you have deceived yourself. The questions are rather simple actually.

1 - What would be the purpose of a half wing?

Rudimentary or vestigial wings can be used for gliding, temperature control, swimming, jumping, mating rituals and other forms of communication. All these things are observed in living animals.

2 - What evidence do you have for the TRex being a meat eater? Don't say because of it's teeth. This is like finding the bones of a tall man and assuming he was a basketball player!

No it's not. Humans don't evolve to play basketball. The morphology and anatomy of T-rexes and other animals undergo continual selective pressure based on diet, so we should expect to see evidence of the diet by studying the teeth.

3 - If humans are animals, why don't we act like it?

So we don't mate, eat other organisms, communicate, defecate, fight, sleep, play? All these are animal activities, and we do them as well, hence we act like animals.

4 - If the appendix is 'vestigial', why is it part of the digestive system?

It likely used to have a digestive function, i.e. harbouring bacteria to help our ancestors to digest cellulose. Our ancestors' changing diet would make it more-or-less useless for its original purpose, and as a consequence it began shrinking, due to deleterious mutations no longer beng selected against.

5 - If we share a common ancestor with apes, how do they have two more chromosomes than we do. YES WE DO! Look it up yourselves. I've never gotten ANY explanation for this.

Ape chromosomes 2p and 2q fused in the human lineage some time after the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans and it is now known as human chromosome 2. We can see the evidence of the fusion in the DNA sequence, for instance deactivated telomeres in the middle of the chromosome, the 2p centromere where we'd expect to find it and the deactivated 2q centromere where we'd expect to find it. Additionally, the sequences of chromosome 2 lines up with the sequences of the 2 ape chromosomes, just as one would expect after a fusion.

6 - ALL dead organisms leave behind dead bodies. So why do evolutionist claim that we only have like 100 transitional forms?

All dead organisms leave behind dead bodies, very few dead organisms leave behind long-lasting fossils. This is mainly due to a process called decomposition. You can read about it here.

7 - Why don't Monkey's have babies today?

They don't have human babies as that would be impossible. If such a thing happened, it would falsify the theory of evolution.

8 - Why have so many humans claimed to have seen dinosaurs in the congo and Lockness?

Humans are extremely fallible and frequently not entirely honest observers. Myths and legends are known to arise out of nothing. Humans misperceive, misinterpret, misremember and miscommunicate, especially when strong biases are involved. Hence the need for skepticism and critical thinking. Read here.

Evolution requires faith.

No, as it's backed up by plenty of evidence. You seem to dismiss evolution even though you don't appear to have even studied it. That's faith.

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

they are X-wings.... har har har.

Cute.

A: penguins do not have wings, because they cannot fly, therefore they have flippers.

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you want them to be AV1611VET?

I couldn't care less, myself.

I don't call them 'vestigial organs' -- you do.

It's you guys that are obligated to make the call.

 

[Golden Yak]

I wouldn't say it's entirely off-topic. It's related to question #3 in the OP - "If humans are animals, why don't we act like it?"

The argument is that humans are not animals because humans sometimes abort their young. As has been pointed out, there are a number of animal species that destroy their young for all sorts of reasons.

Search Infanticide (zoology) on Wikipedia for some examples.

I would say that the term 'animal' as it applies to humans is more about biology than behavior - there are lots of animals with lots of different behaviors. One group of animals having behavior unique to that group does not disqualify them from being animals.

Dogs are animals, they act like dogs. Fish are animals, they act like fish. Birds are animals, they act like birds. Humans are animals, they act like humans. Sometimes human behavior can be complicated, but we're still animals.

As for the rest of the OPs questions... a lot of these questions have been asked by creationists many times before, and answers are only a google search away. I have a hard time believing that the he has genuinely never encountered answers to them before, whether he agrees with them or not.

 

[plindboe]

Are they wings or fins?

Depends on your definition of wing. If one's definition is "a limb used for flying" then neither penguin "wings" or ostridge "wings" are wings. I sometimes call them wings because of their evolutionary history, but flippers is probably a better term.

Peter