questions for evolutionist that they can't answer

[AV1611VET]

Cutting through all of the back and forth, does this statement express your position?

AV1611VET: Humans are not apes!

Yes.

 

[plindboe]

I took hailtofire's mention of the appendix as vestigial to mean it was useless: vestigial = useless. This is a not so unusual a belief.

Indeed, it's a very common error, and I think it's important to correct. Many creationists use arguments of the form "Aha, so you claim that feature X is vestigial. Here's research showing that it has an important function", Hovind is particularly fond of these. If you're an evolutionist and you harbour the same misunderstanding as the creationist, you will not be able to counter such arguments, and it will appear as a major contradiction within science. Hence the risk, and why it's so important to correct.

In THIS paper, "The Useless Vestigial: the Human Appendix," the author explains why he believed it had no use.

"Ernst Mayr [The preeminent zoologist of our time] confirmed my doctor's opinion that the human appendix is only an impediment on the species. In What Evolution Is, Mayr claims that


'Every shift into a new adaptive zone leaves a residue of no longer needed morphological features that then become an impediment. One only needs to think of the many weaknesses in humans that are remnants of our quadrupedal and more vegetarian past, for instance... the caecal appendix.'"
​

Perhaps I was wrong in assuming this is what hailtofire thought, (vestigial = useless), but as the quoted piece illustrates, it's not a groundless assumption.

The quoted piece doesn't say that vestigial=useless. If that had been the case, he wouldn't have used a headline saying "The Useless Vestigial", which would have been embarrassingly redundant. Vestigial structures can be useless and they can be useful, as evolution has a tendency to come up with new uses of features lying around doing nothing.

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

But I think our own resident AronRa answered this question very nicely.

I hope he's off to the side in that video and not in the center of the stage or pulpit.

The colors are on his left.

 

[metherion]

So I guess the examples of animals that not only kills but EAT their own eggs and therefore unhatched offspring just got completely glossed over?

Metherion

 

[AV1611VET]

So I guess the examples of animals that not only kills but EAT their own eggs and therefore unhatched offspring just got completely glossed over?

Metherion

Sorta.

The point I was making is that these are not examples of 'urges' to procreate and protect our young.

 

[philadiddle]

1 - What would be the purpose of a half wing?
If you mean a wing that doesn't allow flight you should ask the penguin and the ostrich.

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!
This question has nothing to do with whether or not evolution happened. However, its teeth are the key, unless you can explain why I'm wrong without using a faulty basketball analogy.

3 - If humans are animals, why don't we act like it?
What does it mean to act like an animal? Humans seem to be far worse, we know right from wrong and still do wrong anyways, animals just act on instinct. You'll have to ellaborate on your question if that doesn't answer it.

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

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.
Chromosome 2 (human) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6 - ALL dead organisms leave behind dead bodies. So why do evolutionist claim that we only have like 100 transitional forms?
They don't all fossilize.

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

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

I have a feeling this thread is subject to Poe's law, you can't be serious with these questions.

 

[Skaloop]

Sorta.

The point I was making is that these are not examples of 'urges' to procreate and protect our young.

It could be, though. Consider a young woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant with a child the father wants nothing to do with. She may think the following:

"If I have this child, I will be unable to continue my education, and unable to establish a solid career, as I will have to ensure that I can financially care for that child immediately. I will not endeavour to have further children, since the burden of raising one as a single parent is already enough. I will have one child who will face some disadvantages due to a lack of finances and parental involvement.

Or, I could have an abortion now, finish my schooling, establish a career, develop a loving relationship with a man, and together we could start a family where we could raise multiple children in a comfortable and supportive home, giving them the best chance to be successful in their own lives."

In such a case, choosing the abortion is partially based on an urge to procreate and protect her young. Not immediately, but in the future. Delayed gratification, so to speak. I can give you one dollar right now OR give me ten dollars now and I'll give you a thousand dollars in a week. Which would you choose? Assume for this exercise that I am completely trustworthy and will fulfill my end of the deal. Normally, giving away ten dollars would not be the best option. But it pays off further down the line. Just as many would sacrifice ten dollars to get a thousand dollars, some people may sacrifice one unwanted pregnancy to get mutliple wanted ones.

(and yes, I know this isn't the regular thought process for women considering abortion, I'm just pointing out how abortion may, in fact, be more beneficial to procreating and protecting one's children than not getting that abortion.)

 

[AV1611VET]

(and yes, I know this isn't the regular thought process for women considering abortion, I'm just pointing out how abortion may, in fact, be more beneficial to procreating and protecting one's children than not getting that abortion.)

-- I'm outta this thread.

 

[philadiddle]

(and yes, I know this isn't the regular thought process for women considering abortion, I'm just pointing out how abortion may, in fact, be more beneficial to procreating and protecting one's children than not getting that abortion.)

Reps to you for unlocking the mystery. In order to get AV to stop trolling you just need to direct a pro abortion comment at him!!!

 

[MoonLancer]

-- I'm outta this thread.

abort!!! abort!!!
next time dont bring it up in the first place, k?

 

[Washington]

The quoted piece doesn't say that vestigial=useless. If that had been the case, he wouldn't have used a headline saying "The Useless Vestigial", which would have been embarrassingly redundant. Vestigial structures can be useless and they can be useful, as evolution has a tendency to come up with new uses of features lying around doing nothing.

Peter

That's what the author now understands to be the case; however, my point is that people do believe that vestigial=useless, and that this view was expressed in the paper where the author did (past tense) believe as much because . . .

"Ernst Mayr confirmed my doctor's opinion that the human appendix is only an impediment on the species."


​

 

[Naraoia]

AV, by the most stringent definition of abortion ( one animal causing the fetus to fail in an animal of the same species while still inside the mother's womb ), animals do this:

Animal Communication: Pheromones

Thanks for posting that, it's very interesting.

Hmm, would that be manipulation by the male, or the mother thinking "if I have these babies he'll kill them anyway, so what's the point?"

Either way, sexual conflict is fascinating.

Sorta.

The point I was making is that these are not examples of 'urges' to procreate and protect our young.

These "urges to procreate" are so 20th century. Early 20th century, I'd say.

The "urge" is to increase your lifetime reproductive success, and sometimes, as Skaloop explained, immediate procreation is not the best way of doing that.

Like it or not, that's how life works.

 

[plindboe]

That's what the author now understands to be the case; however, my point is that people do believe that vestigial=useless, and that this view was expressed in the paper where the author did (past tense) believe as much because . . .

"Ernst Mayr confirmed my doctor's opinion that the human appendix is only an impediment on the species."


​

I think you should have quoted this instead: "...vestigial structure. That is, "a deconstructed, nonfunctional characteristic that has been fully functional in a species' ancestor."(Mayr, 291)", since that's the only part of the article where it seems that the term vestigial is defined as being useless. If Mayr defined it as such, then it's likely that the term "vestigial" has changed meaning over time to accommodate new evidence, i.e. that vestigial features in fact can acquire new functions.

It's understandable that confusion arises when science changes though. To insist on the latest scientific understanding is probably the best medicine against confusion, so I think it's important to insist on the modern definition, whenever the old definition emerges.

Peter

 

[kharisym]

Thanks for posting that, it's very interesting.

Hmm, would that be manipulation by the male, or the mother thinking "if I have these babies he'll kill them anyway, so what's the point?"

Either way, sexual conflict is fascinating.

It's not a conscious action by either animal, the female is just doing her rat things, and the male rat is just doing his rat things. Neither comprehends the intricacies of pheromones or reproduction- they just know what feels and what smells good and their bodies do other things beyond their control.

What I find interesting is that it explicitly proves AV's point wrong, so he just chooses to ignore it.

 

[Washington]

I think you should have quoted this instead: "...vestigial structure. That is, "a deconstructed, nonfunctional characteristic that has been fully functional in a species' ancestor."(Mayr, 291)", since that's the only part of the article where it seems that the term vestigial is defined as being useless.

Considering the thrust of the issue, I saw the statement as embodying the notion. That you don't is, of course, your particular reading.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Am I the only one who laughed out loud at the monkeys/baby question?

Nope.

 

[daniel192]

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

Oh really?

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

Gliding.

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!

You've answered your question.

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

We eat, we sleep, we have an urge to procreate, we protect our young. This is a kind of a misleading question. You don't sneer at an lion for not behaving like an elephant.

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

The appendix has lost it's original function, digesting leaves that primitive humans ate.

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.

I could post a link, but people have already done that.

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

What "evolutionist" claims this?. Wanna see a transitional fossil? Look in the mirror.

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

What?

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

For the same reason people claim to see ghosts, spirits and demons.

Evolution requires faith.

Bzzt! Wrong, wrong, wrong.

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

Pfft. Us "evolutionists" are so used to these questions, we could answer them in our dreams.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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.

This character had 3 posts when he posted this nonsense and still has 3 posts. Definitely a post and run.

 

[ukgrace]

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.

Forgive me but these questions are pathetic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Forgive me but these questions are pathetic.

Then quit complaining and give pathetic answers.