The Coccyx

[Hieronymus]

Wow a YEC with an incorrect definition of vestigial... I'm shocked.

No you're not, you're in denial and can not refute it.

 

[Shemjaza]

No you're not, you're in denial and can not refute it.

Have you ignored every post in this thread thread?

- Vestigial doesn't mean useless.
- The structure of the coccyx is consistent with an ancestral tail.
- The coccyx contains ligament and muscle structures unnecessary for the purpose.

In addition, why are you playing at accepting science when you are using sources that openly admit to rejecting any evidence that is inconsistent with their religious pre-conceptions?

 

[Shemjaza]

So shocked that you fail to notice that your premise is seriously flawed?
Information stands or falls on its own merit and not based on the web location on which it is quoted. Too shocked to explain why you deemed it flawed? Too shocked to notice that your one criticism leaves 99% of his other statements intact? Which means that you consider the information to be 99% on target?

BTW
Surgical removal of your coccyx would make normal movement for humans extremely difficult. Removal of a mere tail has no such effect.

And none of those points in any way demonstrate that it is not a vestigial tail.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't believe you can present a single scientist
who is not a creationist
who doesn't think humans share a common tailed ancestor with monkeys.

Logically, that makes sense.

 

[SkyWriting]

The coccyx contains ligament and muscle structures unnecessary for the purpose.

As with all the historical organs once considered useless,
one can't make an argument based on lack of insight.

"History is littered with body parts
that were called "useless" simply
because medical science had yet
to understand them, Laitman said."

 

[Radrook]

Logically, that makes sense.

Absolutely logical. That is like saying that we cannot present a single scientist who is an atheist evolutionist who does not believe in atheistic evolution.

 

[Radrook]

Vestigial

vestigial

refers to an organ or part (for example, the human appendix) which is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function.

The definition presupposes that the organ is vestigial or a remnant of one that was far less developed. In short, the definition presupposes evolution. Which means that the definition was written by people who accept evolution as fact. Which means that the definition is biased. In order for the definition to be unbiased, it has to use qualifiers.

 

[Radrook]

As with all the historical organs once considered useless,
one can't make an argument based on lack of insight.

"History is littered with body parts
that were called "useless" simply
because medical science had yet
to understand them, Laitman said."

The same modus operandi is applied to DNA which were once called junk simply because their function wasn't evident at that time.

 

[Radrook]

And none of those points in any way demonstrate that it is not a vestigial tail.

It wasn't viewed as a vestigial tail prior to Darwin. It was viewed as normal human anatomy having absolutely NOTHING to do with a simian tail. In fact, anyone suggesting such a thing would have been ridiculed since the Coccyx provided absolutely no anatomical indication of being a tail or even a vestigial one.

 

[Shemjaza]

Absolutely logical. That is like saying that we cannot present a single scientist who is an atheist evolutionist who does not believe in atheistic evolution.

Except it was a reply to a comment where it was implied that scientists who accepted evolution did not believe that the coccyx was the reminders of an ancestral tail.

It's interesting that we can find evolutionist atheists, evolutionist Christians, evolutionist Hindus... but the only YECs added those for whom it's a religions tenant.

 

[Shemjaza]

The same modus operandi is applied to DNA which were once called junk simply because their function wasn't evident at that time.

And yet non coding DNA has a mutation rate consistent with being completely random to development.

You should check that ENCODE groups overly generous definition of "functional" before promoting it.

It wasn't viewed as a vestigial tail prior to Darwin. It was viewed as normal human anatomy having absolutely NOTHING to do with a simian tail. In fact, anyone suggesting such a thing would have been ridiculed since the Coccyx provided absolutely no anatomical indication of being a tail or even a vestigial one. So this is merely a case of attempting to fit the patient into the bed. Easy to do. Just come up with an idea and then interpret everything in such a way so that it conveniently appears to fit the preconceived idea and voila!

The evidence doesn't go away because some people pre Darwin didn't see it and didn't have a reason to investigate it.

 

[Radrook]

And yet non coding DNA has a mutation rate consistent with being completely random to development.You should check that ENCODE groups overly generous Devin definition of "functional" before promoting it.

Atheist Evolutionists interpret many things in an evolutionary way in which scientists who are not evolutionists don't. So I would need to check and see their alternative explanation for the phenomenon you mention. In any case, are you claiming that the Coccyx is still partly functional as a tail?

The evidence doesn't go away because some people pre Darwin didn't see it and didn't have a reason to investigate it.

Oh they were knowledgeable enough to know the vast difference between an atrophied animal tail or even a remnant of one in human anatomy if such had been evident. They didn't perceive any similarity because no similarity exists. Neither do the investigation and findings warrant a conclusion that the coccyx is a remnant of a once fully-functional tail.

BTW
You are absolutely right, evidence doesn't go away simply via a denial that it doesn't exist. Yet that is exactly what is being done whenever evidence of a creator is encountered.

Another thing to keep in mind is that biologists are examining a human organism that is degraded from its original form. According to the scriptures all things were affected by that Edenic event and are not presently existing in their former glory.

The idea that all organisms should be perfectly designed (argument from natural evil) is one commonly used against the idea of creation. However, while this might be true for a pre-fall creation, it is not true for a post-fall creation. There is indeed degradation that has occurred from the fall.

Some sections of DNA are corrupted copies of functional coding DNA, but mutations in them, such as stop codons early in the sequence, show that they cannot have retained the same function as the coding copy.

The idea that they are corrupted is an assumption. They are obviously not the same, but the reasons why are not necessarily known. These could at one point have been active, but been deactivated by a control mechanism. They could also be used to verify the integrity of the original. The fact that biologists have not found a use for these does not mean that they are non-functional. Our knowledge of biochemistry, while great, is still in its infancy.

http://creationwiki.org/"Junk"_DNA_is_not_really_junk_(Talk.Origins)

Relevant Scriptures:

ASV
Romans 8:22
For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Romans 8:20
NIV
For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope

 

[SkyWriting]

And yet non coding DNA has a mutation rate consistent with being completely random to development.

That doesn't explain why there are so many repair DNA genes.
Nobody seems to have explained that.

 

[Shemjaza]

Atheist Evolutionists interpret many things in
an evolutionary way in which scientists who are not evolutionists don't. So I would need to
check and see their alternative explanation for the phenomenon you mention. In any case, are
you claiming that the Coccyx is still partly functional as a tail?

No it is derivewd from a tail. Evolution works on existing structures and they can become vital in a different way.

The muscles and ligiments in the coccyx make no sense as a part of its rigid structure, but are perfectly logical as a tail. Why do you keep ignoreing this?

Evolution is conclusion from evidence, not the rejection of it like creationism.

Also, would you stop trying to poison the well by bringing up atheism. Christian evolutionists vastly outnumber all atheists.

Oh they were knowledgeable enough to know the vast difference between an atrophied animal tail
or even a remnant of one in human anatomy if such had been evident. They didn't perceive any
similarity because no similarity exists. Neither do the investigation and findings warrant a
conclusion that the coccyx is a remnant of a once fully-functional tail.

It's the end of the spine with the reminants of muscles for moving... how is it not similar to a tail?

Scientists centuries ago with very limited knowedge of biology didn't these things... there's no shame. But once the evidence for evolution was presented then the scientific opinions were updated.

BTW
You are absolutely right, evidence doesn't go away simply via a denial that it doesn't exist.
Yet that is exactly what is being done whenever evidence of a creator is encountered.

Another thing to keep in mind is that biologists are examining a human organism that is
degraded from its original form. According to the scriptures all things were affected by
that Edenic event and are not presently existing in their former glory.

Yet you have no evidence for this degradation. Ancient human remains are not more perfect. And you have presented no mechanism that stops natural selection from improving on a genome.

Relevant Scriptures:
ASV
Romans 8:22
For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Romans 8:20
NIV
For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope

Before I accept the bible as evidence, I would need to see evidence of both its reliability and a reason to accept your fringe interpretaion of those passegages as being about genetic degradation.

That doesn't explain why there are so many repair DNA genes.
Nobody seems to have explained that.

DNA repair is probably the ultimate in a trait likely to be passed on to succeeding generations. What is its relevance?

 

[SkyWriting]

DNA repair is probably the ultimate in a trait likely to be passed on to succeeding generations. What is its relevance?

That doesn't explain why there are so many repair DNA genes.
Nobody seems to have explained that.

 

[Shemjaza]

That doesn't explain why there are so many repair DNA genes.
Nobody seems to have explained that.

I don't have a good explanation, but I don't see how this thing that's mysterious to a pair of amateurs like you and me is relevant to evolution in general or the coccyx in particular.

 

[Jimmy D]

Atheist Evolutionists interpret many things in an evolutionary way in which scientists who are not evolutionists don't.

Like what? I doubt that you can find many biologists or paleontologists that don't accept evolution, regardless of their religion (with the exception of the one or two who work for the main creationist propaganda websites of course). Why is that?

Why aren't all these scientists you speak of publishing papers, doing research etc?

 

[Radrook]

Like what? I doubt that you can find many biologists or paleontologists that don't accept evolution, regardless of their religion (with the exception of the one or two who work for the main creationist propaganda websites of course). Why is that?

Why aren't all these scientists you speak of publishing papers, doing research etc?

1. I never claimed that biologists who accept atheistic evolution are in the minority.

2. Like interpreting the human prenatal development as evidence of animal ancestry as Haeckle did.

3. Appeal to authority is irrelevant.

4. Why is that?

Publishing papers to be evaluated by atheist evolutionists is illogical and a waste of time.

Research?
It isn't the volume of research that is important. It is whether the conclusions derived from that research are warranted or not.

 

[Jimmy D]

1. I never claimed that biologists who accept atheistic evolution are in the minority.

2. Like interpreting the human prenatal development as evidence of animal ancestry as Haeckle did.

3. Appeal to authority is irrelevant.

4. Why is that?

Publishing papers to be evaluated by atheist evolutionists is illogical and a waste of time.

Research?
It isn't the volume of research that is important. It is whether the conclusions derived from that research are warranted or not.

1. I didn't say you did, I asked who all these biologists who don't accept evolution are.

2. I'm not that familiar with Haeckel although I've heard him mentioned on these forums. I take it he was found to be in error?

3. I posted this last time I was wrongly accused of an 'appeal to Authority':


From rationalwiki describing the argument from authority:

A logically valid appeal to authority is based around the following syllogism:

P1: Experts on a subject are usually correct.
P2: Experts on the subject have a consensus that P is correct.
C1: P is probably correct.

In its fallacious form, it could read:

• Premise 1 - People with qualifications are usually correct.
• Premise 2 - Those people say P is correct.
• Conclusion - Therefore P is definitely correct.

This fallacious form fails to take into account the area of expertise, as well as the possibility that those people could be wrong. Experts can be (frequently) wrong but are often in the position to update their views more readily and with better research on their side.

The following form demonstrates a further non-fallacious use of the argument from authority, focusing on why experts might assert something:

• Premise 1 - P is correct.
• Premise 2 - Experts will study P.
• Conclusion - Experts will say P is correct.

"the most basic of "good" arguments appealing to authority are those pertaining to research. When collected data has been organized into a paper by qualified researchers some trust is required in taking either the conclusion or basic data results and organizing them into a coherent argument, even if you dispute their interpretation of the data or methodology. Not everybody has a fully-equipped lab, often very expensive supplies, monitoring equipment, enslaved graduate students and imagination for creating methodology to prove a hypothesis. To a certain degree, trust has to be put in the "authority" and good faith of said researchers, their equipment, their supplies, their staff, their Journal editors, their peer reviewers, and if some problem persists (which it occasionally does), their email server. Those who reject every step of this line of appeal to authority usually end up looking like total idiots. "

4. What research?

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't have a good explanation, but I don't see how this thing that's mysterious to a pair of amateurs like you and me is relevant to evolution in general or the coccyx in particular.

You don't know my background, but it only takes 10,000 hours of study to
become a world class expert on any topic.

Because DNA repair genes run in direct opposition to evolutionary theory.
They repair and control random variations. I agree that nobody has
paid them much attention in biology and evolutionary theory.

Epigenetic changes of DNA repair genes in cancer