The Coccyx

[Radrook]

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?

I agree, not all appeal to authority is fallacious reasoning. There is a legitimate use in citing expert opinion in order to give credence to claims. That's why experts are brought into courtrooms in order for the judge and jury to determine truth. However, such sources of expertise, if biased via having an agenda, should be considered untrustworthy. If a trial is about the effects that smoking has on our health then habitual smokers or employees of the tobacco industries would be considered very poor choices to try to sway the judge and jury because of conflict of interest. The same holds true in discussions or debates concerning atheistic evolution vs Creationism.

For example, whenever a list of creationist scientists is provided, atheists immediately say that these are biased because they are creationists. Obviously, if your sources are atheistic evolutionist scientists, then they will support atheistic evolution. So the provision of scientific sources which can easily be accused of bias in this case will really get us nowhere.


BTW

My belief in an ID is in no way dependent on any book nor the discoveries of any scientists be they atheist or creationist. So the existence of scientists who might support my views or oppose my views are both totally irrelevant to my belief in an ID.

 

[Jimmy D]

Thanks Radbrook, I'm not in full agreement with you (obviously) but I appreciate the point you are making.

 

[Radrook]

Thanks Radbrook, I'm not in full agreement with you (obviously) but I appreciate the point you are making.

Thanks. God bless!

 

[Loudmouth]

No! I have ignored nothing….primary, basic, elementary,…taking this word to mean “undeveloped” still does not automatically mean degenerate or atrophied or NOW LESS THAN SOMETHING IT WAS….in fact it COULD INDICATE something this function will become at some future time….

A feature can have rudimentary function and still be vestigial. Do you agree or disagree?

The extensor coccygis muscle in humans may indicate at one time this fused section of vertebrae was once flexible (but certainly not longer) and is slight because it is not used but that does not mean it is indicative of a tail having been there just flexibility.

It is just a coincidence that other mammals with tails happen to have the very same muscle, and that this muscle moves the tail about?

You say “What is also interesting, and something creationists always ignore, is that vestigial organs are consistent with the evolutionary history of a lineage.”

Well I certainly have not ignored the claim, I just do not buy it because after thirty years of insisting on it as a fact, I realized there are too many good questions and other ways of explaining these things (as you can see in my OP even many scientists that are not creationists see the subject as controversial)…it is only insisted upon as OBVIOUS if one accepts the hypothesis, and only explained in this way if one first concludes in their mind (as I did) that the hypothesis is true (which I no longer do).

Then show me one example of a vestigial feature that is inconsistent with the proposed evolutionary history of a lineage. If you do not buy it, then show me counterexamples.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

There is nothing to refute. Vestigial features can have rudimentary function.

 

[Loudmouth]

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."

Vestigial features can have rudimentary function and still be vestigial.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Mammals with tails have the same bones, and they form the base for the tail and an anchor for the muscles that move the tail.

 

[Radrook]

Mammals with tails have the same bones, and they form the base for the tail and an anchor for the muscles that move the tail.

But they do not form the base for a tail in humans. Besides, physical similarity does not imply ancestry unless one assumes ancestry as a given. An alternate explanation for similarities is that the creator made us similar because we must deal with the same physical forces. If he had made us aquatic, then we would probably resemble some of the aquatic creatures. He might have chosen to provide us with gills and those cool, protective, goggle-like coverings over the eyes which fish have.

 

[Loudmouth]

But they do not form the base for a tail in humans.

That's what makes the human coccyx vestigial.

Besides, physical similarity does not imply ancestry unless one assumes ancestry as a given.

A nested hierarchy does imply ancestry, and vestigial features fall into a nested hierarchy.

An alternate explanation for similarities is that the creator made us similar because we must deal with the same physical forces.

That doesn't explain the nested hierarchy. Mammals and birds supposedly have the same creator, so why don't we see mammals with vestigial feathers, or birds with vestigial mammary glands?

If he had made us aquatic, then we would probably resemble some of the aquatic creatures.

We already resemble aquatic mammals, so your claims are disproven.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I agree, not all appeal to authority is fallacious reasoning. There is a legitimate use in citing expert opinion in order to give credence to claims. That's why experts are brought into courtrooms in order for the judge and jury to determine truth. However, such sources of expertise, if biased via having an agenda, should be considered untrustworthy. If a trial is about the effects that smoking has on our health then habitual smokers or employees of the tobacco industries would be considered very poor choices to try to sway the judge and jury because of conflict of interest. The same holds true in discussions or debates concerning atheistic evolution vs Creationism.

For example, whenever a list of creationist scientists is provided, atheists immediately say that these are biased because they are creationists. Obviously, if your sources are atheistic evolutionist scientists, then they will support atheistic evolution. So the provision of scientific sources which can easily be accused of bias in this case will really get us nowhere.


BTW

My belief in an ID is in no way dependent on any book nor the discoveries of any scientists be they atheist or creationist. So the existence of scientists who might support my views or oppose my views are both totally irrelevant to my belief in an ID.

The thing is, though, the majority of evolution supporters worldwide are theists. All science doesn't address deities because they aren't measurable, not because it is assumed that they don't exist. Furthermore, there are plenty of people that interpret evolution as being god guided and reconcile with it.

fun fact to go along with that: the majority of creationists worldwide are Hindu.

 

[Radrook]

That's what makes the human coccyx vestigial.

As pointed out before by a very qualified scientist, there is nothing about the coccyx that indicates that it is vestigial. That is an interpretation based on the assumption that we evolved and nothing more. If indeed it were so obvious as you claim then there would be no scientist willing to take an opposite view. Yet there are scientists who do take an opposite view as already pointed out.

A nested hierarchy does imply ancestry, and vestigial features fall into a nested hierarchy.


That doesn't explain the nested hierarchy. Mammals and birds supposedly have the same creator, so why don't we see mammals with vestigial feathers, or birds with vestigial mammary glands?

We resemble other mammals because that’s the category in which the creator chose to place us in. Birds don’t have vestigial mammary glands because they were never mammals to begin with.
Mammals don’t have vestigial feathers because mammals were never avians. One would expect a person who believes in evolution to know those basic facts.

We already resemble aquatic mammals, so your claims are disproven.

Not to the degree that would be the case were we aquatic ourselves-obviously.
We also resemble birds, lizards, and to some degree insects and even plants since we are composed of cells. That doesn’t prove anything in terms of relation. It can be explained by proposing an identical creator who chose to make things that way.

BTW

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution :

Nested hierarchies

Common ancestry is conspicuous.

Well, it isn’t conspicuous to those who don’t immediately assume relationship based on similarities.

Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather like nested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below.

In other words they observed similarities and concluded relationship in order to fit it in with their evolutionist idea.

In this phylogeny, snakes and lizards share a large number of traits as they are more closely related to one another than to the other animals represented. The same can be said of crocodiles and birds, whales and camels, and humans and chimpanzees. However, at a more inclusive level, snakes, lizards, birds, crocodiles, whales, camels, chimpanzees and humans all share some common traits.

Again the sharing of traits means NOTHING except the choice of a creator to make them similar.

Humans and chimpanzees are united by many shared inherited traits (such as 98.7% of their DNA). But at a more inclusive level of life's hierarchy, we share a smaller set of inherited traits in common with all primates. More inclusive still, we share traits in common with other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals. At the most inclusive level, we sit alongside sponges, petunias, diatoms and bacteria in a very large "box" entitled: living organisms.

Once again the same assumption of ancestral relationship or unity based on commonality or similarity. This nesting is simply a reference to seeing similarities and nothing more. Such so-called nesting is easily explainable via a creator who chose to organize his creation into categories such as mollusks, echinoderms, arthropods, arachnids, insects, reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals, fish, etcetera.

BTW
I am not saying that animals don’t change and diversify.
They obviously can diversify.
However, that diversification has its boundaries.

Nested Hierarchies
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_16

 

[Radrook]

The thing is, though, the majority of evolution supporters worldwide are theists. All science doesn't address deities because they aren't measurable, not because it is assumed that they don't exist. Furthermore, there are plenty of people that interpret evolution as being god guided and reconcile with it.

fun fact to go along with that: the majority of creationists worldwide are Hindu.

Theist support for theistic evolution doesn't really have any bearing whatsoever on its plausibility.

I never claimed that it is impossible for theists, or deists to be evolutionists.

BTW
Things don't have to be DIRECTLY measurable in order for us to justifiably infer their existence. So your premise is flawed.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I am not talking about theistic evolution.
Neither does theist support for theistic evolution have any bearing whatsoever on whether it plausible or not.
I never claimed that it is impossible for theists, or deists to also be evolutionists.

BTW
Things don't have to be DIRECTLY measurable in order for us to justifiably infer their existence. So your premise is flawed.

Yeah, but deities aren't indirectly measurable either. Nothing about the universe, life, etc. signifies deity at work on an objective level.

 

[Radrook]

Yeah, but deities aren't indirectly measurable either. Nothing about the universe, life, etc. signifies deity at work on an objective level.

I never claimed that deities are directly mensurable please read again.
Things need not be directly detected in order to be inferred. They can be inferred by the effects they have on what we can directly observe. That includes a creator.

BTW
I don't believe in deities.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I never claimed that deities are directly mensurable please read again.
Things need not be directly detected in order to be inferred. They can be inferred by the effects they have on what we can directly observe. That includes a creator.

BTW
I don't believe in deities.

-_- you labeled yourself the incorrect "faith" then; non-denominational applies to theism. Atheism doesn't have denominations (unless you count gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists as somehow different enough to warrant them being separate denominations).

Also, I read it correctly the first time; nothing about the world around us objectively needs or has qualities of being interfered with by a deity. That would be indirect measurement.

 

[Radrook]

-_- you labeled yourself the incorrect "faith" then; non-denominational applies to theism. Atheism doesn't have denominations (unless you count gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists as somehow different enough to warrant them being separate denominations).

Also, I read it correctly the first time; nothing about the world around us objectively needs or has qualities of being interfered with by a deity. That would be indirect measurement.

I don't believe in pantheons of gods. I believe in a creator who is referred to as God.

You see absolutely nothing that justifies the inference of a creator? Einstein did and many other noteworthy scientists did and still do. So your inability proves nothing except your incapacity to see.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't believe in pantheons of gods. I believe in a creator who is referred to as God.

-_- if the distinction was a matter of the plural, there were better ways of saying that. When a person says "I don't believe in deities" and leaves it at that, the implication is that they are an atheist, because most theists wouldn't say that statement, and the few that do usually immediately explain how they only believe in 1 deity in the same post. Btw, calling a god "God" is like calling a human "Human", the Christian God has a few names.

 

[Radrook]

-_- if the distinction was a matter of the plural, there were better ways of saying that. When a person says "I don't believe in deities" and leaves it at that, the implication is that they are an atheist, because most theists wouldn't say that statement, and the few that do usually immediately explain how they only believe in 1 deity in the same post. Btw, calling a god "God" is like calling a human "Human", the Christian God has a few names.

Sorry if I in any way misled.
I refer to God as God in order to distinguish him from the other supposedly existing deities who are also considered gods such as the Devil. We can use the word "human" and there is no confusion since there aren't any others claiming that title.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sorry if I in any way misled.
I refer to God as God in order to distinguish him from the other supposedly existing deities who are also considered gods such as the Devil. We can use the word "human" and there is no confusion since there aren't any others claiming that title.

This is the first time I have ever heard someone call the devil a deity. Also, unless deities share a name, it is more distinctive to call them by that name than to just call them God. In fact, you can tell a lot just by which name for the Abramic God a person chooses.

 

[Loudmouth]

As pointed out before by a very qualified scientist, there is nothing about the coccyx that indicates that it is vestigial.

The lack of a tail indicates that it is vestigial.

That is an interpretation based on the assumption that we evolved and nothing more.

We CONCLUDE that we share a common ancestor with other mammals that have a tail because of the evidence. It isn't assumed.

If indeed it were so obvious as you claim then there would be no scientist willing to take an opposite view. Yet there are scientists who do take an opposite view as already pointed out.

Ridiculous. I can find scientists who ascribe to Geocentrism because of their religious beliefs. All you are doing is pointing to the danger of religious belief. It makes you reject solidly supported scientific conclusions.

We resemble other mammals because that’s the category in which the creator chose to place us in.

Why can't there be a category where animals have a mixture of bird and mammal features?

Birds don’t have vestigial mammary glands because they were never mammals to begin with.

And now you are using common ancestry to explain shared features. Nice job.

Not to the degree that would be the case were we aquatic ourselves-obviously.
We also resemble birds, lizards, and to some degree insects and even plants since we are composed of cells. That doesn’t prove anything in terms of relation. It can be explained by proposing an identical creator who chose to make things that way.

Dolphins have more in common with humans, and even bats, than they do with fish. How do you explain that? For example, if you compare a dolphin fin to a human arm and a bony fish fin, the dolphin fin more closely resembles the human arm than it does the fish fin. How do you explain that? Why couldn't the common creator of mammals and bony fish create a species that has a mixture of bony fish and mammal features?

Well, it isn’t conspicuous to those who don’t immediately assume relationship based on similarities.

The nested hierarchy was first recognized by a creationist called Linnaeus, nearly a century before Darwin. He didn't assume common ancestry, and he was able to see the nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy is a fact, and as Darwin demonstrated, it is massive evidence for evolution and common ancestry.

Even you can't explain why a creator would not create species that violate a nested hierarchy.

Once again the same assumption of ancestral relationship or unity based on commonality or similarity.

Once again, YOU IGNORE EVERYTHING WE WRITE.

COMMON ANCESTRY IS A CONCLUSION. THAT CONCLUSION IS BASED ON THE TWIN NESTED HIERARCHIES OF DNA AND MORPHOLOGY.

IT ISN'T AN ASSUMPTION.

Do you understand the difference between a conclusion and an assumption?