PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
It might be in part because some of his drawings were weirdly close to being right, and at the time, getting images of actual fetuses into textbooks was problematic.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It might be in part because some of his drawings were weirdly close to being right, and at the time, getting images of actual fetuses into textbooks was problematic.There is the crux! Despite the fact that his drawings were declared bogus by other evolutionists they were not discarded but were still used in textbooks as evidence. The attitude is totally unscientific. That is all I said. Thanks for the reference. Sounds like an interesting video. Will look it up on youtube
I have repeatedly explained that was not the feature of the article I was referring to and that it was in response to one of my previous statements which had nothing to do with the issue you are referring to.
Tghat is not what the following article indicates:
The article on nested hierarchies clearly mentions
1. shared traits
2. shared common traits
3. shared inherited traits
4. share traits in common
To non evolutionary creationists it merely indicates a creator who decided to make them immediately similar.
Please note that there is nothing in similarity that demands we conclude common ancestor among all living things unless we first assume a gradual evolution from unicellular to multicellular plant and animal life.
However, if we assume a creator who created animals without having resorted to the evolutionary roundabout process, then that seemingly inevitable conclusion doesn’t seem inevitable at all.
I never claimed that the area which turns into gills in fish turn into horns, hooves, mammaries, snouts, trunks or anything of that kind. That is your interpretation.
That photograph isn't of normal prenatal development, It is a photo of a six yer-old girl with an anomaly.
So according to you it was given an evolutionary interpretation before the evolution theory was invented by Darwin?
Not at all, I just don't find it as compelling as you do.
Doctor David Menton disagrees:
BTW
Surgical removal of your coccyx would make normal movement for humans extremely difficult. Removal of a mere tail has no such effect.
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.
2. Like interpreting the human prenatal development as evidence of animal ancestry as Haeckle did.
Publishing papers to be evaluated by atheist evolutionists is illogical and a waste of time.
But they do not form the base for a tail in humans.
In all of your amazing creationist-friendly "research"...
You never came across the Extensor Coccygis?
"The Extensor coccygis is a slender muscular fasciculus, which is not always present; it extends over the lower part of the posterior surface of the sacrum and coccyx. It arises by tendinous fibers from the last segment of the sacrum, or first piece of the coccyx, and passes downward to be inserted into the lower part of the coccyx. It is a rudiment of the Extensor muscle of the caudal vertebræ of the lower animals."
The EXACT thing you claim to have been looking for???
What an amazing coincidence....
Um - what was that dodgery supposed to mean?
Was that really intended to respond/rebut the fact that I presented a direct refutation of you claim?
Here is what you wrote:
"If these phenomena were truly vestigial in nature we should expect to see at least some vestige of vertebrae or controllable movement but alas we do not. "
Does not the presence of a muscle indicate "controllable movement"?
What do you suppose that muscle would have done? And why do tailed mammals have a more developed one?
Or are you just re-defining your way out of an obvious refutation of your desperate anatomically-uninformed rant?
And what an amazing coincidence that despite your 'research' using Gray's, you just, darn it, missed this one...
Please explain.
As an anatomist, I would like to hear what you have to say.
What support does the coccyx need, exactly?
I am an anatomist by education and training (as well as a cell biologist). I dissected or observed the dissections of literally hundreds of human cadavers, and have also dissected all manner of vertebrate.
So I will be able to tell if your explanation has merit.
Then you should have actually written that.
Your actual "challenge" was met, and now you are making excuses.
Regarding the coccyx, I have heard all manner of desperate, anatomically idiotic, farcical and fanciful "functions" that are meant to make it not vestigial, but they all fall short of being rational.
It is where a ganglion is located. it is the 'anchor' for the nervous system. We need it to sit/stand/walk/run. It really hurts if you break it, so it MUST be necessary and thus not a vestige, Etc. Etc. etc.
All bogus.
The extensor coccygis has that name for a reason - due to its origin and insertion, when it contracts, it can ONLY do one thing - extend the coccyx.
You can NOT extend your coccyx volitionally because of the fact that it is embedded in fascia and ligaments and tendons and the E.C. generates such little tension that it cannot possibly overcome all of that resistance. The coccyx CAN extend passively, as in childbirth, but try as you might, you cannot extend it using the E.C.
And of course - not everyone even has one.
Must not be so crucial afterall...
.
Hey pshun - just wanted to remind you about these parts of the post that you deigned not to respond to before, just by accident I am sure:
Thanks!
My observation, echoing that of NathanM, is that you seem to have entirely missed the point.This is not a "God" argument it is an evidence based observation.
My observation, echoing that of NathanM, is that you seem to have entirely missed the point.
Homo sapiens does not have and never has had a tail. Our immediate homonid ancestors never had tails. Their common ancestor with the other apes never had tails. (Guess what - one of the characteristics of apes is the absence of tails.)
We haven't had tails for a very long time. We haven't had gills for an even longer time. From your perspective , since you like to focus on our current phenotype, humans have never had tails. Humans have never had gills. But then no one has said they did. But we carry the evidence within us that our ancestors did.
Case closed.
Great! Progress.
If there is one vestigial structure, why not others?
Why is it OK to accept that the E.C. is vestigial, but to insist that the coccyx is not?
What about the palmaris longus? What about palmaric brevis? What about the auricularis group?
On the genetic level, the presence of genes in our DNA which, if active, would promote the formation of a tail. That, and the fact that during embryonic development, human embryos develop tails. Later in development, these tail cells are signaled to kill themselves, which is why being born with a tail is very rare in our species. Human embryos also form gill flaps that perish in a similar fashion, never to become actual gills (these structures do become gills in embryos of animals with gills). These embryonic developments have no functional purpose and are not present in us when we are born (except in cases of defect). There is no reason for us to have genes for the formation of a tail or gills if we didn't have ancestors with those traits. In fact, forming the structures is a waste of time and energy.And what exactly is the evidence within us that our long lost imaginary ancestors had tails (or gills for that matter)?
-_- phylogeny is derived from variability in genetics. The palmaris longus muscle may be absent in about 14% of the people on this planet (I happen to not have the muscle in either arm), but in some populations, as many as 26% of the people lack that muscle.I don't know??? I agree with the last two, they could be vestigial (though there is no evidence that once upon a time all people could flex their ears and now some cannot) but the palmaris longus is simply there in most cases and not there in about 10% of the people...its genetics not phylogeny.
On the genetic level, the presence of genes in our DNA which, if active, would promote the formation of a tail. That, and the fact that during embryonic development, human embryos develop tails. Later in development, these tail cells are signaled to kill themselves, which is why being born with a tail is very rare in our species. Human embryos also form gill flaps that perish in a similar fashion, never to become actual gills (these structures do become gills in embryos of animals with gills). These embryonic developments have no functional purpose and are not present in us when we are born (except in cases of defect). There is no reason for us to have genes for the formation of a tail or gills if we didn't have ancestors with those traits.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?