Vestigial structures and natural selection

[iam4him]

a common argument against creation is the presence of vestigial structeres in organisms today. if the definition of a vestigial organ is a rudementary non-functional structure that is "left over" from evolutionary ancestors then it is possible to prove a structure is not vestigial by proving it has a purpose. i read that the pelvises in whales are actually bones used to anchor muscles used in reproduction. anyone else heard of this? does anyone know of a use for the pelvises/leg bones in snakes? what do you think of the thought that perhaps at one point man had a functional appendix as he ate only plants in the time before the flood. perhaps due to enviromental changes af ter the flood and adaptions over the years structures that are almost or entirely non-functional were not several thousand years ago. for example in an isloated populations adaptions occur much faster than the millions of years supported by evolution simply by the process of natural selection. like the HIV virus is present in many drug resistant forms that it wasn't at first. i am not not suggesting that brand new animals evolved! but rather that some species we see today such as the many species of finches on the galapagos islands are present due to natural selection and were originally one species. (they differ only in beak adaptations) what about the fossils paleontologists have found such as primitive looking horses that do not exist today? were they just species that became extinct but necessarily creatures that evolved into today's horses? how large of an adaptation can occur in the aproximate 6000 years of our earth's history? one view on fossil layers i heard was that they were created during the flood. the violent bursting of water from the fault lines killed millions of creatures along with the earthquakes this would have caused, under water volcanic eruptions etc. then the water compressed the fossils into the layers we see today. any comments are welcome. i apologize for any spelling errors and improper grammar i am a science major not an english major
thanks

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

how large of an adaptation can occur in the aproximate 6000 years of our earth's history

view on fossil layers i heard was that they were created during the flood. the violent bursting of water from the fault lines killed millions of creatures along with the earthquakes this would have caused, under water volcanic eruptions etc. then the water compressed the fossils into the layers we see today.

I am truly frightened at what institution you are a 'science major' at.

Where is this?

PS

You might try using paragraphs - it is rather hard to read a dense chunk of text as you posted.

 

[iam4him]

why are you frightened as to what institute i attend? i don't understand

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Because you claim to be a science major but the '6000 years' quote and the 'water compression flood' nonsense isn't very scientific. I wondered is this the teachings at your institution or your own musings.

 

[iam4him]

the 6000 years is a commonly believed age of the earth amongst christians. the water compression flood nonsense as you call was a very brief summary of a theory proposed by creationist kent hoven. he mentioned a canyone carved by the breaking of a dam that took hours. it should according to how long the evolutionist say it took to create similar canyons, millions of years. he point out that the amount of water present at the time of the flood could have compressed fossils to the point of making them into fossil fuels. but what do i know? i am not an expert. i have a lot of research to do. i am just a christian freshman at a secular university trying to make sense of the creation vs evolution argument.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

No - the 6000 year thing is a view primarily held by fundamentalist Christians mainly in the United States. The 3 largest Christian denominations, accounting for some 85%+ of Christianity, do not hold this belief.

If you start quoting Kent Hovind then I am afraid you are perpetuating the dogma of a known liar and fool. You may not be an expert but he is no expert either.

 

[iam4him]

ok, i'll find some other sources to quote. it might take me awhile as i enrolled in 5 classes right now and have very little free time. Captain Jack, i read your physics explanation of the moon being too close to the earth theory. you seem well educated. rather than pick out mistakes (no insult intended) in my limited understanding would you respond to the other subjects i mentioned such as vestigial structures and time required for adaptions to take place. i wish to learn other view points. christians should not accept merely on blind faith but rather be able to back up what they believe. one of the best ways to do this is to be well educated in other viewpoints. that is my goal.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Everyone should check out the material on both sides. We also should keep our bs filters on at all times whilst perusing the material.

Bed time for me.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

a common argument against creation is the presence of vestigial structeres in organisms today.

Not at all. It is evidence that the creative method was common descent. Science does not address the doctrine of creation at all; it does falsify particular models of creation, such as the six literal day, however.

if the definition of a vestigial organ is a rudementary non-functional structure that is "left over" from evolutionary ancestors then it is possible to prove a structure is not vestigial by proving it has a purpose. i read that the pelvises in whales are actually bones used to anchor muscles used in reproduction. anyone else heard of this? does anyone know of a use for the pelvises/leg bones in snakes?

Your definition of vestigial is off. The point is not that it is non-functional, but that it has a completely different function in the extant species. Some vestigial structures have no function, but many do. The spurs that are vestigial legs in pythons are used also in sex, if I recall correctly.

what do you think of the thought that perhaps at one point man had a functional appendix as he ate only plants in the time before the flood. perhaps due to enviromental changes af ter the flood and adaptions over the years structures that are almost or entirely non-functional were not several thousand years ago.

Probably more like millions, but you are correct. I'd have to check whether largely vegetarian apes have functional appendices or not.

for example in an isloated populations adaptions occur much faster than the millions of years supported by evolution simply by the process of natural selection. like the HIV virus is present in many drug resistant forms that it wasn't at first.

That's exactly how species originate - Gould and Eldredge's main contribution to the field.

i am not not suggesting that brand new animals evolved! but rather that some species we see today such as the many species of finches on the galapagos islands are present due to natural selection and were originally one species. (they differ only in beak adaptations)

No-one would disagree with that.

what about the fossils paleontologists have found such as primitive looking horses that do not exist today? were they just species that became extinct but necessarily creatures that evolved into today's horses?

Both. Is Latin extinct or did it evolve into Italian, Spanish, French etc.?

how large of an adaptation can occur in the aproximate 6000 years of our earth's history?

According to the creationist model, you've got less time than that. You've got about 1000 years, from the approximate date of Noah's flood to the time of the ancient Egyptians, who seem to have come across exactly the same fauna as we see today. Lions were already lions, cheetahs were cheetahs, jackals were jackals, and moggies were moggies. The answer to "how much change?" is "to all intents and purposes, as far as macrofauna is concerned, bugger all".

one view on fossil layers i heard was that they were created during the flood. the violent bursting of water from the fault lines killed millions of creatures along with the earthquakes this would have caused, under water volcanic eruptions etc. then the water compressed the fossils into the layers we see today. any comments are welcome. i apologize for any spelling errors and improper grammar i am a science major not an english major
thanks

It doesn't work. This model doesn't explain the following:

Fossilised burrows
Desert Palaeosols
Distribution of grasses in the fossil record
Distribution of flowering plants in the fossil record
Distribution of aquatic mammals in the fossil record

and dozens of others. The conventional model explains it perfectly. By the way, if your English is bad you won't pass science either. At least manage capital letters.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

If you start quoting Kent Hovind then I am afraid you are perpetuating the dogma of a known liar and fool. You may not be an expert but he is no expert either.

Matt 5:22 But I say to you, anyone who is angry with his brother without a cause will be subject to punishment. And whoever says to his brother 'Raka!' will be subject to the Council. And whoever says 'You fool!' will be subject to hell fire.

But I suppose that verse wasn't intended to be taken literally, huh?

By the way, Kent Hovind may not be a scientist and you may ridicule him and call him names but he actively seeks the lost, demonstrates Christian love and believes in leading others to Christ. Wait, let me guess, "the great comission" is just a false interpretation of scripture by fundamentalists wasn't meant to be taken literally either.

I've learned a lot in this forum and for that I thank you guys but it is just sad the lack of love and even outright hostility that is heaped on others here. This very un-Christ-like behaviour is inexcusable. Guess I'll head back to the Congregation boards where at least people demonstrate the quality that Christ said we would be known by.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You'll have to excuse us. We take your point, but Kent Hovind is a type. I'm not sure we rail at him so much, as what he has come to represent in our minds - scientific ignorance (not because he's a creationist, but because he really is scientifically illiterate) parading as piety, dishonesty being pressed into the service of the gospel, and, thereby, Christ's name being dragged through the mud. That is, I think you'll agree, worth getting angry over.

The problem is that the man, whatever good qualities he may express, is a liar. It's not for me to judge, but the world does, and it does the same way Jesus described - by their fruits shall ye know them.

Two serious charges therefore I lay at Kent Hovind - (1) that he lies for Christ (which is like [bugger bugger I can't say this on here]ing for virginity), and secondly, that he associates Christianity with a scientific model many people know cannot be true and therefore unnecessarily makes the claims of the faith unentertainable.

 

[iam4him]

It doesn't work. This model doesn't explain the following:

Fossilised burrows
Desert Palaeosols
Distribution of grasses in the fossil record
Distribution of flowering plants in the fossil record
Distribution of aquatic mammals in the fossil record

how does it not? please explain further.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

It doesn't work. This model doesn't explain the following:

Fossilised burrows

You've got a burrow in soil. Flood comes along, and mysteriously leaves it undisturbed. I've seen what happens when soil gets waterlogged - it becomes very soft. The layers allegedly put on top of it by the same flood would squash the burrow out of existence.

Desert Palaeosols

Formation of dunes by wind creates very specific patterns. These are preserved in some sandstones. How did the flood bury these with the wind patterns intact? Why didn't it mix up the sand grains as the water filled up the gaps between the grains? Ever been on the beach - how long does a sandcastle last?

Distribution of grasses in the fossil record

Grass can't run away from flood waters. And yet it's only ever found in the very topmost layers - those we date as 20 million years old or less. Surely it should be at the bottom? Whenever we get floods in York, the grass verges are underneath the crud the flood deposits on top of them, oddly enough.

Distribution of flowering plants in the fossil record

Like the grasses, except they go back about 100 million years. Never any lower though. The excuse given by creationists for animals showing this pattern is that the higher animals could run faster. How do oak trees outrun cycads?

Distribution of aquatic mammals in the fossil record

Again. There's not much difference in lifestyle between a dolphin and an ichthyosaur. And yet Cetacean remains are always found in the topmost layers, ichthyosaur in lower layers. Why is this?

how does it not? please explain further.

Done me best .

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Matt 5:22 But I say to you, anyone who is angry with his brother without a cause will be subject to punishment. And whoever says to his brother 'Raka!' will be subject to the Council. And whoever says 'You fool!' will be subject to hell fire.

But I suppose that verse wasn't intended to be taken literally, huh?

By the way, Kent Hovind may not be a scientist and you may ridicule him and call him names but he actively seeks the lost, demonstrates Christian love and believes in leading others to Christ. Wait, let me guess, "the great comission" is just a false interpretation of scripture by fundamentalists wasn't meant to be taken literally either.

I've learned a lot in this forum and for that I thank you guys but it is just sad the lack of love and even outright hostility that is heaped on others here. This very un-Christ-like behaviour is inexcusable. Guess I'll head back to the Congregation boards where at least people demonstrate the quality that Christ said we would be known by.

Oh and the behaviour of Creationists like Hovind and Gish several others who repeatedly say or imply evolution=atheism is to be applauded.

Kent "I don't pay my taxes, I pretend I have a real PhD, I invented a cure for cancer" Hovind.

Oh he is a fine upstanding Christian - how much a year is he making of his "ministry" - ripping of the clueless fundies - laughing all the way to the bank.

His idea of Christian Love is to tell a few lies for Christ and pad his own pocket with fundamentalist money.