Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution and Vestigial Organs

distraff
Posts: 1,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2016 4:50:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If evolution is true, then when an animal is evolving some of its organs some of its organs and parts will become obsolete or useless . Or they might lose their original function. If a bird evolved for the ground it may lose its ability to fly and won't need wings. These organs should be organs that their supposed ancestors have according to evolution. We can determine an animal's supposed ancestors by comparing it to fossils or by comparing its genetics to other animals which have more primitive forms (e.g. humans and ape DNA to confirm humans evolved from apes, or look at ape-like hominid fossils to suggest humans evolved from apes).

For example, according to evolution humans evolved from monkeys and monkeys have tails. If we find vestigial tails in humans then that is would confirm this prediction above. However, if we found vestigial wings that would make no sense since according to evolution humans never evolved from birds.

If evolution can confirm these predictions by showing a lot of examples of vestiges that follow exactly how evolution is predicted to happen from the fossil record and genetics then this is evidence for the theory. Prediction testing is how hypotheses turn into theories. If the hypothesis can make predictions that have no reason to be true if it is false then this is like a psychic making a successful prediction when the psychic had no way of knowing the prediction would come true, and the prediction was not particularly likely.

Lets see if this prediction is true.

First we find vestigial wings in penguins and ostriches which no longer fly and this makes sense since evolution claims that these animals evolved from normal birds.

Another example is whales. We find that many whale have tiny vestigial hips that are no longer connected to the spine. Some of these even have vestigial leg bones. Other whales don't even have them anymore:
http://bergenmuseum.uib.no...
http://facweb.furman.edu...

Funny thing is we also find the same thing in dolphins and are also mammal. Evolution claims that whales evolved from land mammals, specifically from animals like cows from their genetic similarity. Cows have powerful multi-chambered stomachs for eating grass. In fact whales have the same multi-chambered stomachs even though their diet is small sea live and fish don't need it.
https://sites.google.com...

We also find that embryonic baleen whales have small tooth bugs that are removed in later development. Baleen whales are toothless, but their ancestors according to evolution were not.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...

Humans have other vestigial organs. We have a tail bone which is really a small tail. Sometimes this bone can become inflamed and is removed with no negative effect on patients. In fact human embryos have large tails that are reduced to the tail bone during development.
http://www.sw.org...
http://i.ehow.com...

We also have wisdom teeth that result from the fact that the human jaw has gotten smaller and smaller to make more space for the brain from our ape ancestors. Wisdom teeth can cause gum infection (really really bad). They can also degrade or even remove other teeth in the jaw.
https://www.citydentists.co.nz...

Also the male nipple is completely useless as men don't feed babies.

Some snake species even have tiny legs that are no longer used for walking. Given that some snakes do not even have them anymore it is hard to see what their use is exactly. This makes sense since evolution claims that snakes evolved from other reptiles with legs.
http://science.halleyhosting.com...

The funny thing is that the t-rex has two fingers while other predators like it have three, so if evolution is true, then the t-rex lost a finger as its arm became more and more useless. In fact we find the bone of a vestigial third finger in the t-rex.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Come to think of it, its arm is so tiny and has only two fingers and could not pick anything up, or left the t-rex so the whole t-rex arm is likely vestigial as well.
https://upload.wikimedia.org...
http://i.livescience.com...

There are some cave creatures that live in completely dark caves for their entire lives yet they have eyes. Some of them (e.g. Spalax) have eyes are permanently covered with skin so even if they saw light, these eyes would never help them. Others have eyes that simple don't work at all since they live in the dark.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

I don't think this is chance examples of God inserting trash into his intelligent design in exactly the way that evolution would do. These are some out of numerous examples in the animal kingdom.
v3nesl
Posts: 5,269
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2017 7:06:28 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 1/3/2016 4:50:18 AM, distraff wrote:
...


I don't think this is chance examples of God inserting trash into his intelligent design in exactly the way that evolution would do. These are some out of numerous examples in the animal kingdom.

No, but a lot of them are definitely arguments from ignorance. The penguin, for instance, uses his wings in the water, as is quite elegant. I'm surprised this one is still on the list, now that National Geographic has put cameras on penguins and seen how they use their wings.

Nipples on men? That makes perfect sense once you understand DNA. It would be hugely inefficient to have completely different genomes for male and female.

So these alleged oddities have been dropping one by one as science learns more about the species and life in general.
This space for rent.
janesix
Posts: 4,198
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 12:46:00 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 1/3/2016 4:50:18 AM, distraff wrote:
If evolution is true, then when an animal is evolving some of its organs some of its organs and parts will become obsolete or useless . Or they might lose their original function. If a bird evolved for the ground it may lose its ability to fly and won't need wings. These organs should be organs that their supposed ancestors have according to evolution. We can determine an animal's supposed ancestors by comparing it to fossils or by comparing its genetics to other animals which have more primitive forms (e.g. humans and ape DNA to confirm humans evolved from apes, or look at ape-like hominid fossils to suggest humans evolved from apes).

For example, according to evolution humans evolved from monkeys and monkeys have tails. If we find vestigial tails in humans then that is would confirm this prediction above. However, if we found vestigial wings that would make no sense since according to evolution humans never evolved from birds.

If evolution can confirm these predictions by showing a lot of examples of vestiges that follow exactly how evolution is predicted to happen from the fossil record and genetics then this is evidence for the theory. Prediction testing is how hypotheses turn into theories. If the hypothesis can make predictions that have no reason to be true if it is false then this is like a psychic making a successful prediction when the psychic had no way of knowing the prediction would come true, and the prediction was not particularly likely.

Lets see if this prediction is true.

First we find vestigial wings in penguins and ostriches which no longer fly and this makes sense since evolution claims that these animals evolved from normal birds.

Another example is whales. We find that many whale have tiny vestigial hips that are no longer connected to the spine. Some of these even have vestigial leg bones. Other whales don't even have them anymore:
http://bergenmuseum.uib.no...
http://facweb.furman.edu...

Funny thing is we also find the same thing in dolphins and are also mammal. Evolution claims that whales evolved from land mammals, specifically from animals like cows from their genetic similarity. Cows have powerful multi-chambered stomachs for eating grass. In fact whales have the same multi-chambered stomachs even though their diet is small sea live and fish don't need it.
https://sites.google.com...

We also find that embryonic baleen whales have small tooth bugs that are removed in later development. Baleen whales are toothless, but their ancestors according to evolution were not.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...

Humans have other vestigial organs. We have a tail bone which is really a small tail. Sometimes this bone can become inflamed and is removed with no negative effect on patients. In fact human embryos have large tails that are reduced to the tail bone during development.
http://www.sw.org...
http://i.ehow.com...

We also have wisdom teeth that result from the fact that the human jaw has gotten smaller and smaller to make more space for the brain from our ape ancestors. Wisdom teeth can cause gum infection (really really bad). They can also degrade or even remove other teeth in the jaw.
https://www.citydentists.co.nz...

Also the male nipple is completely useless as men don't feed babies.

Some snake species even have tiny legs that are no longer used for walking. Given that some snakes do not even have them anymore it is hard to see what their use is exactly. This makes sense since evolution claims that snakes evolved from other reptiles with legs.
http://science.halleyhosting.com...

The funny thing is that the t-rex has two fingers while other predators like it have three, so if evolution is true, then the t-rex lost a finger as its arm became more and more useless. In fact we find the bone of a vestigial third finger in the t-rex.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Come to think of it, its arm is so tiny and has only two fingers and could not pick anything up, or left the t-rex so the whole t-rex arm is likely vestigial as well.
https://upload.wikimedia.org...
http://i.livescience.com...

There are some cave creatures that live in completely dark caves for their entire lives yet they have eyes. Some of them (e.g. Spalax) have eyes are permanently covered with skin so even if they saw light, these eyes would never help them. Others have eyes that simple don't work at all since they live in the dark.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

I don't think this is chance examples of God inserting trash into his intelligent design in exactly the way that evolution would do. These are some out of numerous examples in the animal kingdom.
Yes God uses evolution to create life forms from archetypes. That's why we see marsupial dogs. Dogs are an archetype from the formative realm.
You are what you do when it counts
...and it always counts

"Your mother still exist and created you, despite her nasty spaghetti" Fatihah
v3nesl
Posts: 5,269
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 2:54:07 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/8/2017 12:46:00 AM, janesix wrote:
...
Yes God uses evolution to create life forms from archetypes.

That's almost an oxymoron. God can use genetics, but you can't "use" evolution. With genetics you can insert latent information into the genome that gets expressed later.

I'd illustrate like this: 2+2+X = 4 is the same as 2+2 = 4. You can just take the X out. So evolution proposes a process that produces new species all by itself. Evolution+God = species is the same as Evolution=species. So it's not quite an oxymoron, it's more 'mere words masquerading as meaning' to say "God used evolution". Theistic evolution is an attempt by [well meaning] religious people to marry a fish and a bird.

Again - the problem with evolution is not that it contradicts religion - the problem is that it contradicts the material world. It's an elaborate belief in black magic, not science.
This space for rent.
Goldtop
Posts: 419
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 3:16:35 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/8/2017 2:54:07 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 12:46:00 AM, janesix wrote:
...
Yes God uses evolution to create life forms from archetypes.

That's almost an oxymoron. God can use genetics, but you can't "use" evolution. With genetics you can insert latent information into the genome that gets expressed later.

I'd illustrate like this: 2+2+X = 4 is the same as 2+2 = 4. You can just take the X out. So evolution proposes a process that produces new species all by itself. Evolution+God = species is the same as Evolution=species. So it's not quite an oxymoron, it's more 'mere words masquerading as meaning' to say "God used evolution". Theistic evolution is an attempt by [well meaning] religious people to marry a fish and a bird.

Again - the problem with evolution is not that it contradicts religion - the problem is that it contradicts the material world. It's an elaborate belief in black magic, not science.

Evolution has nothing to do with your religion, that is a delusion you use to deny and reject science that you have no concept of understanding. It's a childish fear, like the boogeyman under your bed. Juvenile.
v3nesl
Posts: 5,269
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 3:21:31 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/8/2017 3:16:35 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 3/8/2017 2:54:07 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 12:46:00 AM, janesix wrote:
...
Yes God uses evolution to create life forms from archetypes.

That's almost an oxymoron. God can use genetics, but you can't "use" evolution. With genetics you can insert latent information into the genome that gets expressed later.

I'd illustrate like this: 2+2+X = 4 is the same as 2+2 = 4. You can just take the X out. So evolution proposes a process that produces new species all by itself. Evolution+God = species is the same as Evolution=species. So it's not quite an oxymoron, it's more 'mere words masquerading as meaning' to say "God used evolution". Theistic evolution is an attempt by [well meaning] religious people to marry a fish and a bird.

Again - the problem with evolution is not that it contradicts religion - the problem is that it contradicts the material world. It's an elaborate belief in black magic, not science.

Evolution has nothing to do with your religion, that is a delusion you use to deny and reject science that you have no concept of understanding. It's a childish fear, like the boogeyman under your bed. Juvenile.

And I'm just going to keep pointing out: You are unable to make any logical or technical challenge to anything I say. You show no sign that you are even able to understand anything I say.
This space for rent.
Goldtop
Posts: 419
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 3:25:09 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/8/2017 3:21:31 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 3:16:35 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 3/8/2017 2:54:07 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 12:46:00 AM, janesix wrote:
...
Yes God uses evolution to create life forms from archetypes.

That's almost an oxymoron. God can use genetics, but you can't "use" evolution. With genetics you can insert latent information into the genome that gets expressed later.

I'd illustrate like this: 2+2+X = 4 is the same as 2+2 = 4. You can just take the X out. So evolution proposes a process that produces new species all by itself. Evolution+God = species is the same as Evolution=species. So it's not quite an oxymoron, it's more 'mere words masquerading as meaning' to say "God used evolution". Theistic evolution is an attempt by [well meaning] religious people to marry a fish and a bird.

Again - the problem with evolution is not that it contradicts religion - the problem is that it contradicts the material world. It's an elaborate belief in black magic, not science.

Evolution has nothing to do with your religion, that is a delusion you use to deny and reject science that you have no concept of understanding. It's a childish fear, like the boogeyman under your bed. Juvenile.

And I'm just going to keep pointing out: You are unable to make any logical or technical challenge to anything I say. You show no sign that you are even able to understand anything I say.

You deny and reject science because of your religious beliefs, you have been harping this here ad nauseum saying nothing else, what's not to understand? Just do yourself and all of us a favor, grow up and act like an adult.
v3nesl
Posts: 5,269
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 4:32:34 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/8/2017 3:25:09 PM, Goldtop wrote:
...
You deny and reject science because of your religious beliefs, you have been harping this here ad nauseum saying nothing else, what's not to understand? Just do yourself and all of us a favor, grow up and act like an adult.

And I'm just going to keep pointing out: You are unable to make any logical or technical challenge to anything I say. You show no sign that you are even able to understand anything I say.

And if I were to act like an adult, I wouldn't be responding to you now, would I? So you get what you pay for.
This space for rent.
Goldtop
Posts: 419
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 4:35:02 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/8/2017 4:32:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 3:25:09 PM, Goldtop wrote:
...
You deny and reject science because of your religious beliefs, you have been harping this here ad nauseum saying nothing else, what's not to understand? Just do yourself and all of us a favor, grow up and act like an adult.

And I'm just going to keep pointing out: You are unable to make any logical or technical challenge to anything I say. You show no sign that you are even able to understand anything I say.

You can point out that lie as many times as you want, everyone knows you aren't saying anything, you're just denying science because you fear it undermines your religious beliefs.

And if I were to act like an adult, I wouldn't be responding to you now, would I? So you get what you pay for.

You are acting like a juvenile and a troll, nothing more.
v3nesl
Posts: 5,269
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 4:38:51 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/8/2017 4:35:02 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 3/8/2017 4:32:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 3:25:09 PM, Goldtop wrote:
...
You deny and reject science because of your religious beliefs, you have been harping this here ad nauseum saying nothing else, what's not to understand? Just do yourself and all of us a favor, grow up and act like an adult.

And I'm just going to keep pointing out: You are unable to make any logical or technical challenge to anything I say. You show no sign that you are even able to understand anything I say.

You can point out that lie as many times as you want, everyone knows you aren't saying anything,

Which is only to confirm, you have no clue what I'm saying.


You are acting like a juvenile and a troll, nothing more.

I agree. So I'm going to leave you be now. But if you ever feel like taking a risk and commenting on the behavior of the material world, I'll be the first to welcome you to the science forum.
This space for rent.
Goldtop
Posts: 419
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 4:58:58 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/8/2017 4:38:51 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 4:35:02 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 3/8/2017 4:32:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 3:25:09 PM, Goldtop wrote:
...
You deny and reject science because of your religious beliefs, you have been harping this here ad nauseum saying nothing else, what's not to understand? Just do yourself and all of us a favor, grow up and act like an adult.

And I'm just going to keep pointing out: You are unable to make any logical or technical challenge to anything I say. You show no sign that you are even able to understand anything I say.

You can point out that lie as many times as you want, everyone knows you aren't saying anything,

Which is only to confirm, you have no clue what I'm saying.

Okay, what are you saying?


You are acting like a juvenile and a troll, nothing more.

I agree.

If you agree, why do you persist?

So I'm going to leave you be now. But if you ever feel like taking a risk and commenting on the behavior of the material world, I'll be the first to welcome you to the science forum.

Your use of the term "material world" is not science, it's religion. Do you know where the Religion forum is? Do you need help finding it? Please go there.
v3nesl
Posts: 5,269
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 5:32:57 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/8/2017 4:58:58 PM, Goldtop wrote:
...
Your use of the term "material world" is not science, it's religion.

That's sig worthy, dude. lol!
This space for rent.
Goldtop
Posts: 419
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 5:50:43 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/8/2017 5:32:57 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 4:58:58 PM, Goldtop wrote:
...
Your use of the term "material world" is not science, it's religion.

That's sig worthy, dude. lol!

I ask you what you're saying and this is the response? You're actually lying about saying something, aren't you?
v3nesl
Posts: 5,269
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 6:25:37 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/8/2017 5:50:43 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 3/8/2017 5:32:57 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 4:58:58 PM, Goldtop wrote:
...
Your use of the term "material world" is not science, it's religion.

That's sig worthy, dude. lol!

I ask you what you're saying and this is the response?

Well, you could try reading my posts, lol. Go ahead, read what I wrote in #3 above, and see if you can formulate a response without using the word 'religion'. Try to make a coherent rational argument against any or all of the points I made. Since it's your first try at actual debate, I promise I'll make an extra effort to be polite and respectful about whatever you say.
This space for rent.
Goldtop
Posts: 419
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 7:19:33 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/8/2017 6:25:37 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 5:50:43 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 3/8/2017 5:32:57 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 4:58:58 PM, Goldtop wrote:
...
Your use of the term "material world" is not science, it's religion.

That's sig worthy, dude. lol!

I ask you what you're saying and this is the response?

Well, you could try reading my posts, lol. Go ahead, read what I wrote in #3 above, and see if you can formulate a response without using the word 'religion'. Try to make a coherent rational argument against any or all of the points I made. Since it's your first try at actual debate, I promise I'll make an extra effort to be polite and respectful about whatever you say.

You mean where you said evolutionary predictions are arguments from ignorance?

Are you being paid to be a troll here?
v3nesl
Posts: 5,269
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 7:26:42 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/8/2017 7:19:33 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 3/8/2017 6:25:37 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 5:50:43 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 3/8/2017 5:32:57 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 4:58:58 PM, Goldtop wrote:
...
Your use of the term "material world" is not science, it's religion.

That's sig worthy, dude. lol!

I ask you what you're saying and this is the response?

Well, you could try reading my posts, lol. Go ahead, read what I wrote in #3 above, and see if you can formulate a response without using the word 'religion'. Try to make a coherent rational argument against any or all of the points I made. Since it's your first try at actual debate, I promise I'll make an extra effort to be polite and respectful about whatever you say.

You mean where you said evolutionary predictions are arguments from ignorance?

Are you being paid to be a troll here?

No, and I've gone way beyond any call of basic human decency with you. Yeah, I know I've been rude, but I gave you multiple chances to show some basic human decency of your own, but I'm done with you now. You can find somebody else to extract whatever burr you've got up your butt.
This space for rent.
Goldtop
Posts: 419
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 7:35:07 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/8/2017 7:26:42 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 7:19:33 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 3/8/2017 6:25:37 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 5:50:43 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 3/8/2017 5:32:57 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 4:58:58 PM, Goldtop wrote:
...
Your use of the term "material world" is not science, it's religion.

That's sig worthy, dude. lol!

I ask you what you're saying and this is the response?

Well, you could try reading my posts, lol. Go ahead, read what I wrote in #3 above, and see if you can formulate a response without using the word 'religion'. Try to make a coherent rational argument against any or all of the points I made. Since it's your first try at actual debate, I promise I'll make an extra effort to be polite and respectful about whatever you say.

You mean where you said evolutionary predictions are arguments from ignorance?

Are you being paid to be a troll here?

No, and I've gone way beyond any call of basic human decency with you.

You mean, when you engaged me the very first time with insults?

Yeah, I know I've been rude, but I gave you multiple chances to show some basic human decency of your own, but I'm done with you now.

You've been offered multiple chances to learn something, but you keep denying and rejecting science based on your religious beliefs.

You can find somebody else to extract whatever burr you've got up your butt.

YOU are the burr up the Science forums butt.
v3nesl
Posts: 5,269
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 7:46:26 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/8/2017 7:35:07 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 3/8/2017 7:26:42 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 7:19:33 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 3/8/2017 6:25:37 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 5:50:43 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 3/8/2017 5:32:57 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 4:58:58 PM, Goldtop wrote:
...
Your use of the term "material world" is not science, it's religion.

That's sig worthy, dude. lol!

I ask you what you're saying and this is the response?

Well, you could try reading my posts, lol. Go ahead, read what I wrote in #3 above, and see if you can formulate a response without using the word 'religion'. Try to make a coherent rational argument against any or all of the points I made. Since it's your first try at actual debate, I promise I'll make an extra effort to be polite and respectful about whatever you say.

You mean where you said evolutionary predictions are arguments from ignorance?

Are you being paid to be a troll here?

No, and I've gone way beyond any call of basic human decency with you.

You mean, when you engaged me the very first time with insults?


I said you had engaged in ad hominem, which you had, and you thought that was an insult. Now you no doubt think "argument from ignorance" is some kind of dreadful insult. https://en.wikipedia.org... It means, in this context, arguing that penguin wings are superfluous because the scientists didn't know of a purpose for them. But now we do. Water and air are both fluids, and the same or similar shapes can serve similar purposes in air or water. Penguins 'fly' in water. https://www.youtube.com...
This space for rent.
CosmoJarvis
Posts: 297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 8:19:03 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/7/2017 7:06:28 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/3/2016 4:50:18 AM, distraff wrote:
...


I don't think this is chance examples of God inserting trash into his intelligent design in exactly the way that evolution would do. These are some out of numerous examples in the animal kingdom.

No, but a lot of them are definitely arguments from ignorance. The penguin, for instance, uses his wings in the water, as is quite elegant. I'm surprised this one is still on the list, now that National Geographic has put cameras on penguins and seen how they use their wings.

Nipples on men? That makes perfect sense once you understand DNA. It would be hugely inefficient to have completely different genomes for male and female.

So these alleged oddities have been dropping one by one as science learns more about the species and life in general.

As distraff elegantly explained in his first post, humans have vestigial organs which indicate that humans evolved from other mammals. For example, humans possess the vomeronasal organ, a non-functioning specialized sensory system on our nose. It is an olfactory system used by amphibians, reptiles, and other mammals to detect chemicals by smell. If this was an act of God and Intelligent Design, why would God give humans a non-functioning organ?
"A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally."
-Oscar Wilde
v3nesl
Posts: 5,269
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 8:40:52 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/8/2017 8:19:03 PM, CosmoJarvis wrote:
At 3/7/2017 7:06:28 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/3/2016 4:50:18 AM, distraff wrote:
...


I don't think this is chance examples of God inserting trash into his intelligent design in exactly the way that evolution would do. These are some out of numerous examples in the animal kingdom.

No, but a lot of them are definitely arguments from ignorance. The penguin, for instance, uses his wings in the water, as is quite elegant. I'm surprised this one is still on the list, now that National Geographic has put cameras on penguins and seen how they use their wings.

Nipples on men? That makes perfect sense once you understand DNA. It would be hugely inefficient to have completely different genomes for male and female.

So these alleged oddities have been dropping one by one as science learns more about the species and life in general.

As distraff elegantly explained in his first post, humans have vestigial organs which indicate that humans evolved from other mammals. For example, humans possess the vomeronasal organ, a non-functioning specialized sensory system on our nose. It is an olfactory system used by amphibians, reptiles, and other mammals to detect chemicals by smell. If this was an act of God and Intelligent Design, why would God give humans a non-functioning organ?

Well, that's a new one to me, but it is again a classic argument from ignorance. You don't know what it does [yet] therefore it has no purpose.

This would be a good opportunity to point out how evolutionary thinking impedes research, in a very practical way. The evolutionist is quick to dismiss what he doesn't understand ("it's junk DNA"), so he stops looking, only to be embarrassed by later findings. The ID scientist (and the more sophisticated evolutionist) assumes things have a purpose or they wouldn't be there, so he looks for the purpose, and learns things.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 5,269
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 8:42:43 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/8/2017 8:19:03 PM, CosmoJarvis wrote:
At 3/7/2017 7:06:28 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/3/2016 4:50:18 AM, distraff wrote:
...


I don't think this is chance examples of God inserting trash into his intelligent design in exactly the way that evolution would do. These are some out of numerous examples in the animal kingdom.

No, but a lot of them are definitely arguments from ignorance. The penguin, for instance, uses his wings in the water, as is quite elegant. I'm surprised this one is still on the list, now that National Geographic has put cameras on penguins and seen how they use their wings.

Nipples on men? That makes perfect sense once you understand DNA. It would be hugely inefficient to have completely different genomes for male and female.

So these alleged oddities have been dropping one by one as science learns more about the species and life in general.

As distraff elegantly explained in his first post,

And I note that you'd like to ignore Distraff's first example, the penguin, which is egregiously wrong. Maybe the rest of them are wrong, too?

This is a sort of "evolution of the gaps" argument, isn't it? "I don't know what that organ does, therefore evolution". Not exactly rigorous proof, eh?
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 5,269
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 8:46:20 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/8/2017 8:19:03 PM, CosmoJarvis wrote:
At 3/7/2017 7:06:28 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/3/2016 4:50:18 AM, distraff wrote:
...


I don't think this is chance examples of God inserting trash into his intelligent design in exactly the way that evolution would do. These are some out of numerous examples in the animal kingdom.

No, but a lot of them are definitely arguments from ignorance. The penguin, for instance, uses his wings in the water, as is quite elegant. I'm surprised this one is still on the list, now that National Geographic has put cameras on penguins and seen how they use their wings.

Nipples on men? That makes perfect sense once you understand DNA. It would be hugely inefficient to have completely different genomes for male and female.

So these alleged oddities have been dropping one by one as science learns more about the species and life in general.

As distraff elegantly explained in his first post, humans have vestigial organs which indicate that humans evolved from other mammals. For example, humans possess the vomeronasal organ, a non-functioning specialized sensory system on our nose.

One other note, since this is new to me: If the organ fades in the embryo, it may be that it has an embryonic function. Non-functioning at the time of observation does not mean completely non-functional. The umbrella may sit idle for weeks, but it most certainly has a purpose.
This space for rent.
CosmoJarvis
Posts: 297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 8:48:11 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/8/2017 8:42:43 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 8:19:03 PM, CosmoJarvis wrote:
At 3/7/2017 7:06:28 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/3/2016 4:50:18 AM, distraff wrote:
...


I don't think this is chance examples of God inserting trash into his intelligent design in exactly the way that evolution would do. These are some out of numerous examples in the animal kingdom.

No, but a lot of them are definitely arguments from ignorance. The penguin, for instance, uses his wings in the water, as is quite elegant. I'm surprised this one is still on the list, now that National Geographic has put cameras on penguins and seen how they use their wings.

Nipples on men? That makes perfect sense once you understand DNA. It would be hugely inefficient to have completely different genomes for male and female.

So these alleged oddities have been dropping one by one as science learns more about the species and life in general.

As distraff elegantly explained in his first post,

And I note that you'd like to ignore Distraff's first example, the penguin, which is egregiously wrong. Maybe the rest of them are wrong, too?

This is a sort of "evolution of the gaps" argument, isn't it? "I don't know what that organ does, therefore evolution". Not exactly rigorous proof, eh?

I don't know what you mean to suggest. The vomeronasal organ is a nonfunctioning organ, not something that people simply don't understand. We know that this organ serves no function because humans cannot physically use it. This is clearly evidence for evolution, as it demonstrates that one of our early ancestors had use for it, but as our ancestors gradually evolved into the early human, they didn't need to use it.
"A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally."
-Oscar Wilde
v3nesl
Posts: 5,269
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 8:57:51 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/8/2017 8:48:11 PM, CosmoJarvis wrote:
At 3/8/2017 8:42:43 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/8/2017 8:19:03 PM, CosmoJarvis wrote:
At 3/7/2017 7:06:28 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/3/2016 4:50:18 AM, distraff wrote:
...


I don't think this is chance examples of God inserting trash into his intelligent design in exactly the way that evolution would do. These are some out of numerous examples in the animal kingdom.

No, but a lot of them are definitely arguments from ignorance. The penguin, for instance, uses his wings in the water, as is quite elegant. I'm surprised this one is still on the list, now that National Geographic has put cameras on penguins and seen how they use their wings.

Nipples on men? That makes perfect sense once you understand DNA. It would be hugely inefficient to have completely different genomes for male and female.

So these alleged oddities have been dropping one by one as science learns more about the species and life in general.

As distraff elegantly explained in his first post,

And I note that you'd like to ignore Distraff's first example, the penguin, which is egregiously wrong. Maybe the rest of them are wrong, too?

This is a sort of "evolution of the gaps" argument, isn't it? "I don't know what that organ does, therefore evolution". Not exactly rigorous proof, eh?

I don't know what you mean to suggest. The vomeronasal organ is a nonfunctioning organ, not something that people simply don't understand. We know that this organ serves no function because humans cannot physically use it.

That's not what I read on Wikipedia. Its presence and functionality in humans was controversial, though most studies agree the organ regresses during fetal development and Chemical communication does appear to occur among humans, but this does not necessarily imply that the human vomeronasal organ is functional.

Not quite as simplistic as your take.

... This is clearly evidence for evolution,

It's consistent with it, maybe even suggestive of it. But there could be explanations consistent with design, obviously.

... as it demonstrates that one of our early ancestors had use for it, but as our ancestors gradually evolved into the early human, they didn't need to use it.

See, I do hate this - evolution educated kids don't seem to know the difference between something demonstrable and a hypothesis. You actually don't seem to be aware that what you've said is just a guess.
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 827
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2017 1:43:24 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
No, but a lot of them are definitely arguments from ignorance. The penguin, for instance, uses his wings in the water, as is quite elegant. I'm surprised this one is still on the list, now that National Geographic has put cameras on penguins and seen how they use their wings.

"We recovered a highly resolved tree that confirms previously controversial sister or close relationships. We identified the first divergence in Neoaves, two groups we named Passerea and Columbea, representing independent lineages of diverse and convergently evolved land and water bird species."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

"These results strongly support the hypothesis that function constrains form in diving birds, and that optimizing wing shape and form for wing-propelled diving leads to such high flight costs that flying ceases to be an option in larger wing-propelled diving seabirds, including penguins."
http://www.pnas.org...

Penguins were able to conserve energy by using their wings for diving rather than for flying.
They saved on energy expenditure and became more efficient hunters.
I'm sure you knew that though.
v3nesl
Posts: 5,269
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2017 12:38:05 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/9/2017 1:43:24 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
...

Penguins were able to conserve energy by using their wings for diving rather than for flying.
They saved on energy expenditure and became more efficient hunters.
I'm sure you knew that though.

I very nearly had a literal laugh out loud at this. What a beautiful theory evolution is - no matter what evidence is thrown at it, it can be adjusted to fit.

Wow, just wow. The human powers of self persuasion are truly amazing. Made in the image of the one who speaks and it is so, only things don't become so just from us saying them.
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 827
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2017 1:39:44 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
I very nearly had a literal laugh out loud at this.

So then you had a figurative laugh out loud?
You've overused this phrase and it's literally annoying.
Please stop.

What a beautiful theory evolution is - no matter what evidence is thrown at it, it can be adjusted to fit.

There was no adjusting, as the sources I gave you indicate, the phylogeny of penguins is exactly what evolution predicted it to be without any adjustments to explain their flightlessness/swimming abilities.

Wow, just wow. The human powers of self persuasion are truly amazing.

Self persuasion?
The sources I linked were two studies published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which completely lacks my self.
I used none of my self in my attaining of peer reviewed fact indicated in the sources, specifically about penguin's wings and evolution.

Made in the image of the one who speaks and it is so, only things don't become so just from us saying them.

Did you look at the sources?
What did they assert that wasn't demonstrated by their studies or research?

The things they are saying are so, are demonstrably so, given the data in those studies...what did you read in there that I didn't?

Your penguin claim is shattered?
How will you pick up the pieces and have penguin wings negate evolution at all?
We know there's no assertion in my sources, and we know how penguins originated.

Pick up your shattered attack on evolution...go ahead, squirm out of this.
v3nesl
Posts: 5,269
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2017 2:09:55 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/9/2017 1:39:44 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
...

What a beautiful theory evolution is - no matter what evidence is thrown at it, it can be adjusted to fit.

There was no adjusting,

Well that's a flat out lie! The original claim, right here in the thread, is that penguin wings are vestigial.

as the sources I gave you indicate, the phylogeny of penguins is exactly what evolution predicted it to be without any adjustments to explain their flightlessness/swimming abilities.


Again, flat out lie. There is no prediction, only after-the-fact adjusting of the hypotheses. (You may need to read the OP, get up to speed on what we're talking about here).
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 827
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2017 2:59:04 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/9/2017 2:09:55 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/9/2017 1:39:44 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
...

What a beautiful theory evolution is - no matter what evidence is thrown at it, it can be adjusted to fit.

There was no adjusting,

Well that's a flat out lie! The original claim, right here in the thread, is that penguin wings are vestigial.

Vestigial means that for the purpose it was used in older phylogeny isn't the purpose for which it is used now.
The sources showed that penguins are Neoaves, or newer birds, that descended from older birds whose purpose with the wings was flight.
So, the older purpose is no longer the newer purpose, so it's vestigial.

http://www.biology-online.org...

No more straw men please.
Why do you feel so comfortable talking about concepts that you haven't the first clue about.

as the sources I gave you indicate, the phylogeny of penguins is exactly what evolution predicted it to be without any adjustments to explain their flightlessness/swimming abilities.


Again, flat out lie. There is no prediction, only after-the-fact adjusting of the hypotheses. (You may need to read the OP, get up to speed on what we're talking about here).

Ok, why don't you understand what vestigial means?
Answer that one.