Jump to content


Photo

Vestigial Organs


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#41 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 24 May 2010 - 02:27 PM

Goose bumps are my favourite vestigial trait. The creationist explanation is that it helps our skin secrete more oil when we’re cold (although why that would make you warmer is beyond me). According to a study conducted at the University of I Live in Canada and Our Winters are Freezing, my skin usually gets extremely dry after I spend a few hours outside with goose bumps on my arms and legs. I’m certainly not drenched in oil.

View Post

Where can we read that the creationist explanation is "that it helps our skin secrete more oil when we’re cold", please provide your referrence?

I suggest, in another topic, that "goose bumps cause blood and adrenaline to flow - thus warming us and/or hightening our awareness".
(see http://www.evolution...indpost&p=55572)

#42 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 24 May 2010 - 02:52 PM

Where can we read that the creationist explanation is "that it helps our skin secrete more oil when we’re cold", please provide your referrence?

View Post


I used to be part of another forum, and I started a thread devoted entirely to goose bumps. That was the most common response that I got. I don’t know what source they used, but here’s the top result from doing a quick Google search with keywords “goose bumps creationism”:
http://www.angelfire.../vestigial.html


I suggest, in another topic, that "goose bumps cause blood and adrenaline to flow - thus warming us and/or hightening our awareness".
(see http://www.evolution...indpost&p=55572)

View Post


How would they cause this? My understanding is that adrenaline causes goose bumps and increased blood flow... not the other way around.

#43 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 24 May 2010 - 03:19 PM

I used to be part of another forum, and I started a thread devoted entirely to goose bumps. That was the most common response that I got. I don’t know what source they used, but here’s the top result from doing a quick Google search with keywords “goose bumps creationism”:
http://www.angelfire.../vestigial.html

How would they cause this? My understanding is that adrenaline causes goose bumps and increased blood flow... not the other way around.

View Post

I don't know whether it's adrenaline causing the goose bumps, I suppose that could be. The creationist referrence you provided suggests it is "muscle contractions" that cause goose bumps. What causes muslce contractions? Adrenaline. I don't pretend to know what causes what, we know that the human nervous system's workings do result in goose bumps sometimes, whether coldness, being startled and/or as an emotional reaction. Either way the warming effect and/or the raised awareness is a good thing and it fits that God would provide us with this.

#44 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2010 - 03:28 PM

My understanding is that adrenaline causes goose bumps and increased blood flow... not the other way around.

View Post


That's right. http://www.scientifi...ans-get-goosebu

#45 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 24 May 2010 - 03:40 PM

I still don't see how it should be concluded that goose bumps are some sort of vestigial response. They are just a result of our nervous system working the way it was designed to!

If we are cold, does the tightening of our skin work to protect us from the cold?

If we are startled, does the hightening of our senses protect us from danger?


When the doctor whacks our knee with the little hammer-thing, does our leg kick?


It's just a reaction, designed into our nervous system, it's supposed to happen!

#46 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 24 May 2010 - 03:53 PM

I still don't see how it should be concluded that goose bumps are some sort of vestigial response.  They are just a result of our nervous system working the way it was designed to!

If we are cold, does the tightening of our skin work to protect us from the cold?

If we are startled, does the hightening of our senses protect us from danger?
When the doctor whacks our knee with the little hammer-thing, does our leg kick?
It's just a reaction, designed into our nervous system, it's supposed to happen!

View Post



Nervous responses have purposes. Just so we’re clear, I’m not claiming that all the effects of adrenaline are vestigial, just goose bumps. The reason scientists call goose bumps vestigial is because they have no purpose. They provide no advantage when cold or scared.

The knee jerk reflex has a purpose: it causes spontaneous muscle contraction to support your weight, for example if you were to stand suddenly.

#47 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 24 May 2010 - 04:08 PM

Nervous responses have purposes. Just so we’re clear, I’m not claiming that all the effects of adrenaline are vestigial, just goose bumps. The reason scientists call goose bumps vestigial is because they have no purpose. They provide no advantage when cold or scared.

The knee jerk reflex has a purpose: it causes spontaneous muscle contraction to support your weight, for example if you were to stand suddenly.

View Post

The "advantage" isn't the goose bumps, the advantage is the adrenaline flow. The goose bumps are just a result of the adrenaline flow.

That's pure science:
1. Humans sometimes get goose bumps.
2. Adrenaline flow causes goose bumps.
3. Observation noted!

It is the evolutionary presupposition that demands the association of human goose bumps to animal goose bumps, and it is an incorrect association.

Edit:
And I most definitely don't need anybody hitting my knee with a little hammer-thing whenever I stand up, in order for my weight to be supported. The reflex is just that, a reflex. The doctor is simply testing my nervous system / reflex(es).

#48 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 24 May 2010 - 04:44 PM

The "advantage" isn't the goose bumps, the advantage is the adrenaline flow.  The goose bumps are just a result of the adrenaline flow.

That's pure science:
1. Humans sometimes get goose bumps.
2. Adrenaline flow causes goose bumps.
3. Observation noted!

View Post

Yes, they’re the result of adrenaline. But unlike most of the other effects adrenaline has on us, goose bumps are completely useless. They do not help in the fight or flight response.

It is the evolutionary presupposition that demands the association of human goose bumps to animal goose bumps, [i]and it is an incorrect association.

View Post

Well I think it makes a lot more sense than assuming we were designed with a completely useless reflex. In animals, goose bumps puff up their fur. This is important for warmth and to appear bigger when threatened. Not only is the reflex the same, but the stimuli are the same as well: cold and fear.

Edit:
And I most definitely don't need anybody hitting my knee with a little hammer-thing whenever I stand up, in order for my weight to be supported.  The reflex is just that, a reflex.  The doctor is simply testing my nervous system / reflex(es).

View Post

The doctor uses this reflex to test your nervous system, but that doesn’t change the fact that the reflex has a purpose. Of course you don’t need to be hit with a hammer every time you stand. It’s the movement of your leg which initiates the reflex response in that case.

#49 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 24 May 2010 - 05:13 PM

Yes, they’re the result of adrenaline. But unlike most of the other effects adrenaline has on us, goose bumps are completely useless. They do not help in the fight or flight response.

View Post

But the adrenaline rush that caused them does, they (goose bumps) are just a result of the adrenaline rush; that's all, just a reaction, nothing more, no need to find a purpose for those goose bumps in a dangerous situation, just use the adrenaline that caused them to help in your fight or flight.
(I'm sorry, I was being purposefully redundant)

Well I think it makes a lot more sense than assuming we were designed with a completely useless reflex. In animals, goose bumps puff up their fur. This is important for warmth and to appear bigger when threatened. Not only is the reflex the same, but the stimuli are the same as well: cold and fear.

At least in this post you said "I think", rather than stating that you know absolutely. I appreciate that B)

The doctor uses this reflex to test your nervous system, but that doesn’t change the fact that the reflex has a purpose. Of course you don’t need to be hit with a hammer every time you stand. It’s the movement of your leg which initiates the reflex response in that case.

Just like it is the adrenaline rush that initiates the goose bump reaction, which is just a by-product of a useful reaction. There is no reason to assign a purpose to the goose bumps theirselves, they are just a reaction.

*********************************************
I'm just wondering, as I write, this thought just came to me:
Is our skin more resistant to puncture while the goose bump reaction is occuring? Hmmm, it does tighten the skin - would a knife, or claws, or teeth, or a sword penetrate less while the goose bump reaction is occuring?

I'm not gonna test it ;), but what do you think? Ponder that for a while.

#50 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 24 May 2010 - 06:26 PM

But the adrenaline rush that caused them does, they (goose bumps) are just a result of the adrenaline rush; that's all, just a reaction, nothing more, no need to find a purpose for those goose bumps in a dangerous situation, just use the adrenaline that caused them to help in your fight or flight.
(I'm sorry, I was being purposefully redundant)

View Post



Just like it is the adrenaline rush that initiates the goose bump reaction, which is just a by-product of a useful reaction.  There is no reason to assign a purpose to the goose bumps theirselves, they are just a reaction.

View Post


Reflexes, especially those initiated by hormones, tend to have a purpose. There would be no reason for adrenaline to effect a muscle which isn’t going to help during the fight or flight response.

Even if goose bumps are a completely unnecessary side effect of adrenaline, why would we get them when we’re cold?


I'm just wondering, as I write, this thought just came to me:
Is our skin more resistant to puncture while the goose bump reaction is occuring?  Hmmm, it does tighten the skin - would a knife, or claws, or teeth, or a sword penetrate less while the goose bump reaction is occuring?

I'm not gonna test it ;), but what do you think?  Ponder that for a while.

View Post


Unfortunately, I was able to test that last night when I cut my leg on the sharp edge of my wooden bed frame B) . My house is cold and I always have goose bumps when I get up at night, yet I still ended up with a bleeding scratch. I’m not about to do a second test where I scratch the same leg while it’s warm, but I have a feeling that the effect would be more or less the same. And if goosebumps can’t protect me from a bed frame, they’re definitely not going to protect me from a knife.

#51 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2010 - 06:45 PM

Porcupines get goose bumps. Touch one when it happens and you'll never forget it. Chimpanzees get them too. The difference is chimps have enough body hair for goosebumps to be useful. Erect hair makes an animal appear bigger than they actually are plus it traps body heat.

#52 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 24 May 2010 - 07:02 PM

I was only suggesting a possible positive effect of goose bumps, I don't require one; it is you all that are saying there "must" be a reason / purpose. And besides, how do we know the scratch you received wouldn't have been worse had you leg been warm.

I'm perfectly OK with them being a simple side effect.

#53 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 24 May 2010 - 07:25 PM

Why do evolutionists always accuse us of arguing from incredulity with irreducible complexity, when vestigial organs are an argument from incredulity.
If we don't know its purpose, it does not mean it doesn't have one.
Any speculation about what its purpose "could have been" is mere speculation and not science. It is not empirical.

I'm just wondering, as I write, this thought just came to me:
Is our skin more resistant to puncture while the goose bump reaction is occuring?  Hmmm, it does tighten the skin - would a knife, or claws, or teeth, or a sword penetrate less while the goose bump reaction is occuring?

I'm not gonna test it , but what do you think?  Ponder that for a while.


I wouldn't think so. Its still skin.
Maybe it would increase resistance to pain, but goosebumps don't change the composition of skin, just the shape.

Well I think it makes a lot more sense than assuming we were designed with a completely useless reflex. In animals, goose bumps puff up their fur. This is important for warmth and to appear bigger when threatened. Not only is the reflex the same, but the stimuli are the same as well: cold and fear.


This is still an argument from incredulity. If you are going to use an argument from incredulity, at least don't accuse us when we talk about irreducible complexity, as evolutionists are constantly claiming it is an argument from incredulity.

#54 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 24 May 2010 - 08:06 PM

If we don't know its purpose, it does not mean it doesn't have one.
Any speculation about what its purpose "could have been" is mere speculation and not science. It is not empirical.

View Post


I’d say it’s a bit more than just speculation. Let’s look at the mechanism behind goose bumps. Muscles called erectores pilorum contract, and by doing so they pull the hair follicles into an upright position. These muscles are found in all mammals with hair.

So humans have the same hair follicle anatomy, the same physical mechanism, and the same stimuli (fear and cold) as other animals that experience this response. It is the exact same thing. The only difference is the fact that we experience no apparent benefit from it, while furry animals certainly do.

This is still an argument from incredulity. If you are going to use an argument from incredulity, at least don't accuse us when we talk about irreducible complexity, as evolutionists are constantly claiming it is an argument from incredulity.

View Post

Purpose is a clear indication of design. We already know the purpose of goose bumps (to raise the hair follicle), but this response appears to have no effect on humans. I suppose there could be some hidden purpose that scientists have yet to discover, but I have yet to hear about anything. I’m not saying it’s impossible for goose bumps to have been designed, but I personally find it unlikely given the evidence. That’s not an argument from incredulity... that’s just an opinion. I even started the sentence with “Well I think...” to make it clear that in my opinion evolution is the better explanation.

#55 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 May 2010 - 03:13 AM

Here's some vestigial parts, and remember, the defintion for vestigial is:

Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms that have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution.(1)

This definition states that it could be loss of all functionality or loss of most functionality.  Here's some more vestigial organs:

Darwins point
Subclavius muscle
Palmaris muscle
Erector pili
Appendix
Plantaris muscle
Thirteenth rib
Male uterus
Pyramidalis muscle


Only a few of these are worth a response and if for nothing else their value as entertainment humor. Again, this is nothing more than philosophy idealogical wishful thinking and has nothing to do with real science. Take the first one which is a dead give away. Titled Darwin's Point so let's just have a look.

Posted Image


Does anyone else see the ignorance in this wishful materialist observation ?????? How much does a person have to dumb themselves down to latch onto this faith ????? There's really nothing more to say about this here as everyone has that right to a belief as they please.


Thirteenth Rib Everyone knows most humans have twelve pairs of ribs. This growth isn't even remotely vestigial because most people do not have it. This is a growth anomaly and nothing more. It serves no useful purpose other than a religious concept. Is it not atheists who flippantly scoff at and make fun of the Genesis creation account of womankind created from a rib of Adam as being nothing more than a fable or myth ??????? Could this vestigal thirteenth rib be yet another example of an atheist version of a virgin birth story ???????


Male Uterus and Nipples It doesn't take a genius to understand these are simply differences in men and women and nothing more. The genetic material within the male genetics has the blueprints for such things. In males it is shut down where as in women it has function. On and off switches and male reproductive genetic material has the instructions for turning these switches on or off in order to create a female. Especially in the light of what we know about the real complexity and sophistication of the way genetics actually works. Again this is grasping at straws for nothing other than blind faith in a religious concept and nothing more.



I'd be happy to supply any information on any or all of these.

(1) Vestigial

View Post



No thanks, we've been through this before in that other notorious thread and it went nowhere. Although I myself will often use Wikipedia as a quick convenient informational link, let's face it, this source evolves for whatever purpose by whoever has an agenda for whatever whim and does so regularly. The only other areas where I see links to this religious dogma are atheistic websites or books written by philosophers like Michael Shermer.

It's a deadend subject and no amount of real scientific falsification is going to shake the loyal cult members from their blind faith. Many of the youthful atheists on all these forum sites are compulsive online gamers. Do a research of many of the and look at the hours they spend gaming and the 10s of thousands of posts they have recorded in their profiles. They learn their version of reality through all these Netherworld's of mysticism where mythological characters are created, killed, create kingdoms, set their own rules, etc, etc, etc. Most never venture outside of their computer's virtual world long enough to understand there is a real life on the outside waiting to be observed and marveled at. Here's an interesting cartoon which illustrates how powerful and dominating the virtual world has become, not only for the youth, but many older ones who've forgotten that there is a whole real literal world of discovery waiting to be found. I think this beautifully illustrates why and how such off the wall philosophy/idealogy can be so easily blindly accepted without real world verification by observation. Much about modern science has given up old fashioned field observation in the real world for nothing more than labs and the internet.


Posted Image

#56 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 May 2010 - 05:57 AM

Let the discussion not forget about the other indications of human vestigiality ;) There's more to it than the appendix.

View Post


Yeah, you betcha! :blink:


Posted Image

#57 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 25 May 2010 - 10:01 AM

Only a few of these are worth a response and if for nothing else their value as entertainment humor. Again, this is nothing more than philosophy idealogical wishful thinking and has nothing to do with real science.

I would like to know how you think this is not real science. Could you please in a non sarcastic form, detail why you think this is not science? I say sarcastic as nicely as possible because of lot of your replies rely on sarcasm for effect, I would like to see the meat of your argument without having to wonder if it is meant for sarcasm or not. Thank you in advance.

Take the first one which is a dead give away. Titled Darwin's Point so let's just have a look.


Does anyone else see the ignorance in this wishful materialist observation ?????? How much does a person have to dumb themselves down to latch onto this faith ????? There's really nothing more to say about this here as everyone has that right to a belief as they please.

I see your extreme opinion without even researching Darwin's Point a.k.a Darwin's Tubercle a.k.a Woolnerian Tip. That last one is what Darwin himself coined it after(1), but because Darwin is so much associated with evolution it was later termed Darwin's Point. Only 10.4% of the population has this point(2) as is common with other vestigial organs. Do you have any rebuttal other than sarcasm and disbelief without saying why, as I think that would progress the conversation better.

Thirteenth Rib Everyone knows most humans have twelve pairs of ribs. This growth isn't even remotely vestigial because most people do not have it. This is a growth anomaly and nothing more. It serves no useful purpose other than a religious concept. Is it not atheists who flippantly scoff at and make fun of the Genesis creation account of womankind created from a rib of Adam as being nothing more than a fable or myth ??????? Could this vestigal thirteenth rib be yet another example of an atheist version of a virgin birth story ???????

The thirteenth rib is something that almost everyone has as an embryo but it is later reabsorbed. This is controlled by the Hox gene during embryonic development. The Hox gene uses many fantastical ways to get rid of these parts, apoptosis being my favorite. Here's some more information on the thriteenth rib:

"The presence of free ribs, as is well known, distinguishes the thoracic vertebrae of the adult from those of the cervical and lumbar regions. The limits of the thoracic region, however, are liable to variation, akin to that already described as occurring in the lumbar and sacral regions. Twelve pairs of free ribs are present normally in Man, as in the Orang, but a comparison with other (and chiefly lower) Vertebrates points to the earlier existence of a larger number. This view is supported by Ontogeny, as well as by the occasional occurrence of so-called supernumerary ribs. These are less frequently found at the upper than at the lower end of the thorax; and in either case, the thirteenth rib is subject to great variation both in form and size. For example, a thirteenth rib at the lower end of the human thorax may vary in length from 2 to 14 cm.; but thirteen is the normal number of ribs in the Gorilla and the Chimpanzee, and Hylobates has thirteen or fourteen. Where a free rib is borne by the seventh cervical vertebra, the number of these vertebra naturally appears to be reduced to six. Where a thirteenth rib occurs in the thorax, the lumbar vertebrae similarly appear to be reduced to four—unless the embryonic forward shifting of the pelvis has been arrested at the twenty-sixth pre-sacral vertebra, as is not unfrequent under these circumstances, for it has been observed that the thirteenth rib, which always appears in the embryo, begins to degenerate as soon as the twenty-fifth pre-sacral vertebra is incorporated in the sacrum.

We have further evidence that Man has inherited more than twelve pairs of free ribs, in the fact that reduced ribs are found in the embryo, not only in connection with the first but with all the lumbar vertebrae (Fig. 24, r.l.\ and in the sacral region also (Fig. 25, B r.s.).1 From this it is clear that the pelvis in Man, like that of all terrestrial Vertebrates, is carried by ribs, which, however, become early united with the sacral transverse processes. As already stated, the presence of a free rib in connection with the last cervical vertebra (Fig. 27, A) is somewhat rare in adults, but the vestige of such a rib, and even of a second (somewhat less attached) near the sixth cervical vertebra, is almost always found in the embryo."(3)

Your last picture of Creation Man and Evolution Man NOT only makes no sense at all but makes me feel embarassed for whomever threw their artistic skill at that project. I'll get to the rest of the reply in a bit, but here's the links for the above references:

(1) http://en.factolex.com/Darwin's_tubercle

(2) An anthropometric study of the ear in an adult population", International Journal of Anthropology, Issue Volume 1, Number 2 / June, 1986 ISSN 0393-9383

(3) Pages 39-41

#58 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 25 May 2010 - 10:54 AM

Only a few of these are worth a response and if for nothing else their value as entertainment humor.

View Post

Do you want to take a shot at explaining goose bumps too? That was our current topic of discussion. Or maybe you can just post a little comic instead to show me how stupid I am.

#59 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 25 May 2010 - 11:30 AM

I do believe that adrenaline can cause goosebumps, but the introduction of adrenaline into the bloodstream does not always cause goosebumps. That is why I think goosebumps are an involuntary reaction to the cold or fear. It is beneficial in the cold because the extra distance between the skin and tip of hair allow a layer of heat to be trapped. It is beneficial to other animals to appear larger than you are when fear is present.

#60 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 May 2010 - 06:00 AM

I would like to know how you think this is not real science.  Could you please in a non sarcastic form, detail why you think this is not science?  I say sarcastic as nicely as possible because of lot of your replies rely on sarcasm for effect, I would like to see the meat of your argument without having to wonder if it is meant for sarcasm or not.  Thank you in advance.


Okay, here's some meat. Why does the medical industry, (especially Doctors) not even use such rediculous ignorant terminology like vestigial organs when refering to the human body ????? Why do most doctors view the human body as something designed by an engineer ???????? Why is it in medical school that they for the most part unconcern themselves with the dogma of evolutionary theory as opposed to ONLY real scientific medical research ???????


I see your extreme opinion without even researching Darwin's Point


Really , you do ??????? Well here is the info from your link. Darwin is the one who invented this philosophical dogma in the first place. Hence the name. Other than making outrageous bold statements and claiming it's a fact, the man never offered PROOF one that it was something vestigial , with the exception of making massive assumptions based on his materialist observations. He simply employed the usual materialist assumption game to pimp his bigotted "Descent of Man" book depicting Africans as living transitionals. Anybody who looks at that photo of a human ear is grasping at straws trying point out some imagined flaw where the arrow is pointing and associating it with that most certainly exagerated point of that monkey's ear. It's called wishful thinking. It becomes apparent when looking at the other examples given in the list that the bulk of the vestigial story is not so much in the Hox genes, but in the imaginations of evolutionary scientists already committed to evolutionary explanations....

#
This atavistic feature is so called because its description was first published by Charles Darwin in the opening pages of The Descent of Man, as evidence of a vestigial feature indicating common ancestry among primates
Add tags Source: Wikipedia Unhappy with this fact? more info
created by user picturefactobot on March 4, 2009

#
However Darwin himself named it the Woolnerian tip, after Thomas Woolner, a British sculptor who had depicted it in one of his sculptures and had first theorised that it was an atavistic feature


You know in that other thread I tried to employ the same materialist observational and rational logic at things to invent an idea of something vestigial. Anybody can claim that anything could be possibly vestigial. I gave the example of dark African skin which I must say in states like Alabama and Mississippi (where most here lately seem to hail from) are most certainly a huge disadvantage in the ultimate materialist sense. Again, anybody can make up anything as being vestigial. Perhaps g*y men consider a woman vestigial. Likewise lesbians may consider a man as something vestigial. At what point does the ignorance stop ??????? Everyone knows the reasons these terms were invented, and it had nothing to do with true scientific facts. They couldn't admit they didn't know how certain things worked and pride and arrogance wouldn't allow them to admit that to the so-called layman public. It also gave them more feel good justification for their religious views and that ultimately is what has been behind this all along.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Google (1)