Jump to content


Photo

Vestigial Organs


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#61 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

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

Posted 26 May 2010 - 06:36 AM

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.

View Post

You know, I think I'm done trying to have any conversation with you Eocene. I'm losing my patience with trying to get anything across to you without getting a reply that's based on dogma, or belief this, belief that, EVEN when my references are not linked to any of this so called evolutionary dogma. You didn't even respond to the research and information on the thirteenth rib which makes it seem that you only pick apart things that you think seem weak.

#62 Guest_tomato_*

Guest_tomato_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 May 2010 - 01:47 PM

In a sense, our 10 fingers are the opposite of vestigial organs.
It would be nice if we had 12 fingers.
Then, instead of the decimal system, we would have the duodecimal system.
That would be more efficient, because 12 is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and itself.
10 is only divisible by 1, 2, 5, and itself.

#63 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 May 2010 - 11:44 PM

You know, I think I'm done trying to have any conversation with you Eocene.  I'm losing my patience with trying to get anything across to you without getting a reply that's based on dogma, or belief this, belief that, EVEN when my references are not linked to any of this so called evolutionary dogma.  You didn't even respond to the research and information on the thirteenth rib which makes it seem that you only pick apart things that you think seem weak.

View Post



I did look at those references, especially the 13th rib claims, but insisting that some supposed 13th rib anomaly present in all human embryo development is proof of our Ape/Orangatang/Chimp ancestry is grasping at straws. The first thing that came to my mind is Haeckel's embryos. Why ???? Because this whole thing is looked at through nothing more than materialist eyes and nothing to do with medical scientific research. The proof just isn't there except in wishful thinking by people already commited to evolutionary theory explanations.

Look, if you want to believe that you and your family hail from Apes, Orangatangs, and Chimps, then you have that freewilled worldview right. I'll at least support your American freedom of religious right for that. But for the record, I myself , my family and our ancestors don't even remotely have such a vulgar beginning, I'm sorry. The other two links you offered at the bottom of the page were nothing but bizzare navigational challenges and when you click on any link you are given a sort of multiple choice definitions of word/terms. Then you keep clicking on more links and more word/terms with definitions, nowhere could I find any so-called meat from any supposed articles, with the exception of purchasing some book.

#64 Advent

Advent

    Troll from a troll forum.

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Somewhere in the cosmos

Posted 27 May 2010 - 05:04 AM

I dont think i can post any info that would even show you guys anything
my fellow atheist's here have shown you guys enough info but you just ignore them why ?

#65 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 27 May 2010 - 12:12 PM

Look, if you want to believe that you and your family hail from Apes, Orangatangs, and Chimps, then you have that freewilled worldview right. I'll at least support your American freedom of religious right for that. But for the record, I myself , my family and our ancestors don't even remotely have such a vulgar beginning, I'm sorry.

View Post

None of us believe that we came from chimps. I’m tired of hearing creationists make this mistake. It’s a misrepresentation of evolution, and therefore a strawman argument.

#66 Guest_tomato_*

Guest_tomato_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2010 - 12:33 PM

Eocene, I'm asking out of genuine curiosity:
Don't you believe that God created all life?
If so, then why do you regard kinship with apes as "vulgar"?

#67 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 27 May 2010 - 05:54 PM

Eocene, evolutionists do not claim humans came from chimps. They believe humans came from "ape-like ancestors" that were similar to chimps.

Eocene, I'm asking out of genuine curiosity:
Don't you believe that God created all life?
If so, then why do you regard kinship with apes as "vulgar"?


Animals are animals. God specifically gave humans the breath of life.
"The LORD God formed the man [a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." (Genesis 2:7).

#68 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 May 2010 - 02:11 AM

None of us believe that we came from chimps. I’m tired of hearing creationists make this mistake. It’s a misrepresentation of evolution, and therefore a strawman argument.

View Post


Well then we agree on something. I'm tired of the entire list of things that are presented forth as my being related to from times long past. I find your version a misrepresentation of life. So we're stuck in neutral and spinning our wheels again. You didn't even read the entire list did you ????? Evolutionists are also not on the same page with each other on this, just as Christendom has many denominations, so does Atheism.

#69 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 May 2010 - 02:13 AM

Eocene, I'm asking out of genuine curiosity:
Don't you believe that God created all life?
If so, then why do you regard kinship with apes as "vulgar"?

View Post



I generally find any God dishonouring belief vulgar that originates from pagan origins, be it mysticism or secularist.

#70 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 30 May 2010 - 04:09 AM

I find a big problem with this forum is that a lot of the threads get side tracked and the topic ends up turning from a civil, compliant discussion into a knit-picking, petty discussion and it comes from both sides of the spectrum. Members here should not be swayed into answering a post from someone who sidetracks the discussion, I know sometimes it is unintentional to post something that sidetracks the thead (I have done this myself accidently when posting additional information) but if members don't respond then the thread does not get sidetracked. Just to make it clear again, this is coming from both sides of the discusion. Just a thought.

#71 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 02 June 2010 - 07:03 AM

The equivocative macro-evolution posts were removed from this thread due to non-relevance.

They were moved to: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3406

Please place all comments there, as anymore here will be removed.

#72 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 June 2010 - 12:59 AM

The equivocative macro-evolution posts were removed from this thread due to non-relevance.

They were moved to: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3406

Please place all comments there, as anymore here will be removed.

View Post



Would you consider this getting back on track ?????? :rolleyes:


Posted Image


:)

#73 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 03 June 2010 - 05:50 AM

Would you consider this getting back on track ??????   :lol:
Posted Image
:lol:

View Post


Okay, well; in context of the OP... Yes :lol:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users