See the above part on human chromosome number 2 for a start, also I have already provided a pretty comprehensive list of whale vestigial features and avatisms which no-one has even addressed. If you want a more detailed list, this one covers many areas of science - http://en.wikipedia...._common_descent. What is the creationist answer to these vestigial whale features? Why should whales have muscles to move external ears which they don't have? Or genes for growing teeth when they actually have baleen? Evolution predicts these things, but I have yet to see a creationist give any answer at all.
It is indeed hard to overturn an established theory. Creationism wasthe established theory once, but evolution then overturned it on account of having more supporting evidence.
Really??? And you were going to provide this "more supporting evidence" when?
And what I mean by evidence is not the standard evolutionary canard of professional opinion, but actual Ã¢â‚¬Å“empiricalÃ¢â‚¬Â evidence as the OP calls for. You know that which you have yet to provide, and I have continually pressed you for.
I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see you lasting very long since you cannot provide anything but faith statements as facts.
Here is an example of the definition of macro-evolution. Right from the encyclopedia of science: The development of new species and the extinction of old ones.
In that case macro-evolution has been observed and documented by creationists themselves. For the "development of new species" (your words), see here http://creation.com/brisk-biters . A new species was produced. This is, without question, the "development of a new species". It is also empirical evidence. The question of the OP has therefore been answered.
Okay, letÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s take a lookÃ¢â‚¬Â¦
When you Ã¢â‚¬Å“correctlyÃ¢â‚¬Â used the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“assumedÃ¢â‚¬Â here, you knocked ALL of the empiricism out of your hypothesis. Now, it must be understood that evolutionists assume all the time, AND pretend that they are stating facts. And yet they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t understand why (or refuse to see that) they are making a mistake in doing so. Much of their pseudo-facts are based upon presupposition, innuendo and Ã¢â‚¬Ëœa prioriÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ needs as evidences. If you took an honest look at your postings adz87, and the evolutionistÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s writings you use as evidences, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d soon see the plethora of assumptions based upon pseudo-facts.
Further, in as much as your statements concerning Ã¢â‚¬Å“vestigial organsÃ¢â‚¬Â in general, and Ã¢â‚¬Å“whale vestigial featuresÃ¢â‚¬Â more specifically; ALL of your pseudo facts are based upon assumptions and presuppositions as well. So you want to hear a Ã¢â‚¬Å“Creationists answer to these vestigial whale featuresÃ¢â‚¬Â. It is really quite simple reallyÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ your explanation is assumptive, and is nothing more than a pre-supposed attempt to explain macro-evolution. It is an Ã¢â‚¬Ëœa prioriÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ attempt on the behalf of the evolutionist.
The first thing we need to understand is, that in principle (i.e. logically), it is not possible to prove that an organ is useless (vestigial) because we do not know enough (let alone everything) about said organ to make such bold statements. In other words, if you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know what an organ is for, then how do you know it is Ã¢â‚¬Å“vestigialÃ¢â‚¬Â? Unfortunately, it (the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“vestigialÃ¢â‚¬Â) has become a catch-all word for evolutionists to use for organs they have no explanations for, they then claim these as evidence FOR evolution.
DonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t get me wrong, creationists call certain organs Ã¢â‚¬Å“vestigialÃ¢â‚¬Â as well, but creationists donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t use them as evidence, creationists look for the answers. Why; because there is always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. Now, according to Creation scientists such as Dr. Don Batten, Dr Jonathan Sarfati (amongst others) this has happened with over a hundred alleged useless vestigial organs which are now known to be essential.
Secondly, even if these Ã¢â‚¬Å“alleged vestigial organsÃ¢â‚¬Â are no longer needed, it would prove Ã¢â‚¬Å“devolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â not evolution. Why: because if these organs are still being carried around Ã¢â‚¬Å“uselesslyÃ¢â‚¬Â for a supposed Ã¢â‚¬Å“millionsÃ¢â‚¬Â of years, how is that evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ It is not, it is devolution! Much like the totally unfounded hypotheses that the whale evolved from an aquatic creature, then it didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t like the water, so it evolved into a land dwelling wolf-like creature, didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t like that, and de-evolved back to an aquatic creature.
HereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the thing; the creation posited model allows for deterioration of a perfect creation (see Genesis chapters One through Eleven for an explanation as to why). However the evolutionistic model needs to find examples of organs, which are increasing in complexity. But, they are having a hard enough time reconciling their extreme faith in a lack of a natural explanation for their materialistic/naturalistic origins (abiogenesis/particle-to-people etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) let alone their Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolution of the gapsÃ¢â‚¬Â.
Anyway, as to the Hip bones in whales?
These bones are alleged to show that whales evolved from land animals. However, Bergman and Howe point out that they are different in the male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help *that word not allowed* erection in the males and vaginal contraction in the females. (Wieland, C., 1998. The strange tale of the leg on a whale. Creation 20(3):10Ã¢â‚¬â€œ13.)
Conclusion: Vestigial organs do not prove (or help to prove) evolution in any way, no matter how much adz87 (and other evolutionists) want! And according to Evolutionary zoologist S. R. Scadding (University of Guelph) Ã¢â‚¬Å“The Ã¢â‚¬Ëœvestigial organÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ argument uses as a premise the assertion that the organ in question has no function. There is no way however, in which this negative assertion can be arrived at scientifically. That is, one cannot prove that something does not exist (in this case a certain function), since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it scientifically. The best we can do is to state that despite diligent effort, no function was discovered for a given organ. However it may be that some future investigator will the discover the function. Consequently, the vestigial organ argument has as a premise, either a statement of ignorance (I couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t identify the function), or a scientifically invalid claim (it does not have a function). Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational or experimental science.
Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that Ã¢â‚¬Ëœvestigial organsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.Ã¢â‚¬Â (Do vestigial organs provide evidence for evolution? Evolutionary Theory 5:173Ã¢â‚¬â€œ1761981).
A few more quick points:
The appendix actually functions within the immune system; it is part of the Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue system. The appendix is a highly specialized organ, a complex well-developed structure with a rich blood supply. The submucosa (tissue layer) is thickened and almost entirely occupied by lymphatic nodules and lymphocytes (Scadding 175; Ham and Wieland 41; Glover 34f.; Vines 39).
The coccyx (Ã¢â‚¬Å“tailboneÃ¢â‚¬Â) Ã¢â‚¬Å“serves as a point of insertion for several muscles and ligaments including the gluteus maximusÃ¢â‚¬Â (Scadding 175; cf. Vines 39).
Wisdom teeth are useful, Ã¢â‚¬Å“especially if other molars wear down or decayÃ¢â‚¬Â (Vines 39). Although we in our culture find that wisdom teeth often have to be removed, this may be because our modern diet is Ã¢â‚¬Å“too soft to give our teeth the exercise they need to achieve their full potentialÃ¢â‚¬Â (Vines 38).
1- Bergman, Jerry, and George Howe. 1990. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Vestigial OrgansÃ¢â‚¬Â Are Fully Functional. Terre Haute, IN: Creation Research Society Books
2- Glover, J. Warwick. 1988. The Human Vermiform Appendix Ã¢â‚¬â€ a General SurgeonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Reflections. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 31-38.
3- Ham, Ken, and Carl Wieland. 1997. Your appendix... itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s there for a reason. Creation, Vol. 20 No. 1 (Dec 1997Ã¢â‚¬â€Feb 1998), pp. 41-43.
4- Scadding, S. R. 1981 (May). Do Ã¢â‚¬ËœVestigial OrgansÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ Provide Evidence for Evolution? Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, pp. 173-176.
5- Vines, Gail. 1998 (Apr 25). A waste of space. New Scientist, Vol. 158 No. 2131, pp. 38-39.