Jump to content


Photo

Macro-evolution


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#61 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 23 April 2011 - 05:40 PM

I don't think adz87 is coming back, because he is no longer able to hide behind the world view of being agnostic. I changed it to atheist because that was how he was debating.

View Post


Apparently… But then again, it’s only been two days; he may be too busy to answer (Easter is coming tomorrow), or he may be rethinking his position and has seen the error of his world view. It takes a big ban to swallow one’s pride and admit when the truth is the truth. It was tough for me as well.

But, I may be totally wrong... He may not be back.

#62 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 23 April 2011 - 05:58 PM

In the interests of fairness, I asked a die-hard evolutionist if there was any discovery which would cause him to reject evolution, and he replied with "show me a fossil bird in Devonian strata". This would indeed be very difficult for evolution to explain and would force many to abandon, or at the very least drastically revise, the theory of evolution.


Want to bet?

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=71210


What I want to know is this: is there a parallel example in creationism?


Yes. Show us any novel genetic information created by natural selection. It shouldn't take millions of years, since we can observe millions of generations of bacteria in a single human generation.



Enjoy.

#63 adz87

adz87

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Adelaide, South Australia

Posted 28 April 2011 - 07:17 PM

Sorry to lag behind guys, I have been away for a while and unable to access a computer. It seems I have a lot to get through...

"I can tell you that your claimed world view does not apply. You every answer is pro-evolution, and anti-Bible which is anti-God. So I'm changing your world view to atheist, because you have not proven to be an agnostic.

Agnostic in simple terms is someone that does not know. Your disagreements with the Bible say you already made up your mind."


I don't think that's true or fair. An agnostic is someone who is not sure about the existence of God or the supernatural. An atheist is someone who has made up their mind that there is no God and no supernatural. I already said that I thought these things were a possibility. I do not believe in the literal truth of genesis, but if that makes me an atheist then a fairly substantial lot of church goers are atheists too. I would be willing to accept the literal truth of genesis if there were scientific evidence to back it up indeed I did for some time. It's just that when I took the same critical thinking that I used to apply to evolution and pointed it at my own beliefs, it all just fell apart at the seams. Before then, I had read only creationist sources and watched documentaries which simply assumed evolution was true. I wrongly inferred that evolution could not be defended, as there was all this creationist material refuting it, and the documentaries did nothing to actually defend it, merely assumed it was true from the start. When I started reading sources which actually defended evolution, however, I found their arguments convincing. For now I think it's sufficient to say that I have no real opinions about the supernatural, it may exist or it might not. I don't know, and I never claimed to. You are of course welcome to change my mind.

"1. What initial evidence was this? was it empirical? Or was it based on supposition like Darwins other idea, Pangenesis."

Empirical observations backed up by logic. Initially it was supported by the fossil record and Darwin's extrapolation of small changes back through time into large changes. While initially controversial in the scientific community, further research added a lot of support to the theory (soon after its publication for example, archeopteryx was discovered, providing a bird / reptile link). Further research has in palaeontology cemented the theory's position in science by providing many more fossils in the places and ages that we would expect. The sequence of hominid fossils for example, shows such a smooth transition from ape-like creatures to modern humans that creationists cannot agree which ones are ape and which ones are human. If you want some good empirical evidence then check out the fossils shown here http://en.wikipedia....olution_fossils

The theory was also backed up by many genetic studies. A good example of this is a recent finding in human genetics: Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, whereas the other "great apes" which evolution predicts are related to us, have 24. Because there are 3 species which have 24 pairs of chromosomes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans), and only one with 23 (humans), evolutionists assumed that the ancestor which had produced all these species had 24 pairs. They reasoned that in humans, one pair must have fused together, and that this must obviously have happened after we branched from the rest of the hominid line. How would we tell if such a thing had happened? Chromosomes have a central piece of DNA called a centromere, and one at each end called a telomere. If two chromosomes had indeed fused, we would expect there to be one chromosome which looked like 2 chromosomes stuck together, i.e. with a telomere at one end, a centromere 1/4 the way along, then 2 more telomeres in the middle, one centromere 3/4 the way along, and another telomere at the end, like this: http://en.wikipedia....some2_merge.png . Evolution made this prediction, and then the scientists set out to test it. They found the chromosome, in humans it is chromosome number 2. This makes perfect sense if evolution is true, but I have yet to hear a creationist even attempt to explain it (feel free to be the first though). There is a short video clip here for those interested: . This is, of course, empirical evidence.

Regarding gilbo12345's points 3 through 7- A species of bacteria, Burkholderia, has recently developed a complex 7 step metabolic pathway which it uses to break down 2-4 dinitrotoluene (DNT, an ingredient in TNT). This metabolic pathway must have developed recently because DNT is a synthetic compound invented by humans. It did this by co-opting proteins which were already in existence for other functions - every one serves at least one other purpose in the organism. This is how scientists believe most of these "irreducibly complex" systems came about. You can read about this and other examples here: http://resources.met...b6&size=largest . I found the second paragraph down on the right especially interesting.

Yet to claim they did with no empirical evidence is even worse!! Actually not believing in something until there is empirical evidence that directly asserts it is called being scientific...

Not necessarily. If you watch a car driving along and it disappears out of view for a moment behind a house, only to reappear again, the logical conclusion is that it continues to drive even when we couldn't see it. Sure, if we allow for supernatural factors it might have teleported or phased out of existence only to reappear again, but parsimony says it probably didn't. In the same way, when we have evidence of an old universe (distant starlight, radiometric dating, etc.), evidence evolution from the fossil record, from genetics, from avatisms and vestigial remnants left over from an organism's past, we have observed examples of new species being produced, we have observed examples of new enzymes being produced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase), we have the distribution of species (why are there no marsupials in Europe or Asia for example? Evolution explains, creation does not explain), we have computer models that support it. When all of modern science points to evolution, to discount it based on one argument from ignorance seems worse to me.

"If it is non-functional then it cannot be selected for, since evolution is ONLY about the preservation of genetic material that is seen to give an advantage over its competitors."

That is absolutely correct, however the parts of irreducibly complex systems may very well be useful on their own. Indeed Michael Behe was humiliated in court recently when it was shown that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. For a start, the base of the flagellum is very similar to a type three secretion system (TTSS) found in other bacteria, which performs a function on its own. To quote some of Ken Miller's work: "If the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex, then removing just one part, let alone 10 or 15, should render what remains "by definition nonfunctional." Yet the TTSS is indeed fully-functional, even though it is missing most of the parts of the flagellum... The existence of the TTSS in a wide variety of bacteria demonstrates that a small portion of the "irreducibly complex" flagellum can indeed carry out an important biological function. Since such a function is clearly favored by natural selection, the contention that the flagellum must be fully-assembled before any of its component parts can be useful is obviously incorrect. What this means is that the argument for intelligent design of the flagellum has failed.". You can read the full article here: http://www.millerand...n2/article.html


"Really??? And you were going to provide this "more supporting evidence" when?" 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.

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.

#64 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 28 April 2011 - 07:17 PM

I don't think adz87 is coming back, because he is no longer able to hide behind the world view of being agnostic. I changed it to atheist because that was how he was debating.

View Post


Nope... He's back:

Posted Image

Although he may be just reading, and might not attempt to continue in his equivocations.

#65 adz87

adz87

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Adelaide, South Australia

Posted 28 April 2011 - 07:32 PM

Yes. Show us any novel genetic information created by natural selection. It shouldn't take millions of years, since we can observe millions of generations of bacteria in a single human generation.
Enjoy.

View Post


We know that mutations can duplicate genes, and we know they can change them. If a gene is duplicated, obviously this is not new information (you can't buy 2 copies of the one book and learn twice as much from it), but if a mutation changes the copy, new information can then be produced. There is an observed example of this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase
These bacteria have developed a new enzyme they did not previously have. Surely this is new information?

#66 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 28 April 2011 - 08:22 PM

I don't think that's true or fair. An agnostic is someone who is not sure about the existence of God or the supernatural. An atheist is someone who has made up their mind that there is no God and no supernatural. I already said that I thought these things were a possibility. I do not believe in the literal truth of genesis, but if that makes me an atheist then a fairly substantial lot of church goers are atheists too. I would be willing to accept the literal truth of genesis if there were scientific evidence to back it up indeed I did for some time. It's just that when I took the same critical thinking that I used to apply to evolution and pointed it at my own beliefs, it all just fell apart at the seams. Before then, I had read only creationist sources and watched documentaries which simply assumed evolution was true. I wrongly inferred that evolution could not be defended, as there was all this creationist material refuting it, and the documentaries did nothing to actually defend it, merely assumed it was true from the start. When I started reading sources which actually defended evolution, however, I found their arguments convincing. For now I think it's sufficient to say that I have no real opinions about the supernatural, it may exist or it might not. I don't know, and I never claimed to. You are of course welcome to change my mind.

I hate that you lost your faith, talkorigins and other pro evolution sources actually increased my faith.(The Bible also warns us against "fine sounding" arguments.) I've been reading Science journals for years, Scientists don't know as much as these atheist sources let on. A majority of their ideas on origins are still in highly theoretical phase.(Especially in regards to astronomy and astrophysics.) There is nothing empirical about the naturalistic world view. Period. If you have any questions about Creation, let me know.

#67 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 29 April 2011 - 04:09 AM

We know that mutations can duplicate genes, and we know they can change them. If a gene is duplicated, obviously this is not new information (you can't buy 2 copies of the one book and learn twice as much from it), but if a mutation changes the copy, new information can then be produced. There is an observed example of this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase
These bacteria have developed a new enzyme they did not previously have. Surely this is new information?

View Post



YET the promoters needed to transcript that gene will be the same hence the signal system that is used to turn the gene on / off and produce the gene product will be the same as the old function...

Hence if an entirely new function was created then it would not work properly, (as it will be turned on / off at the wrong times, thus leading to a decrease in efficiency of the cell; why use resources for something that is not needed)...

On the flip side if the signal system is still correct for the function, then for all intents and purposes then the function is not completely new and is just a variant of the original function... Nylonase is an example of this. A bacteria's main function is as "nature's recyclers" hence being able to recycle nylon is just a variant of its original function... (Just like how some bacteria with a particular gene , (or plasmid), can digest lactose)...

#68 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 29 April 2011 - 04:47 PM

We know that mutations can duplicate genes, and we know they can change them. If a gene is duplicated, obviously this is not new information (you can't buy 2 copies of the one book and learn twice as much from it), but if a mutation changes the copy, new information can then be produced. There is an observed example of this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase
These bacteria have developed a new enzyme they did not previously have. Surely this is new information?

View Post


No it isn't. It's the same gene producing a different amino acid sequence. Very similar to penicillin-recognizing family of serine-reactive hydrolases.

http://www.jbc.org/c.../39644.abstract

#69 adz87

adz87

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Adelaide, South Australia

Posted 03 May 2011 - 07:07 PM

It isn't quite the same though, it's a copy of the gene which was then modified. The organism now has a new enzyme, and a new ability that it did not have before. If this isn't adding new information, can you please define for me what we would need to find which would count as new information?

#70 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 03 May 2011 - 11:02 PM

It isn't quite the same though, it's a copy of the gene which was then modified. The organism now has a new enzyme, and a new ability that it did not have before. If this isn't adding new information, can you please define for me what we would need to find which would count as new information?

View Post


The E-coli turning into a beetle would be new information, its still E-coli.

#71 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 04 May 2011 - 02:59 AM

It isn't quite the same though, it's a copy of the gene which was then modified. The organism now has a new enzyme, and a new ability that it did not have before. If this isn't adding new information, can you please define for me what we would need to find which would count as new information?

View Post


Talking about not the same?

First, it remains a gene, does it not? This is not evolution; this is simply gaining new information if it is anything at all. I gained new abilities when I learned how to play guitar; I didn’t evolve, I gained a new ability. I gained new abilities during the processes of earning post graduate degrees; I didn’t evolve, I gained a new abilities. While in the military I earned many certifications, diplomas and honors for studies, achievements and missions; I didn’t evolve, I gained a new abilities. I am gaining new abilities during the processes of studying for my graduate degrees; I’m not evolving, I’m gaining a new abilities.

I have been modified, and yet I remain a man…

#72 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 04 May 2011 - 03:16 AM

Talking about not the same?

First, it remains a gene, does it not? This is not evolution; this is simply gaining new information if it is anything at all. I gained new abilities when I learned how to play guitar; I didn’t evolve, I gained a new ability. I gained new abilities during the processes of earning post graduate degrees; I didn’t evolve, I gained a new abilities. While in the military I earned many certifications, diplomas and honors for studies, achievements and missions; I didn’t evolve, I gained a new abilities. I am gaining new abilities during the processes of studying for my graduate degrees; I’m not evolving, I’m gaining a new abilities.

I have been modified, and yet I remain a man…

View Post


Oh come on Ron, give it a few million years! :)

#73 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 May 2011 - 04:27 AM

I hate that you lost your faith, talkorigins and other pro evolution sources actually increased my faith.(The Bible also warns us against "fine sounding" arguments.) I've been reading Science journals for years, Scientists don't know as much as these atheist sources let on. A majority of their ideas on origins are still in highly theoretical phase.(Especially in regards to astronomy and astrophysics.) There is nothing empirical about the naturalistic world view. Period. If you have any questions about Creation, let me know.

View Post


The testimony is more of a: down with creation, and up with evolution. And I challenge you to change my mind by presenting better evidence than what I have already accepted (if the testimony is true). The reason I say this is because I hear the same version of the same testimony, just altered a little, quite often. All are atheists trying to make the Christian think he has a chance. That way you will try and he will try to convert you (like the list on how to convert a Christian to atheist).

Examples of the same testimonies with a little insight:
Creation is just not good enough, so I converted to evolution.
God just did not do it right, makes people look stupid. Because all believers can say is: God did it.
Evolution is more convincing and makes me look real smart to believe it.
I can "see" the evidence for evolution, I can't see creation or it's evidence.
Now I might change back if you can convince me. But I will only accept what science accepts which makes your chances ZERO. But if you keep trying I just might convert you.
Kent H*vind made us all look stupid so we decided evolution was the best alternative.
If YEC were correct, why did H*vind end up in jail?
etc...

And on and on it goes of the same song and dance, just different ways of saying the same thing. Which basically always is:

1) Evolution is smart.
2) Creation is stupid.
3) And I challenge you to convert me.

The only time an atheist will actually challenge you to convert him, is when it's all a game to him. And his heart has hardened enough against God that he does not even worry about conversion. But he will laugh at you for making the effort. The whole thing is to invoke an emotional response so he can use it against you.

You get an atheist who is not firm in his beliefs, he would be afraid to challenge you to convert him because he knows he is not set in his ways and conversion is a possibility.

So I change his world view to atheist because all his posts are pro-evolution and anti-God. Upon doing so he switches to this conversion testimony.

1) You don't convert to being agnostic. Because being agnostic is not a belief because you are not suppose to know what to believe. So his testimony just told you what the truth is. And confirms what I already knew.
2) If he were truly agnostic his challenge for conversion would also be for atheists. But he has already chosen by choosing their main anti-God belief, evolution.

#74 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 04 May 2011 - 04:51 AM

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.

View Post


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 “empirical” evidence as the OP calls for. You know that which you have yet to provide, and I have continually pressed you for.

I don’t see you lasting very long since you cannot provide anything but faith statements as facts.

View Post

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.

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.

View Post


Okay, let’s take a look…

evolutionists assumed

View Post


When you “correctly” used the word “assumed” 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 don’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 ‘a priori’ needs as evidences. If you took an honest look at your postings adz87, and the evolutionist’s writings you use as evidences, you’d soon see the plethora of assumptions based upon pseudo-facts.

Further, in as much as your statements concerning “vestigial organs” in general, and “whale vestigial features” more specifically; ALL of your pseudo facts are based upon assumptions and presuppositions as well. So you want to hear a “Creationists answer to these vestigial whale features”. It is really quite simple really… your explanation is assumptive, and is nothing more than a pre-supposed attempt to explain macro-evolution. It is an ‘a priori’ 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 don’t know what an organ is for, then how do you know it is “vestigial”? Unfortunately, it (the word “vestigial”) 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.

Don’t get me wrong, creationists call certain organs “vestigial” as well, but creationists don’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 “alleged vestigial organs” are no longer needed, it would prove “devolution” not evolution. Why: because if these organs are still being carried around “uselessly” for a supposed “millions” of years, how is that evolution… It is not, it is devolution! Much like the totally unfounded hypotheses that the whale evolved from an aquatic creature, then it didn’t like the water, so it evolved into a land dwelling wolf-like creature, didn’t like that, and de-evolved back to an aquatic creature.

Here’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 etc…) let alone their “evolution of the gaps”.

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):10–13.)

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) “The ‘vestigial organ’ 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 couldn’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 ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.” (Do vestigial organs provide evidence for evolution? Evolutionary Theory 5:173–1761981).


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 (“tailbone”) “serves as a point of insertion for several muscles and ligaments including the gluteus maximus” (Scadding 175; cf. Vines 39).

Wisdom teeth are useful, “especially if other molars wear down or decay” (Vines 39). Although we in our culture find that wisdom teeth often have to be removed, this may be because our modern diet is “too soft to give our teeth the exercise they need to achieve their full potential” (Vines 38).

See also:
1- Bergman, Jerry, and George Howe. 1990. “Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional. Terre Haute, IN: Creation Research Society Books
2- Glover, J. Warwick. 1988. The Human Vermiform Appendix — a General Surgeon’s Reflections. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 31-38.
3- Ham, Ken, and Carl Wieland. 1997. Your appendix... it’s there for a reason. Creation, Vol. 20 No. 1 (Dec 1997—Feb 1998), pp. 41-43.
4- Scadding, S. R. 1981 (May). Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ 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.

#75 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 04 May 2011 - 01:39 PM

I'll respond to his points too when I have time. I've been busy. :)

#76 adz87

adz87

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Adelaide, South Australia

Posted 06 May 2011 - 05:33 AM

"First, it remains a gene, does it not? This is not evolution; this is simply gaining new information if it is anything at all. I gained new abilities when I learned how to play guitar; I didn’t evolve, I gained a new ability. I gained new abilities during the processes of earning post graduate degrees; I didn’t evolve, I gained a new abilities. While in the military I earned many certifications, diplomas and honors for studies, achievements and missions; I didn’t evolve, I gained a new abilities. I am gaining new abilities during the processes of studying for my graduate degrees; I’m not evolving, I’m gaining a new abilities."

That isn't the same thing at all. Your genetics did not change when you learned these skells. The bacteria's genetics did. And yes, it remained a gene, but not quite the same gene. That's how evolution works, small steps like this one, simply added together.

"The E-coli turning into a beetle would be new information, its still E-coli."

But not the same E-coli. That is the point. Information must have been needed to give it the new protein it now has, or are you claiming that a new protien can be generated without new information?

Ron, the point is not that vestigial organs are "useless", we know some of them aren't (though I have yet to hear a creationist postulate a use for the whale's muscles which are there to move nonexistant external ears, or the eye remnants in blind cave fish). The point is that they do not serve the same purpose as those in other animals which have the same structure in non-vestigial form. They look exactly like we would expect an evolutionary leftover to look. Furthermore, these things are not the opposite of evolution. Evolution only demands that new traits be advantageous, not necessarily more complex. If the whale was transitioning from a terrestrial into an aquatic animal, losing external ears is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, as it would make for a more streamlined swimmer, it can still be evolution even though it is losing a feature. Some evolutionary changes add features (like the new enzyme previously mentioned) and some remove them, whichever is advantageous to the organism.

I think the strongest evidence for evolution, and the original role of these "vestigial" features, comes from genetics. I mentioned earlier that baleen whales have the genes to grow teeth, but they are switched off. Whales also have the genes to grow fur, yet these are switched off. Birds also have the genes to grow teeth, but they are switched off. Birds also have the genes to grow long, dinosaurian style tails, but these are suppressed so that only a small tail is grown. And of course humans have the aforementioned chromosome which looks suspiciously similar to 2 ape chromosomes. There are many more examples, but the question for creationists is: why do these animals have these genes?

ikester7579: I don't know what my personal beliefs have to do with a thread about biology, but let me assure you I am not an atheist. I don't even like atheists, I think they are massively arrogant because what they basically are saying is "I know everything in universe, and there is definitely no God". It is a ridiculous claim, there is no way to empirically prove or disprove the supernatural and yet they claim to have done so somehow. They can't even back up their bald assertions with personal testimnies like some religious people do, becasuse of course they don't belive that God has had any effect on their lives. They are often so smug or so rude about their beliefs that they honestly make me think "their belief system is not for me, it has turned them into people who are genuinely not nice". My posts are not "anti-God", they are anti-biblical literalism. I don't think Genesis needs to be taken as a literal account, and I think that there are large scientiffic problems with a literal interpretation.

#77 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 06 May 2011 - 06:38 AM

Ron, the point is not that vestigial organs are "useless", we know some of them aren't (though I have yet to hear a creationist postulate a use for the whale's muscles which are there to move nonexistant external ears, or the eye remnants in blind cave fish).

View Post

No adz87, the main point is that all of your assertions are made on “assumptions” (as I provided in my rebuttal above). And your assertion that you are merely waiting on a creationist “postulate” is doing nothing more than proving my point. You want a “postulate” (which is, again, nothing more than an “assumption); a “postulate” by definition is nothing more than “to assume or suggest that something is true or exists, especially as the basis of an argument or theory”. Further, a “postulate” is “something that is assumed or believed to be true and that is used as the basis of an argument or theory”… They are faith statements.

Therefore, either you or I can “postulate” anything we want, and bring absolutely nothing of worth to the table when it comes to submitting “facts”.

The point is that they do not serve the same purpose as those in other animals which have the same structure in non-vestigial form.

View Post

The point is that you are “assuming” what they are for, instead of “knowing” what they are for.

They look exactly like we would expect an evolutionary leftover to look.

View Post

They look exactly like you “postulate” your expectations for them to be. Just like you “postulate”(sans any empirical evidence) that the whale was previously a wolf-like land dwelling animal. But before this could happen, you have to “postulate” that the wolf-like creature was originally an aquatic animal. Which ends (today) demands de-evolution to reach! If this were the case, then we could all de-evolve back to the protozoa stage. Have we observed any of this, or is this simply a “postulate” as well.

Furthermore, these things are not the opposite of evolution. Evolution only demands that new traits be advantageous, not necessarily more complex.

View Post


Actually they do demand de-evolution in the case submitted, as there is absolutely no empirical evidence of the complex becoming decreasingly complex, just like there is no empirical evidence that an aquatic animal evolved into a wolf like creature, then evolved into a whale. But then again, we are only submitting “postulates” and not facts and evidences.

If the whale was transitioning from a terrestrial into an aquatic animal, losing external ears is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, as it would make for a more streamlined swimmer, it can still be evolution even though it is losing a feature. Some evolutionary changes add features (like the new enzyme previously mentioned) and some remove them, whichever is advantageous to the organism.

View Post

And again, you are only “postulating”, therefore I “postulate” that you have absolutely no “empirical” evidence to support your “postulates”. The difference is, I actually have the inductive empirical facts to back up my “postulates”.

I think the strongest evidence for evolution, and the original role of these "vestigial" features, comes from genetics.

View Post

Again, you keep using the “vestigial” word, as if your use of it lends validity to your “postulates”. You do realize this do oyu not?

I mentioned earlier that baleen whales have the genes to grow teeth, but they are switched off. Whales also have the genes to grow fur, yet these are switched off. Birds also have the genes to grow teeth, but they are switched off.

View Post

Other than your “postulates”, what exactly has this empirically proven?

Birds also have the genes to grow long, dinosaurian style tails, but these are suppressed so that only a small tail is grown. And of course humans have the aforementioned chromosome which looks suspiciously similar to 2 ape chromosomes. There are many more examples, but the question for creationists is: why do these animals have these genes?

View Post


Once more you insert your totally assumed phrase “dinosaurian style tails”, when in fact, if it was on a bird, it would be a “bird style tail”; as a bird is not a dinosaur, and a dinosaur is not a bird (except in your postulates). And you insert your totally assumed phrase “chromosome which looks suspiciously similar to 2 ape chromosomes”, emphasizing the words “suspiciously similar” as if it somehow enhances (or elevates) your “postulate” to “verified fact” status. There again, a man is not an ape, and an ape is not a man.

Further, when your “postulates” are not facts, you statements are nothing more than opinions, and “assumptive” opinions at that.

#78 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 May 2011 - 10:46 AM

It isn't quite the same though, it's a copy of the gene which was then modified. The organism now has a new enzyme, and a new ability that it did not have before. If this isn't adding new information, can you please define for me what we would need to find which would count as new information?

View Post


Empirical sources for that? None.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users