Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Question


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
43 replies to this topic

#21 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 27 February 2012 - 08:53 AM

Sure, I understand that. If someone writes 2 + 2 = 5 then it gets corrected. But when blood cells and soft tissue are found in 80,000,000 year old bones, something was considered impossible even for a few thousand years, then how do we know that the correction is correct? If the reason that we are finding soft tissue is that these bones are not as old as were are being told, then the correction would be incorrect!


When I see something like that in the press I treat it with causation. It's just one scientist working on one bone. Interesting but not conclusive of anything. I just file it and tell myself to look it up in ten years when there may be more to go on. Wait for all the facts to emerge, then form an opinion.

Ideally, yes, but that isn't what we are experiencing in "real life". We are being told constantly by evolutionists that they ARE "as certain as they can be that evolution is true". I hear it all the time.


Yes. That's because the Theory of Evolution as an overarching explanation of how life on earth developed from simple to more complex is regarded as proven as any scientific idea can ever be. It has been tested and examined by hundreds of thousands of scientists across several disciplines over 150 years - if it was wrong it would have been early established many years ago. But that doesn't mean that individual bits and pieces of things won't prove to be in the wrong place or simply incorrect.

That's a bit of a straw man.


yes, best left alone.....


Science neither says anything nor goes anywhere. Scientists interpret what science says and where it goes. Scientific evidence that can be interpreted in different directions cannot "lead" anyone - we choose where we want to be lead, and who to follow. It is the interpreter who decides where it leads, not the science!


I'm afraid I didn't understand that.

#22 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:13 AM

Theories are meant to explain the "facts" meaning if you destroy the theory then the "fact" is destroyed also.


Do the Zebra's stripes (fact) disappear if evolution (theory) can't explain them? Did the zebra's stripe exist before Darwin came up with a method of explaining how they got them?

For example, you cannot claim evolution a fact and then if or when the theory of evolution is debunked, (which I believe is soon coming), you still cannot claim evolution is a fact despite its theory being neutered.... To do so is illogical and is 100% based on faith.


A theory explains a group of facts. I didn't claim the theory of evolution to be a fact itself. (Although to all intents and purposes, it is. It's normally described to be as near to a fact as we are capable of getting with a theory).

#23 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:54 AM

When I see something like that in the press I treat it with causation. It's just one scientist working on one bone. Interesting but not conclusive of anything. I just file it and tell myself to look it up in ten years when there may be more to go on. Wait for all the facts to emerge, then form an opinion.


Well, that's nice to know, because ten years have come and gone and that happened almost ten years ago. Since then the finding has been confirmed in many bones, not just one:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=4766

Yes. That's because the Theory of Evolution as an overarching explanation of how life on earth developed from simple to more complex is regarded as proven as any scientific idea can ever be. It has been tested and examined by hundreds of thousands of scientists across several disciplines over 150 years - if it was wrong it would have been early established many years ago. But that doesn't mean that individual bits and pieces of things won't prove to be in the wrong place or simply incorrect.


There are individual bits and pieces of things that are correct. These are the ones that have been tested and examined. Common descent and macro-evolution have never been observed and are pratically impossible to prove wrong. But perhaps they are the "bits and pieces" that are incorrect..

#24 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 27 February 2012 - 11:01 AM

Do the Zebra's stripes (fact) disappear if evolution (theory) can't explain them? Did the zebra's stripe exist before Darwin came up with a method of explaining how they got them?



A theory explains a group of facts. I didn't claim the theory of evolution to be a fact itself. (Although to all intents and purposes, it is. It's normally described to be as near to a fact as we are capable of getting with a theory).



LOL you just did claim it as a fact, which therefore validates what I said in the post before about evolution


However you are correct in that if evolution were debunked that wouldn't change the fact that zebras have stripes.. However the fact that zebra's have stripes was not the thing that was being scientifically investigated, hence your claim is a red herring. People come to the belief of the fact that zebras have stripes outside of scientific endeavor, and rather just from personal observation of actual zebras or pictures, photos or videos of them. Whereas the "fact" of evolution IS promulgated by the scientific community and thus is a scientific endeavor, hence my analogy from before is fitting.

Nice attempt at switching what I was talking about. I did say there are no facts in science, (as in scientific endeavors / theories etc), this is solely based on, (as I said before), the proposition of falsification. If there is the potential for falsification then you cannot claim it as a fact, period, since facts are absolutes and to have an absolute in science there must be 0% potential for falsification.

Now, you're failed to address what I said.... If evolution were found to be false, would it still be considered a "fact" (since you admit it is a "fact")

#25 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 27 February 2012 - 11:43 AM

Well, that's nice to know, because ten years have come and gone and that happened almost ten years ago. Since then the finding has been confirmed in many bones, not just one:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=4766


Good, then it's quite likely to be true. Quite exciting. So what is your point?

There are individual bits and pieces of things that are correct. These are the ones that have been tested and examined. Common descent and macro-evolution have never been observed and are pratically impossible to prove wrong. But perhaps they are the "bits and pieces" that are incorrect..


You'll not be surprised to hear that science disagrees with you. The fossil record alone proves common descent as does the existence of nested hierarchies but as luck would have it so does comparative DNA and molecular genetics. DNA could have brought the entire theory to the ground but instead it confirmed what we already knew.

As for macro-evolution there is no such thing, it's just something used to explain that many small changes can lead to speciation.

#26 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:22 PM

I'm afraid I didn't understand that.


I don't understand what you don't understand.

You do realize that scientists don't just go out into the field, dig up stuff and then exclaim "wow, here is some evidence for evolution, an old universe and the big bang!!"

The evidence doesn't say that, and it doesn't lead them towards it. What does say that, and what does lead them towards it, is what they have undergone for a number of years before digging stuff up.

It is during this time that they have their minds preconditioned to interpret their findings in the "light" of the dominant paradigm, which at present is evolution.

That's why evolutionists "know" that soft tissue and blood cells in dinosaur bones MUST be interpreted as evidence of some miraculous power of preservation that defies everything we know about what happens to soft tissue and blood cells in bones, simply because we "know" that dinosuares MUST be millions of years old.

Good, then it's quite likely to be true. Quite exciting. So what is your point?


My point is that it is quite likely to be true.

You'll not be surprised to hear that science disagrees with you. The fossil record alone proves common descent as does the existence of nested hierarchies but as luck would have it so does comparative DNA and molecular genetics. DNA could have brought the entire theory to the ground but instead it confirmed what we already knew.


Science does not disagree with me, you do. The fossil record does not prove common descent and neither does genetics. Similarities are not proof of evolution. Do similarities between a fig tree and an olive tree prove that both figs and olives grow on the same tree? Neither do fossils or DNA prove anything.

As for macro-evolution there is no such thing, it's just something used to explain that many small changes can lead to speciation.


I'm glad we can agree there is no such thing as macro-evolution.

#27 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 27 February 2012 - 02:27 PM

I don't understand what you don't understand.


Excellent, we've found a point of agreement. (My problem is that I don't know what you believe so I don't know what you're objecting to yet.)

You do realize that scientists don't just go out into the field, dig up stuff and then exclaim "wow, here is some evidence for evolution, an old universe and the big bang!!"


Really, what about all those test tubes and bunsen burners and white coats, do they not do use them either?

That's why evolutionists "know" that soft tissue and blood cells in dinosaur bones MUST be interpreted as evidence of some miraculous power of preservation that defies everything we know about what happens to soft tissue and blood cells in bones, simply because we "know" that dinosuares MUST be millions of years old.


Yikes. Miraculous dinosaurs, who would have thought it.

I suppose you have a serious point here somewhere and it's to do with the age of the earth? Dinosaurs are hundreds of millions of years old so the fact that someone has found blood cells inside dinosaur fossils must show that they're modern? So you're a YEC?

#28 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 27 February 2012 - 09:13 PM

I suppose you have a serious point here somewhere and it's to do with the age of the earth?

Dinosaurs are hundreds of millions of years old so the fact that someone has found blood cells inside dinosaur fossils must show that they're modern? So you're a YEC?


How do you "know" that dinosaurs actually are hundreds of millions of years old. This is the exact claim that these tissue finds debunk.


"Paleontologists who have analyzed the tissues, visible through their microscopes and squeezable with their tweezers, insist that something is fundamentally wrong with laboratory data on biochemical decay rates.2 In turn, biochemists are confident that their repeatable experiments show that the soft tissues should not be there after all this time. To try to get around the hard facts of soft tissues, some scientists have even proposed that the blood vessels and red blood cells in question were bacterial slime. This was thoroughly refuted, however, by research showing that the dinosaur tissue contains a collagen protein that bacteria do not produce.3"

http://www.icr.org/a...ssue-here-stay/


"Time itself destroys soft tissues as well as DNA and proteins in short order. Current real-time observations suggest that bio-proteins could not remain intact more than a few tens of thousands of years - 100,000 years at the very outside limit of protein decay. The fact that such proteins are found, intact, in bones supposedly older than 65 million years is simply inconsistent with such an assumed age - by a few orders of magnitude. For the same reason that the age of ancient salt crystals thought to be 250 to 450 million years old was questioned when living bacterial spores were discovered inside,33 the age of 65 million-year-old T. rex bones should be questioned when intact elastic soft tissues and protein sequences are found inside."

http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilizeddna.html




Here are some further young age estimates using different methods, some are old age too.

http://www.earthage....young_earth.htm

#29 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 28 February 2012 - 01:17 AM

Really, what about all those test tubes and bunsen burners and white coats, do they not do use them either?


Not to determine the age of the universe, whether or not common descent is a fact, or to observe the big bang. But perhaps you dísagree?

So you're a YEC?


WOW! You catch on quick!

But no...In my profile it says "Young Earth Creationist" but that's only to fool the other members of this site.. so don't tell anyone!!.. it's taken me a long time to win over their confidence.

OF COURSE I'M A YEC!!! :gigglesmile:

#30 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 28 February 2012 - 01:48 AM

OF COURSE I'M A YEC!!! :gigglesmile:


You'll have to excuse my slowness, I'm still acclimatising to finding so many strange ideas all in the same place.
I think I must feel a bit like Alice.

#31 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 02 March 2012 - 06:05 AM



OF COURSE I'M A YEC!!! :gigglesmile:

You'll have to excuse my slowness, I'm still acclimatising to finding so many strange ideas all in the same place.
I think I must feel a bit like Alice.


Ummmm... Right! As UD pointed out, his world-view is posted in the banner on the left side of his posts. Also, the stranger ideas were those posted by you on your behalf. Especially since you totally failed to provide any evidence to back any of it up. At least Alice had an excuse... She had been eating and drinking a litle too much.

#32 Richw9090

Richw9090

    BANNED

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Tucson

Posted 02 March 2012 - 07:45 AM

"The whales so-called "pelvic bones" are used to support their reproductive ability. Without them whales would not reproduce."

What about all the species of cetaceans which no longer have pelvic bones at all? How is that they manage to reproduce? Not all species of whales have these vestigial remnants.
Note that the remnants are not merely a single bone on each side, but in some species include a remnant of the pelvis, a remnant of the femur, a remnant of the tibia, and even a remnant of the astragalus.

Here is a picture of the hind limbs of a Blue Whale originally dissected by Struthers in 1881 and published in 1893- that's how long we've known about vestigial hind limbs in whales.

Posted Image

#33 Richw9090

Richw9090

    BANNED

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Tucson

Posted 02 March 2012 - 07:59 AM

"No such thing as a vestigial organ, every single organ ever said to be vestigial has later been discovered to have a function. Some of them had very important functions. Organs that do not have a known function at this time, such as the laryngeal nerve, will probably be later discovered to have a function. By laryngeal nerve, I mean the excess wrapping around other organs rather than going straight to it's destination."

Interesting that this was posted right after Aelyn posted a clear explanation of what vestigial organs are. Withour_Excuse didn't bother to read, just posted, I guess.

Vestigial organs certainly do exist - in fact, most evolutionary change depends upon them. Any character state. organ or organ system that evolves renders its previous states vestigial of any change in function takes place. The feathers in birds, now clearly related to locomotion (flying) are simply vestigial thermal blankets which became co-opted by evolution for gliding and then flying. If you are actually interested in learning more about this from the perspective I've introduced above, read "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm" by Steven J. Gould.

Vestigial organs are often reduced from their pre-cursors, as Aelyn noted, and that is certainly the case in most of the classic examples - whale hindlimbs and human tails, for example. Their functions are sometimes less complex than the earlier function - but not always. Besides, the complexity of a function is a bit difficult to measure in any really stringent way.

Rich

#34 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 02 March 2012 - 08:06 AM

Hi Rich and welcome to the forum!

Could you please use the "Quote" button at the bottom right hand corner of the post so we can see who you are quoting.

What about all the species of cetaceans which no longer have pelvic bones at all? How is that they manage to reproduce? Not all species of whales have these vestigial remnants.


I never made the claim that all cetaceans have the same reproductive systems. So I don't see what your point is. Whales would probably need something as strong as dedicated bones because of their size. That other cetaceans lack "pelvic bones" would seem to be an argument against evolution, not for it.

Note that the remnants are not merely a single bone on each side, but in some species include a remnant of the pelvis, a remnant of the femur, a remnant of the tibia, and even a remnant of the astragalus.


And we know that these are "remnants" of these bones because..???

Here is a picture of the hind limbs of a Blue Whale originally dissected by Struthers in 1881 and published in 1893- that's how long we've known about vestigial hind limbs in whales.


No, that is not how long we have "known" that they are vestigial. We don't know what we can't prove.

#35 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 02 March 2012 - 08:15 AM

"No such thing as a vestigial organ, every single organ ever said to be vestigial has later been discovered to have a function. Some of them had very important functions. Organs that do not have a known function at this time, such as the laryngeal nerve, will probably be later discovered to have a function. By laryngeal nerve, I mean the excess wrapping around other organs rather than going straight to it's destination."

Interesting that this was posted right after Aelyn posted a clear explanation of what vestigial organs are. Withour_Excuse didn't bother to read, just posted, I guess.

Vestigial organs certainly do exist - in fact, most evolutionary change depends upon them. Any character state. organ or organ system that evolves renders its previous states vestigial of any change in function takes place. The feathers in birds, now clearly related to locomotion (flying) are simply vestigial thermal blankets which became co-opted by evolution for gliding and then flying. If you are actually interested in learning more about this from the perspective I've introduced above, read "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm" by Steven J. Gould.

Vestigial organs are often reduced from their pre-cursors, as Aelyn noted, and that is certainly the case in most of the classic examples - whale hindlimbs and human tails, for example. Their functions are sometimes less complex than the earlier function - but not always. Besides, the complexity of a function is a bit difficult to measure in any really stringent way.

Rich


Rich, you are basing these arguments on the assumption that the kind of evolution that would result in vestigial organs is true. It's circular reasoning.

#36 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 03 March 2012 - 07:31 PM

"No such thing as a vestigial organ, every single organ ever said to be vestigial has later been discovered to have a function. Some of them had very important functions. Organs that do not have a known function at this time, such as the laryngeal nerve, will probably be later discovered to have a function. By laryngeal nerve, I mean the excess wrapping around other organs rather than going straight to it's destination."

Interesting that this was posted right after Aelyn posted a clear explanation of what vestigial organs are. Withour_Excuse didn't bother to read, just posted, I guess.

Vestigial organs certainly do exist - in fact, most evolutionary change depends upon them. Any character state. organ or organ system that evolves renders its previous states vestigial of any change in function takes place. The feathers in birds, now clearly related to locomotion (flying) are simply vestigial thermal blankets which became co-opted by evolution for gliding and then flying. If you are actually interested in learning more about this from the perspective I've introduced above, read "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm" by Steven J. Gould.

Vestigial organs are often reduced from their pre-cursors, as Aelyn noted, and that is certainly the case in most of the classic examples - whale hindlimbs and human tails, for example. Their functions are sometimes less complex than the earlier function - but not always. Besides, the complexity of a function is a bit difficult to measure in any really stringent way.

Rich

I will point out that my reply partly inspired itself from the Wikipedia article on vestigiality, that makes a clear distinction between vestigiality and exaption. Basically while both vestigial and exapted features have lost their original function (or, if you don't accept evolution, the function their homologs have in other groups), vestigial features have either no function or a function that is minor compared to the original, whereas exapted features have a different function that is just as important as the original one. I illustrated this with a contrast between whale flippers and whale pelvic bones.

Just saying that while I agree with the main thrust of your post, I'd definitely count feathers as an exaption rather than a vestigial feature. Modern feathers in birds not only play a role in insulation, they have even more important roles, namely flight. (on the other hand one can make a parallel argument on the almost-flight feathers of flightless birds)

I guess one could argue that to distinguish between vestigiality and exaption is meaningless because in the context of the theory of evolution we expect to see a continuum between vestigial and exapted features (depending on how important we deem a novel function to be). But the concept of "vestigial" features is still relevant in that it makes a statement on the direction we've observed in their evolution*, and that we anticipate observing in the future. In an exapted organ we expect to see modifications related to their new function, and stability in the future (insofar as the optimal structure for said function is more or less attained; I'd say that's the case for feathers and whale flippers for example); we also expect to see change that can't be summed up as "reduction". In a vestigial organ we expect to see simple reduction, with further reductions in the future (even in organs that have function; for example even if we assume the pelvic bones' function anchoring muscles in whales is vital, their variety makes it clear they have quite some leeway to reduce further before functionality becomes an issue.)

*One difficult but important thing to remember is of course that evolution isn't teleological, and doesn't have a "direction" in the sense that it has foresight. But that doesn't mean that evolutionary change is arbitrary; it depends on the environment and the selective pressure it implies, and if said selective pressure is the same for a given group for a long time we will observe evolution going in one direction. This is even more evident when we ignore the side branches where the selective pressures changed and evolution went a different way.

Hi Rich and welcome to the forum! Could you please use the "Quote" button at the bottom right hand corner of the post so we can see who you are quoting. I never made the claim that all cetaceans have the same reproductive systems. So I don't see what your point is. Whales would probably need something as strong as dedicated bones because of their size. That other cetaceans lack "pelvic bones" would seem to be an argument against evolution, not for it. And we know that these are "remnants" of these bones because..??? No, that is not how long we have "known" that they are vestigial. We don't know what we can't prove.

Um, I didn't mention that some cetaceans have no pelvic bones because I couldn't actually find any evidence for that claim (as I said I found evidence neither for or against, I'd love to know you people's sources), but you said that whales couldn't reproduce without them. The existence of cetaceans that don't have them in the first place but reproduce fine would be a straightforward refutation of that claim. As for them being a piece of evidence against evolution, I don't see it, care to explain ?

And we know that these are "remnants" of these bones because..???

Because anatomists who spend their lives looking at hips, femurs and tibias recognize them as such ?...

No, that is not how long we have "known" that they are vestigial. We don't know what we can't prove.

There is no such thing as absolute proof in science. There is evidence, and more or less of it. There is lots of evidence that whale pelvic bones, and the bones associated with them, are in fact homologous to other mammalian pelvic and limb bones.

#37 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 04 March 2012 - 02:18 AM

The existence of cetaceans that don't have them in the first place but reproduce fine would be a straightforward refutation of that claim.


What does the fact that other (smaller) cetaceans reproduce without these bones have to do with how the whale reproduces?

I don't get your point and therefore I don't see how it refutes anything I said.

I said I found evidence neither for or against, I'd love to know you people's sources


Then you should turn to the one who made the assertion in the first place, rather than "us people". I was simply responding to his post.

As for them being a piece of evidence against evolution, I don't see it, care to explain ?


If the other cetaceans also were land animals and the original assertion is correct that they lack these bones, then why would they lack them?

Because anatomists who spend their lives looking at hips, femurs and tibias recognize them as such ?...


Perhaps you misread my question, so let me repeat it with a very important word bolded:

And we know that these are "remnants" of these bones because..???

The fact that anatomists interpret patterns in an evolutionary light does not mean that they are correct. Reused patterns is common whereever you have a designer. Here is a thread that discusses a design pattern that occurs throughout the entire universe without the use of biological processes:

http://www.evolution...h=1

There is no such thing as absolute proof in science. There is evidence, and more or less of it.


Well,that's exactly what I am saying, isn't it?

The mere fact that you say we have "lots" does not effect my assertion:

We don't know what we can't prove. Am I right or am I right?

#38 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 04 March 2012 - 02:35 AM

Basically while both vestigial and exapted features have lost their original function


And we know that they had an "original function" because ...??? :P

#39 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 05 March 2012 - 06:49 AM


Interesting that this was posted right after Aelyn posted a clear explanation of what vestigial organs are. Withour_Excuse didn't bother to read, just posted, I guess.



What is more interesting is that Aelyn’s entire post (#5) is nothing more than “opinion based” and sans any empirical facts to support said opinion. Oh, I fully understand that you (and Aelyn) can provide a list of scientists who hold this same ‘opinion’, but I submit that when YOU make an assertion, YOU provide the “Facts” to back up YOUR assertions, not mere opinions; this is YOUR basic responsibility! ANYONE can make claims, but absolutely NO ONE has provided the gradual transitional fossil evidence to support what Aelyn (and you) let alone ANY scientist have attempted to pass off in this argument.

Further, until YOU provide “Facts” to back up your assertions (and not more mere opinions), don’t attempt to belittle others by saying so-and-so “didn't bother to read, just posted, I guess” because obviously YOU didn’t read it and mention the total lack of evidence to support it.

#40 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 11 March 2012 - 06:51 PM

I'm not sure what you're complaining about here. All scientific definitions will change if and when they need to - science really doesn't feel the need to hang onto Victorian incomplete ideas and it regularly says it was wrong.

However, I'm simply pointing out that those dastardly scientists don't claim that all vestigial structures have no function at all but to be called 'vestigial', they need to have atrophied to a very large degree compared to their normal function in other species and usually perform none of it's original function. And yes, that definition still includes the human appendix which is used in herbivores to house the bacteria that help them digest cellulose but serves no such purpose for us - even though it may now have adapted to house bacteria which some scientists think may have some benefits for our immune system.

If the structure has adapted to the extent that it performs a completely new and useful function - the usual example is a penguin's wing - it isn't described as vestigial.


Under this definition of vestigial, what is the problem? Creationists believe that all features were designed with purpose and the world has change a lot since the fall, so if there is an organ that is not serving that same purpose today, it really doesn't matter one way or another. Bottom line, Creationists don't assume by default that something has no purpose if we can't figure it out. Evolutionists have done this because they need to prove not only that functions atrophy but also that new functions, organs, limbs, and other features can arise through mutation and natural selection.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users