Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Question


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

#41 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 - 06:59 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.


The laryngeal nerve wraps around because it serves more than one purpose https://en.wikipedia...aryngeal_nerve. The reason it is circuitous is due to a specific sequential development of the embryo:

“As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.”

[...]

... there are features that are the result of embryonic development—not because of evolution, but because the embryo develops from a single cell in a certain order. For example, the embryo needs a functioning simple heart early on; this later descends to its position in the chest, dragging the nerve bundle with it.

http://creation.com/...l-nerve#endRef6


What I want to know from the people making this claim is; scientifically speaking, what would be the great benefit to this nerve not being circuitous, or are you just making this argument subjectively in favor of a simpler design (which is shown to be sufficiently simple in the formation of the embryo in said sequential order)? Do we know in depth how this nerve functions, and know for a fact that a more direct route would serve it's function better? I'm all ears.

#42 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 11 March 2012 - 10:04 PM

What I want to know from the people making this claim is; scientifically speaking, what would be the great benefit to this nerve not being circuitous, or are you just making this argument subjectively in favor of a simpler design (which is shown to be sufficiently simple in the formation of the embryo in said sequential order)? Do we know in depth how this nerve functions, and know for a fact that a more direct route would serve it's function better? I'm all ears.


Good point, its the same as the people claiming that since the world isn't perfect or perfectly designed then God can't have designed it since God is claimed to be perfect...

Who is to say what is better or worse?

#43 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:32 PM

More info on the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve (better detail than above): http://www.icr.org/a...e-not-evidence/

If you are not an expert in designing biological systems, then you are not qualified to judge them to be of poor design.

#44 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 13 April 2012 - 05:28 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.

After reflecting further upon this post, I was wondering why there wern't replies to the above. I could think of many reasons why some wouldn’t, but I didn’t want to speculate. So what I did do was look further at the rest of Rich's statements in that post, and saw more of the same evolutionists ‘assumptions’, ‘presuppositions’, and ‘a priori’ interpolations built into his argument:


Vestigial organs certainly do exist - in fact, most evolutionary change depends upon them.

He even goes as far as to use the word “FACT”, as if it could cover for the assumption built into the statement! Therefore, since "most evolutionary change" depends upon this being a fact, and Rich hasn't provided any facts, does this not menat that his hypothesis fails?


Any character state. organ or organ system that evolves renders its previous states vestigial of any change in function takes place.

Once again, where does he provide that empirical facts to substantiate the above statement? Or is this more of the “Saying it’s so, makes it so” mantra used by macro-evolutionists… Is there a series of gradual transitional evidences to prove the statement, or is the statement based merely upon opinion, in order to submit macroevolution as valid…



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.

How many assumptions can you find in the above statement? Further, let me ask this question; is there any evolutionistic empirical evidence at all that provides where the ostrich was EVER capable of flight? If not, there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that the ostrich macro-evolved since its creation.


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.]

Once again, more mere opinion, and NO empirical scientific evidence to support Riche’s macro-evolutionistic claims.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users