Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Question


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

#1 Quaker Reason

Quaker Reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana
  • Interests:Religion, Science, History, Military, Computers, Roman History, Astronomy, Books, The Truth
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Indiana

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:41 PM

Why do whales have the pelvic bones and why are there so many vestigial parts in animals? I'd like the Creationist explanation because I already know what Evolutionists believe on the matter.

#2 Portillo

Portillo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sydney

Posted 22 February 2012 - 09:34 PM

Vestigial parts are a myth. Would you like a doctor to remove every part of the body that an evolutionist has said is vestigial, in the past 150 years? You would probably drop dead.

#3 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 22 February 2012 - 10:36 PM

Vestigal "tail" in humans- "Tail" bones perform a function in muscle support for walking and sitting
Appendix in humans- Was thought to be vesitigial organ for the digestion of grasses, (was taught this in High school), In actuality it performs the function of housing "good" bacteria of a gut to ensure there are some available for re-population after a bout of diarrhea or excessive antibiotic use
"Junk" DNA- performs regulatory function

#4 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 23 February 2012 - 01:37 AM

Why do whales have the pelvic bones and why are there so many vestigial parts in animals? I'd like the Creationist explanation because I already know what Evolutionists believe on the matter.


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

#5 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

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

Posted 23 February 2012 - 04:26 AM

I know you know what evolutionists believe about vestigial organs but a surprising number of people don't so if you'll indulge me...

Vestigial organs are organs which are clearly homologous to organs in other groups, but are greatly reduced compared to those and don't perform the same function. When they do perform a function, and a lot do, that function is out of proportion with the organ's complexity.

That last point is key; so for example, both a whale's fins and pelvic bones are homologous to the limbs of land mammals, they're much reduced compared to those and don't serve the same function. However fins have a very important function and are completely adequate to it. At worst I suppose you could say there are a few extra bones in there you could fuse into one with no change in function, but in general the fin's shape and structure are quite congruent with their function of steering the whale.
The pelvic bones also have a function in that they anchor a few muscles, but that function clearly isn't commensurate to those bones' structure; some species even have reduced limb bones attached with joints, ligaments and muscles even though those bones can hardly move at all. And in general the size, shape and position of those bones varies widely between species and even individuals of a species, which suggests that their function such as it is doesn't constrain them much.
Some pictures of such bones :
http://www.whoi.edu/...gi-bin/page.cgi

AFAICT creationists point out that supposedly vestigial structures do have function, which can be true if irrelevant, but even there they usually overstate the case. To take two examples here, some noncoding DNA is regulatory but by no means all of it, and that regulatory DNA isn't called "Junk DNA". Saying that junk DNA must have a function we don't know about yet is one thing, but saying it's all regulatory is plain assertion with no evidence. And the reason you wouldn't want to remove all your vestigial structures is because surgery is inherently risky and you don't want to do it without good reason, especially several times... not because you would drop dead without your appendix, wisdom teeth or coccyx. While those do have functions, people can and do live fine without them.

#6 Without_Excuse

Without_Excuse

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 24 February 2012 - 09:27 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.

#7 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 25 February 2012 - 03:54 AM

There is no such thing as junk DNA. Just because you don't know how a combustion engine works, doesn't mean it's magic.

#8 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 25 February 2012 - 05:03 AM

Why do whales have the pelvic bones and why are there so many vestigial parts in animals? I'd like the Creationist explanation because I already know what Evolutionists believe on the matter.


Here's the problems.

1) Every time they claim something has no function it ends up being wrong.
2) They are "interpreting" (using words) not actual observable evidence of what happened. And it depends on what the interpreter believes on how the interpretation turns out.
3) They are claiming a process happened that is unobservable and making evidence "look" like it conforms to it.

To boil it down. How much is words and interpretation and how much is actual observation?

Interpret: to construe or understand in a particular way: to interpret a reply as favorable.

Interpretation poses as many problem in theology as it does in science. But in order for science to be real reality the interpretation needs to be treated as more of an opinion then fact and evidence when there is not an observable process to support it. Because if you take away all of the interpretations from the supposed evidence, there really is not much left to go on. Evolution is basically a word game and those who know how to use words well can convince. This is why interpretation is so important in the belief of evolution and is used for more than 90% of everything. The rule of thumb here is that real facts and truth can be clearly seen for what they are and if any interpretation is needed it's very little. And since evolution requires a huge amount of interpretation what does that tell us?

So the questions are:

1) Are they using observable processes to make the interpretation of the vestigial parts?
2) Are they interpreting the vestigial parts to conform a process that cannot be observed?

Conformism is not science.

#9 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

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

Posted 26 February 2012 - 03:23 PM

Here's the problems.

1) Every time they claim something has no function it ends up being wrong.


Actually, science ('they') says that vestigial structures

are often called vestigial organs, although many of them are not actually organs. These are typically in a degenerate, atrophied, or rudimentary condition,[1] and tend to be much more variable than similar parts. Although structures usually called "vestigial" are largely or entirely functionless, a vestigial structure may retain lesser functions or develop minor new ones.[2]


http://en.wikipedia....ki/Vestigiality


#10 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 26 February 2012 - 06:56 PM

Actually, science ('they') says that vestigial structures



http://en.wikipedia....ki/Vestigiality


"Science" cannot say anything, scientists do... You are using Dawkins own "logic" in claiming "science" as an entity that can do things of its own accord.

#11 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 26 February 2012 - 10:34 PM

Although structures usually called "vestigial" are largely or entirely functionless, a vestigial structure may retain lesser functions or develop minor new ones.[2]


This is an example of the "evolution" of a definition to suit the evidence. Rather than admit you are wrong you just modify what you originally said.

It reminds me of when Mary Schweitzer found soft tissure in dino bones. Her first reaction was "It can't be possible!". That was later changed to "organic materials can sometimes survive in fossils for millions of years".

http://www.scientifi...lood-from-stone

#12 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

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

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:19 AM

This is an example of the "evolution" of a definition to suit the evidence. Rather than admit you are wrong you just modify what you originally said.


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.

#13 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

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

Posted 27 February 2012 - 02:34 AM

"Science" cannot say anything, scientists do... You are using Dawkins own "logic" in claiming "science" as an entity that can do things of its own accord.


The fact that science can't actually speak is trivially true - but it's a pretty shallow point. When scientists say that science says something, it means that there's a consensus amongst them that something is likely to be true. Science is a process, the end product of which is a provisional statement of fact. The inconvenience that a human being has to write the press release is not something that matters too much to its results.

#14 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 February 2012 - 06:09 AM

I'm not sure what you're complaining about here.


My "complaint" has little to do with "dastardly scientists" correcting things, and more to do with the false illusion that this gives that their corrections are always "correct", or that we are constantly moving towards the truth.

Many proponents of evolution will gladly point out self-correction as though it was one of the greatest strengths that science has to offer. But no-one seems to be aware of the risk that it digs you deeper and deeper into a trench that actually keeps you away from the truth.

If God created the universe as the Bible teaches, and science always rejects anything to do with God, then it doesn't make any difference how many corrections you make. The underlying truth will never be "correct".

#15 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

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

Posted 27 February 2012 - 06:50 AM

My "complaint" has little to do with "dastardly scientists" correcting things, and more to do with the false illusion that this gives that their corrections are always "correct", or that we are constantly moving towards the truth.


When science corrects an error it is only done as a result of new information that proves the old information to be wrong. It can only be a better explanation of the facts, but it could still be incomplete. On balance, correcting an error moves towards truth and away from error.

But no-one seems to be aware of the risk that it digs you deeper and deeper into a trench that actually keeps you away from the truth.


Well of course, everyone fully understands that. That's why science is parsimonious. It doesn't canonise a hypothese until it's as certain as it can be that it's true and it then only changes things when the new evidence proves to be stronger than the old. Of course if, like you, you believe the tuth can NEVER be found naturally and can ONLY be found in the bible, then you will never be satified that science is moving towards the truth no matter whether it corrects mistakes or not.

If God created the universe as the Bible teaches, and science always rejects anything to do with God, then it doesn't make any difference how many corrections you make. The underlying truth will never be "correct".


All that science says is 'show me the evidence' and it goes wherever it leads. If the evidence had led to god, it would have gone there and still would. Science is neutral, it doesn't reject God, it just doesn't see any evidence for the supernatural and has adequate explanations without the need to invoke it.

#16 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 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 - 08:10 AM

The fact that science can't actually speak is trivially true - but it's a pretty shallow point. When scientists say that science says something, it means that there's a consensus amongst them that something is likely to be true. Science is a process, the end product of which is a provisional statement of fact. The inconvenience that a human being has to write the press release is not something that matters too much to its results.


.... Argumentum ad populum

Even a consensus gets things wrong... (Like how "they" all denied Mendel for 40 odd years)



Furthermore science is a process, but with NO statement of fact, since there are no absolutes in science.


Furthermore the results of "science" are interpreted by scientists so again there is the injection of human bias into the equation. (Its not just that humans need to write up the reports.)

#17 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 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 - 08:12 AM

When science corrects an error it is only done as a result of new information that proves the old information to be wrong. It can only be a better explanation of the facts, but it could still be incomplete. On balance, correcting an error moves towards truth and away from error.



Well of course, everyone fully understands that. That's why science is parsimonious. It doesn't canonise a hypothese until it's as certain as it can be that it's true and it then only changes things when the new evidence proves to be stronger than the old. Of course if, like you, you believe the tuth can NEVER be found naturally and can ONLY be found in the bible, then you will never be satified that science is moving towards the truth no matter whether it corrects mistakes or not.



All that science says is 'show me the evidence' and it goes wherever it leads. If the evidence had led to god, it would have gone there and still would. Science is neutral, it doesn't reject God, it just doesn't see any evidence for the supernatural and has adequate explanations without the need to invoke it.



If a scientist claims X is true, but then tomorrow finds evidence that X is not true... Doesn't that show you the relativity of "truth" in science. There are no truths in science since there is always the potential for falsification. Hence anyone claiming something scientific is "true" doesn't understand what science actually is.



Again, "science" says nothing. Furthermore it is the determination of the individual scientist to "follow" the evidence where it leads... The evidence of living fossils at their first discovery would have lead to a falsification of evolution rather an ad hoc explanation was given to keep the evolution faith alive... In respect to that event and your claims here, evolution is not scientific.


Actually ,many physicists indeed invoke the supernatural as the "first cause" of the universe. Since in the beginning there was nothing natural... (Literally nothing, no time, no space, no laws of physics, no constants of the universe, nothing).. Hence in order to have a first cause outside of nothing there MUST, (literally and logically must) be a supernatural agent.

#18 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 February 2012 - 08:31 AM

When science corrects an error it is only done as a result of new information that proves the old information to be wrong. It can only be a better explanation of the facts, but it could still be incomplete. On balance, correcting an error moves towards truth and away from error.


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!

Well of course, everyone fully understands that. That's why science is parsimonious. It doesn't canonise a hypothese until it's as certain as it can be that it's true and it then only changes things when the new evidence proves to be stronger than the old.


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.

Of course if, like you, you believe the tuth can NEVER be found naturally and can ONLY be found in the bible, then you will never be satified that science is moving towards the truth no matter whether it corrects mistakes or not.


That's a bit of a strawman. I think you should have done some "correcting" before you posted that. I do what everyone else does. I evaluate different kinds of evidences to reach a decision about what I believe is true. So far I have found the Bible to be a reliable testimony so I don't need to discard the evidence that it provides.

All that science says is 'show me the evidence' and it goes wherever it leads. If the evidence had led to god, it would have gone there and still would. Science is neutral, it doesn't reject God, it just doesn't see any evidence for the supernatural and has adequate explanations without the need to invoke it.


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!

#19 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

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

Posted 27 February 2012 - 08:36 AM

.... Argumentum ad populum

Even a consensus gets things wrong...


A consensus is not necessarily correct, it's the best we have at a point in time. But scientific theories like the ToE are not simple binary statements of fact that may be true or false - they're mountains of evidential enquiry leading to a conclusion that, whilst still tentative, is regarded as so robust that it is highly unlikely to be entirely false. The ToE will always be amended and adjusted as we find more, but it's now highly unlikely that it will ever be shown to be absolutely wrong.

Even a major modification to it would win a Nobel Prize.

Newton's gravitational theory was accepted by the scientific community as true until Einstein came along and modified it. But in fact it is still true for most needs, it's just that Einsteins bits work when Newton's start to fail.

Furthermore science is a process, but with NO statement of fact, since there are no absolutes in science.


There are plenty of facts in science. Theories are used to explain them. It's the theories that are tentative, not the facts.

Furthermore the results of "science" are interpreted by scientists so again there is the injection of human bias into the equation. (Its not just that humans need to write up the reports.)


The results of science are also used by technologists to do useful things for us. There is always human bias; the scientific method of evidence, testing and peer review is designed to remove it as much as possible. Errors will be made, but they will always be corrected when found. There's nothing another scientist likes more than to prove another wrong.

With all its flaws, it's still the best method mankind has ever invited to establish truths about our world and universe.

#20 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 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 - 08:52 AM

1. A consensus is not necessarily correct, it's the best we have at a point in time. But scientific theories like the ToE are not simple binary statements of fact that may be true or false - they're mountains of evidential enquiry leading to a conclusion that, whilst still tentative, is regarded as so robust that it is highly unlikely to be entirely false. The ToE will always be amended and adjusted as we find more, but it's now highly unlikely that it will ever be shown to be absolutely wrong.

Even a major modification to it would win a Nobel Prize.

Newton's gravitational theory was accepted by the scientific community as true until Einstein came along and modified it. But in fact it is still true for most needs, it's just that Einsteins bits work when Newton's start to fail.



2. There are plenty of facts in science. Theories are used to explain them. It's the theories that are tentative, not the facts.



3. The results of science are also used by technologists to do useful things for us. There is always human bias; the scientific method of evidence, testing and peer review is designed to remove it as much as possible. Errors will be made, but they will always be corrected when found. There's nothing another scientist likes more than to prove another wrong.




1. Yet as I said, (which you cut out of the quote).. Consensus doesn't prove anything. "They" declared Mendel incorrect for 40 odd years, despite his actual experimentation that supported his claims. Such is telling of the intellectual honesty of "them" to the refutation of previously held ideas.

I agree there are mountains of evidence... It just a shame that said evidence is based on assumptions, inference and presupposition.... (thus constituting it to not be evidence)




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

This falsification means that nothing can be claimed as fact, (since facts are absolute)


3. Of course, it is a shame that evolution itself doesn't follow the scientific method.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users