Separate names with a comma.
Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.
Discussion in 'The Pub' started by smee, Jan 13, 2009.
There are some great posts under that article. Hehehe
hmm so either evolution is true, or intelligent design isn't very intelligent?
What arrogant rubbish. So we now, at this moment, know everything there is to know about the human body and can therefore state without contradiction that no future scientific research will prove that the appendix, is, in fact useful after all, for example???
What's the Bible say it's for?
Or does it not mention it - in which case surely there's no such thing as an appendix.
Possibly not the best example, Paul. You're probably on stronger ground if you take that line with 'junk DNA' - who's to say it doesn't have a function that's not yet been discovered?
Now - let's see what you can do with those pesky goosebumps!
I don't have to prove anything. Almost as soon as Darwin proposed his preposterous theories, people began blathering on about so-called vestigal organs. Then the list was dozens; over 100 years of scientific and medical research has eliminated huge numbers that were the result of enthusiastic and misguided guesswork and failed to take into account that learning never ceases to discover new things and render old ideas scrap.
While you're on the subject, read up on one of the other fancies called Embryonic Re-capitulation; different ideas but the same arrogant approach.
i agree, there are far more comprehensive reasons then those 10 little tid-bits of information
Yep, came from Monkeys :grin:
And the Appendix is just for laughs! Providing the doctors give you the right drugs when they rip it out!
like biblical literalism...
So you're agreeing with me then?
I open this thread expecting to see 10 signs of evolution in man but instead the OP contains nothing more than an appendix!
Hmmm. Scientist A postulates Theory X. Over time, evidence demonstrates that Theory X is false. Accordingly, science abandons Theory X.
Therefore, you maintain, Theory Y postulated by Scientist B should also be regarded as false?
A theory formed on the basis of the scientific data that was available in the mid 19th century - a time in which such research was still heavily restricted by religion.
I really wish creationists would make up their damn mind. They insist on "proof" for anything that discredits the Bible - but even today will still try and block genetic research aimed at providing such evidence on the basis that it "goes against God" :roll:.
Is there an explanation for structures found in both humans and other animals, that are functioning in the other animals but appear to have no function in humans? It's unlikely that the same structure would have one obvious function in an animal, but an entirely different (and apparently hidden) function in a human, surely?
Can you substantiate the claim that "scientific research was still heavily restricted by religion" jd?
even today will still try and block genetic research aimed at providing such evidence on the basis that it "goes against God"
I said nothing of the sort; I am simply stating that as an evolutionist and a scientist, who believes that everything is still evolving, and who accepts nothing till proven, you should be prepared for the fact that 'conclusions' of the above list will probably look very foolish in 50 or 100 years time, as do similar conclusions made 100 years ago.
Clive, a cricket bat is similar to a baseball bat, and they have similar (wooden) heritage. But they are undoubtedly different, and neither spawned the other.
Yesterday I was in a pet shop and I saw a Lion-Fish. No doubt there are a myriad of evolutionary explanations as to its amazing appearance, but I prefer to believe that it was created that way because God has an equal sense of the bizarre as He does of beauty .
Ok, seeing as there appears to be a great deal of interest in the topic, let me answer these one at a time.
Goose bumps: Still useful. Even the article itself points out that raised hair still has the effect of trapping air and improving the retention of warmth.
NOT vestigial, NOT evidence for evolution.
Jacobsons Organ: I know bugger all about this one, but let me ask: How does a REDUCTION in abilities demonstrate PROGRESSIVE EVOLUTION? What the article is saying is WE USED TO HAVE A CERTAIN ABILITY (to smell certain things etc) AND NOW WE DONT...
Let me make a point here: Mutations happen. They are a reality that we observe. But mutation DOES NOT prove evolution. In order for a mutation to be used to support molecules to man evolution, that mutation must INCREASE or REFINE DNA code.
Suffering a mutation that debilitates part of the olfactory nerves is Evolution? I don't think so.
Junk DNA: Let me first point out that we are so far from understanding DNA that calling any of it 'junk' is pretty premature. 'Scientists' used to list dozens of 'useless' internal organs that were 'left-overs' from evolution. This list has now been reduced to only a few. Why? Because what was first classified as useless has now been discovered to be useful. Expect the same thing to happen with 'junk' DNA.
HOWEVER: What if there ARE parts of our DNA that are no longer used? What if we DID used to be able to process vitamin C more effectively than we do today? I ask again: How does this demonstrate evolution? Isn't this a BACKWARDS step?
The article makes a parting shot: "This particular junk DNA indicates a common ancestry with other species on earth, so it is particularly interesting." What they are suggesting is that because we are not the only creature on earth with this DNA, that we therefore must be decended from a common ancestor. I would ask - Why? This is a hypothesis not a fact. My own hypothesis is that all life was created by the same being (God), and like motorcycles designed by the same person, similar principles were used across the board.
Extra ear muscles: Well I'm outside my specialty here, so what follows is pure speculation but can I suggest that suspending the ear with muscles would act as a dampner to stop vibration and impacts (from walking / moving) from transmitting directly through the skull and into the ears, making them useless any time you wanted to move? (in much the same way as engines are mounted on rubber to stop the vibrations transmitting directly into the chassis) Besides that, my previous argument still stands: How does a loss of function (supposedly from highly mobile ears to less mobile ears) prove evolution?
Plantaris Muscle: I love it when Evolutionists are using arguments discredited decades ago to support their beliefs. I mean, how desparate ARE they? Where to begin? I suppose some background on Parallel Muscle Combinations are in order. PMC's are quite common in the body, more than thirty PMC's exist in the human body, mostly in the limbs. A PMC is a muscle arrangement where more than one muscle runs side by side, joining at practically the same point top and bottom. (Hence the name, Parallel Muscle Combination)
There is often (but not always) a significant size difference between the muscles in PMC's, which has led Evolutionists to assume that one muscle does all the work, and the other does nothing. This is a classic example of how Evolution can (and often does) hamper the cause of empirical science. Once the Plantaris was declared to be 'vestigial', research into it's possible functions all but stopped... for a while.
In 'Mechanoreceptors: Structure and Function', Plenum press London, Pgs 377-382, 1988 (like I said, this argument's been out of date for decades) you will find an article titled 'A proposed Mechanoreceptor role for the small redundant muscles which act in parallel with large prime movers.' Long title, interesting article.
Essentially the proposal by Peck is that the small members of PMC's are there to provide feedback. 'Kinesiological monitors providing crucial proprioceptive information to the central nervous system.' The human body is full of feedback loops that inform the brain of all sorts of things, including the position and loading of limbs. Large muscles are not sensitive enough to accurately (and quickly) assess and transmit this information, hence small muscles with very little mass (which are therefore quick to respond to changes in loading etc) provide the feedback which the brain then uses to adjust the power and position of the larger load bearing muscles.
As for their claim that 9% of humans are born without the muscle, I would love to see them reference that as I could find no such information.
Is the muscle ESSENTIAL? Clearly not, as it is removed by surgions to replace tendons in other parts of the body. Is it USEFUL??? Evidence suggests that yes, it is.
Wisdom Teeth: Problems with the eruption of the third molar are commonly used as 'proof' of evolution. The basic theory is that (sic) we used to be apes with large jaws, and now we are humans with small jaws, but our mouths still try and pack in too many teeth.
In 'The Impacted Lower Wisdom Tooth', Oxford university press 1985, A.J. MacGregor argues that ACTUAL problems with wisdom teeth occur in less than 20% of western populations, and that the vast majority of wisdom tooth removals are unnecessary and done more because we don't want to put up with the pain of 'teething' than because there is ACTUALLY a lack of room. By his calculations, 80% of westerners have plenty of room for their third molars.
So whats really going on? In the 'American Journal of Orthodontics' 1954, P.R.Begg (who studied 'stone age men' and was, to the best of my knowledge an evolutionist) concluded that human teeth are continually trying to migrate forward in the mouth. For people with a gritty fibrous diet, which causes more wear and tear on the teeth, this means that their teeth (gradually) move forward in their mouth as they wear, and by the time their third molars try to erupt there is plenty of room. In the western world, with our more processed diet, such wear and tear does not occur, therefore the teeth do not migrate to the same degree, hence we have a higher incidence of problems with 'wisdom teeth'.
Problems with 'wisdom teeth' are not proof of evolution, and they are certainly not a 'vestigial' organ. They cause problems for some of us simply because the diet that we now call normal puts very little strain on our teeth.
Third Eyelid: Stand in front of a mirror and whilst looking into your own eyeballs, turn your head to the left and the right. Watch what happens to your 'useless' third eyelid.
Simple answer: It's not an eyelid. It's part of the conjuctiva, which is the lining on the inside of your two eyelids (upper and lower) which allow your eyelids to blink, scraping along the surface of your eyeball without discomfort or damage. The 'third eyelid' acts as a seal, a lubricant and a 'stretch' point. It stops grit and dirt from getting more than a certain distance around your eyeball and ensures that the part of your eye that dissapears from view next to your nose as you look one way or the other is protected from being scratched, in the same way as the conjunctiva protects the part of the eye covered by the eyelids from being scratched.
Is this seriously the best 10 they could come up with???
Darwins Point: I know nothing whatsoever about this one and I can't be bothered researching it. So a small percentage of human ears happen to have a shape which (at a stretch) can be compared to a shape similar to that seen in other animals ears...
I can put my dog in a white coat... does that make him a scientist?
Coccyx: Crickey, talk about passing speculation off as fact. We have two small bones below our pelvis. These bones are an important part of our bodies design and provide essential functions. (try having sex (if you are male) or not pooing your pants after those bones are removed... rather more difficult than it used to be!!!)
The statement "The coccyx is the remnant of what was once a human tail. Over time we lost the need for a tail..." is speculation masquerading as fact. Despite concerted efforts and lots of money, Evolutionists STILL lack a credible 'link' between apes and humans. There is no credible 'ape man' left. Every single one has without exception been shown to be either an honest mistake or a deliberate fraud (and yes I'm more than happy to back that claim up with evidence and references once I get around to starting my 'Evolution vs Intelligent Design' thread). So how do they say with such confidence that we used to have a tail? Because they BELIEVE it, that's how.
The Appendix: That's it? That's the best these guys could come up with? The numero uno example of evolution in humans? Why the F*** did I waste my time putting answers to such an impotent list?
Oh thats right, because there are lots of people who still think this stuff is true.
Ok, here we go: The appendix manufactures IgA immunoglobulins, which are part of maintaining the protective barrier between your bowel and your bloodstream (imagine what would happen if stuff in your bowel could pass at will into your bloodstream... blood poisoning anyone?), and IgM and IgG immunoglobulins, which are part of your active (bloodstream) immune system.
So why can your appendix be removed without known ill effect? Because your immune system, being as important as it is, has been designed with an enormous amount of redundancy. The other parts of your immune system simply step up to pick up the slack. Does it ultimately leave you more vulnerable and at risk of having your immune system overwhelmed? I don't know. I haven't seen any studies into that issue. What I do know is that for as long as the appendix is in your body, it's working to protect you.
Ok, hopefully (for the freaks among you who actually read through this reply! ) this has helped to open your mind to see that so much of what is held up as 'proof' of evolution is actually nothing of the kind.
I really need to start that Evolution vs Intelligent Design thread.
Ok, let the mud slinging begin.
Wow. This is the perfect explanation of how god has continued to become increasingly redundant. Whilst we understood nothing of the sciences, god was an easy explanation for the apparent wonder of it all. Research has eliminated the need for a supernatural explanation for a great many of these things, and will continue to do so into the future, rendering old ideas (hand of god) scrap.
Science doesn't have the luxury of not having to prove anything, whilst you may in your mind. It's a pity.
That website is not a scientific text or journal - you'll find those haven't "concluded" anything. They simply put forward what is currently believed to be the most plausible explanation based on the available data (which is all Science ever does). Theories made 100 years ago look far from foolish, even the theory of recapitulation identified a number of new things about embryonic development that are still significant to our modern understanding (like the fact that the spinal column and brain develop later than other body parts).
Research into human embryos was most definitely restricted by religious objection in the 19th century - it still is today.
I'm sad that evolution and so-called science has dulled your sense of wonder; on any level, micro or macro, the human body alone is an amazing device, and the more we find out about it the more we find out we need to know.