So what's wrong with evolution?

[Shornaal]

(For Life;55443)
I see that you have already come to your own conclusion and no amount of words will cause you to change your mind. I honestly don't see how you could say that the evolutionary theory trumps God in both explanation and evidence. What in nature couldn't be explained by a Creator? The fact that we are here and everything else that exists is here is evidence of God. Evolutionary Theory trumps God? Ha, not on Evolutionary Theories best day.
But if you explain everything by using a creator you'd then have to explain the creator, and since there is no proof of a creator the point is moot.Also if there was evidence of a creator what's saying it isn't described in Hindu, ancient egyptian or ancient norse religions?

 

[Vindicated]

Lunar,Well I appreciate the youtube link. The main thing wrong with the attempted "debunk" on the bacterial flagellum by ken miller would be well.... the fact that the presupposition that evolution happens has to be drawn before looking at the actual evidence. He took 10 of the pieces that made something else and said whoo hoo look it works! I would like to see what kind of mental gymnastics this man has to pull when explaining how the other 40 parts "evolve" back together.I love that cute little statement about me not understanding the flagellum. Its rather ironic because if you understood it you would be asking yourself why your car doesn't contain a rotary motor that can spin at 100,000 RPM and run off of your body chemistry.Its laughable at best that you put evolution in the same realm as science in general. I obviously know a bit about science because I'm an engineering major... The problem here does not lie within the realm of science but rather the intent of many (evolutionary scientists) to push these ideas of unrealistic logic as well as statistics onto those who cannot think for themselves.When one leaves the world of reality and steps into the world of fantasy where logic such as "well given enough time anything can happen" the fallacy of such logic is more than apparent. Just think about all the sarcastic remarks that could be drawn from a statement like that.Its obvious that your really set on your beliefs of the evolutionary theory (sarcastic remark removed). On a personal note, until i was about 16 i was in that same boat. Your at this website because you want someone to prove Jesus to you. If you didn't you would not be here. No one of us can change your heart or mind, thats a decision you will need to make. Nothing but the love of Jesus will change your heart. No arguing with me or anyone else on here. Ill argue with you until the cows come home but its not going to change your point of view.If you want some proof, here's a few things you may have never seen before
Job 26:7He stretches out the north over empty space;He hangs the earth on nothing. Job 28:25To establish a weight for the wind,And apportion the waters by measure. Leviticus 17:11For the life of the flesh is in the blood,and I have given it to you upon the altarto make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.Ecclesiastes 1:7All the rivers run into the sea,Yet the sea is not full;To the place from which the rivers come,There they return again.
Obviously these are scientific facts that are from the Bible, thousands of years before they were proven... Ill pray for you Lunar(P.S. I'm sorry if i came off pretty rude, I didn't mean to be a prick)

 

[Lunar]

(For Life;55443)
I see that you have already come to your own conclusion and no amount of words will cause you to change your mind. I honestly don't see how you could say that the evolutionary theory trumps God in both explanation and evidence. What in nature couldn't be explained by a Creator?
I'll explain why evolutionary theory is a better theory than the God hypothesis.Both evolution and the Christian God hypothesis succeed at explaining why life is here and seems to come in certain kinds, like dogs, birds, or people. One does so through evidence and the other through faith, but either way, if we accept them, it makes sense that we would be here, as humans. Other creation myths also explain why we are here, as does the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, etc. - all of those, regardless of their truth, give some sort of account of why we are here.But, unlike evolution, all those creation myths only explain just that, with respect to the development of life as we know it. There is so much that evolutionary theory explains that the God hypothesis does not explain. Why are there so many instances of imperfection in nature, for example, like the extremely high infant mortality rate without modern medicine, or the fact that so many of us need glasses to see properly, or the fact that we have vestigial structures like the appendix? Evolution accounts for this perfectly, but the God hypothesis says nothing about it - indeed, it seems to go against the God hypothesis (why would the creations of a perfect being be so imperfect?) Then there's microevolution, which even most Christians accept as fact. Microevolution makes perfect sense according to evolutionary theory - it is to be expected if evolutionary theory is true. But the God hypothesis doesn't account for microevolution. At best, it can be consistent with it, but it's puzzling as to why microevolution would occur under the God hypothesis (again, what need would the creations of a perfect being have to evolve? Wouldn't they already be made perfectly suited for their environments?)The God hypothesis offers explanatory power only at the most basic level. It has so little to say about the finer points of the topic of life's development. Because of this, evolutionary theory is much more informative. In a way, you hit the nail on the head when you said "What in nature couldn't be explained by a Creator?" Well, absolutely everything can be explained by a Creator - just like absolutely everything in nature can be explained by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. I could look out and see the stars and planets and say "It's because God did it." I could see a paperweight fall from my desk and say "It's because God did it." I could trip and fall in a puddle of mud and say "It's because God did it." But that doesn't make it the right explanation, nor does it make it the most informative one. Clearly, when a paperweight falls from my desk, we are not inclined to cast aside gravitational theory and simply say "God did it," because that's just not as informative.Shornaal also brings up a good point. The creator himself is a total black box which cannot be explained. So, in attempting to provide answers for one problem, we have created some even bigger questions, including related theological questions. This is another reason why I consider the God hypothesis to be inferior - it raises more questions than it answers, and is only informative at all if you don't care about how the creator works.Then there is the matter of evidence, but I already went over that in my opening post. I can go over it in more detail if you like.

 

[Lunar]

(Vindicated;55461)
Well I appreciate the youtube link. The main thing wrong with the attempted "debunk" on the bacterial flagellum by ken miller would be well.... the fact that the presupposition that evolution happens has to be drawn before looking at the actual evidence. He took 10 of the pieces that made something else and said whoo hoo look it works! I would like to see what kind of mental gymnastics this man has to pull when explaining how the other 40 parts "evolve" back together.
Not at all. Here, I will give you a little crash course on Bayes' theorem as it relates to the philosophy of science. Bayes' theorem is a methodological way of deciding how observed evidence supports or disconfirms a theory. It states(H/E) = (P(E/H) * P(H)) / P(E)Where P(H/E) is the probability of the hypothesis in question given a set of evidence, P(E/H) is the probability of observing the evidence assuming the hypothesis in question, P(H) is the probability of the hypothesis prior to observing this evidence, and PE is the probability of the evidence.What this means, in layman's terms, is that the likelihood of our hypothesis will be increased if we think that it is more likely that evidence would occur given that hypothesis, and the likelihood of our hypothesis will be decreased if we think it is unlikely that the evidence would occur given the hypothesis. Note, however, that in science the likelihood of these hypotheses must always be evaluated with respect to alternate hypotheses. In this case it's quite clear-cut: The hypothesis is evolution; the alternate hypothesis is God.So let's look at this case. E, the evidence, is the observation that the bacterial flagellum is composed of functional intermediates. H1 is the evolutionary hypothesis. H2 is the God hypothesis. The P(E/H1) is 100%: if evolution is true, the flagellum must be composed of functional intermediates. The P(E/H2) is nowhere near 100%: if God created the bacterial flagellum fully formed, there would be no need to compose it of functional intermediates. He might have formed it this way, but it seems superfluous. Therefore, H1, the evolutionary hypothesis, has been incrementally confirmed. H2, the God hypothesis, has been incrementally disconfirmed.(Vindicated)
I love that cute little statement about me not understanding the flagellum. Its rather ironic because if you understood it you would be asking yourself why your car doesn't contain a rotary motor that can spin at 100,000 RPM and run off of your body chemistry.
Well that's just the thing. If you are claiming you do understand the flagellum, then what's your point? You tried to argue that all of science couldn't fathom even a basic structure like the flagellum. Now you're saying that you do understand it. Unless you are claiming that God beamed these insights on the flagellum directly into your head, no science required, then it's pretty clear that science does understand the flagellum, because that's where you learned it from.(Vindicated)
Its laughable at best that you put evolution in the same realm as science in general.
If you say so, although evolutionary theory is accepted by an overwhelming majority of scientists. In fact, there are more scientists named Steve that accept evolution than there are scientists total that accept creationism. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/But don't just take their word for it. Take mine, too.

(Vindicated)
When one leaves the world of reality and steps into the world of fantasy where logic such as "well given enough time anything can happen" the fallacy of such logic is more than apparent. Just think about all the sarcastic remarks that could be drawn from a statement like that.
If that was the whole of evolutionary theory then yes, it would be quite laughable. Fortunately for evolutionary theory, it is much more complex than that, and substantiated by a wealth of evidence.(Vindicated)
Its obvious that your really set on your beliefs of the evolutionary theory (sarcastic remark removed). On a personal note, until i was about 16 i was in that same boat. Your at this website because you want someone to prove Jesus to you. If you didn't you would not be here. No one of us can change your heart or mind, thats a decision you will need to make. Nothing but the love of Jesus will change your heart.
This is a discussion about evolution, not Jesus.(Vindicated)
If you want some proof, here's a few things you may have never seen before
Please don't patronize me. I've read the Bible before.(Vindicated)
Leviticus 17:11For the life of the flesh is in the blood,and I have given it to you upon the altarto make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.
Knowing that you require blood to live was not anything radical even for biblical times. Ancient philosophers and other early texts all exhibited their understanding of the importance of blood. This is because it is not a difficult thing to figure out - when someone loses a lot of blood, they die. I hope you did not need the bible to understand that.(Vindicated)
Job 26:7He stretches out the north over empty space;He hangs the earth on nothing.
The theory of a free-floating, spherical earth was widely circulated among ancient philosophers by the 7th century BC and almost universally accepted by the 4th.(Vindicated)
Ecclesiastes 1:7All the rivers run into the sea,Yet the sea is not full;To the place from which the rivers come,There they return again.
Again, the circulation of water is something that was well-understood by any ancient society that lived near water. The philosopher Thales in particular articulates this.And also, all of those are much too vague to count as a divinely inspired scientific insight. Do you have any Bible passages that specifically mention something like gravity, electrons, DNA, chemical elements? Why are they all so primitive and cryptic? If they were meant to be evidence of God revealing scientific truth then why aren't they ever more specific?(Vindicated)
(P.S. I'm sorry if i came off pretty rude, I didn't mean to be a prick)
Apology accepted.

 

[univac]

Tell me did the Invisible made all things visible? or did the visible make all things Invisible?

 

[Lunar]

(univac;55466)
Tell me did the Invisible made all things visible? or did the visible make all things Invisible?
I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Vindicated]

As far as the flagellum is concerned, to understand something is not the same as to observe something. When one observes the flagellum they see what it does. These scientists may even have a general idea of how it works. The problem here lies with the fact that it has not been able to be recreated by modern science in anywhere near its glory stages as presented on the bacteria in question. Now if modern scientists are so smart as to predict the evolution of life and the origins of said life (millions of years ago), SURELY they can recreate this phenomenon, as well as expand upon it! Or even get to the bottom of the ocean! or the center of the earth! (i would even take predicting the weather 10 days in advance with 98% accuracy)(I understand Bayes theorem quite well, its a major component in artificial intelligence and game design)I understand that most scientists take part in this theory, as i have said before it is a political machine."the majority of the stupid are invincible and guaranteed for all times..." -EinsteinJust because theres a large majority of people who follow something does not make it the truth. (note: microevolution is not macroevolution, microevolution is literally my children having black hair and me having blonde hair... ive done more than my share of research on the subject and the logic behind this statement is amazing... (once again, mental gymnastics))Now this evidence that you speak of, where is it? And what is it? I can tell you right now all the evidence you will bring will be circumstantial with absolutely no thread of empirical evidence or even corroborating evidence for that matter. Ive seen it all before. The presupposition that evolution happens must be made before the evidence is looked at, or it has no leg to stand on. the next thing your probably going to talk to me about is how miller and ureys experiment was a success... one question why does this quote not fit for the evolutionary theory?"given enough time anything can happen"thats the premise behind the theory is it not? given enough time an organism can spontaneously arise (modern science cannot recreate this... and if it does happen, it proves intelligence was needed) Given enough time the flagellum can arise. given enough time a conscience will develop. given enough time one species can evolve to another. the key here is time. the problem is, no one has the time to witness these things. We are all appointed a time to die. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord./* Edit: The appendix is not a vestigial structure. If you do a bit of research you will find out that the appendix helps to regulate the bacterial contents of the digestive system, thus reducing the threat of bacterial diseases. The appendix restores symbiotic bacteria to help your body recover after your immune system has been weakened and the bacteria are all but wiped out. Vestigial structures don't exist. The coccyx is attached to your sphincter good luck not having that, your tonsils help to ward off bacteria entering your body through your mouth, and the whales "vestigial" pelvis bones are needed for his reproductive organs. */

 

[Lunar]

(Vindicated;55497)
(I understand Bayes theorem quite well, its a major component in artificial intelligence and game design)
Then you ought to understand how the presence of functional intermediates validates evolutionary theory.(Vindicated)
Just because theres a large majority of people who follow something does not make it the truth.
My argument was a use of Bayes' theorem, not an appeal to authority. (Vindicated)
(note: microevolution is not macroevolution, microevolution is literally my children having black hair and me having blonde hair... ive done more than my share of research on the subject and the logic behind this statement is amazing...
Not enough research, apparently. Your child having blond hair when you have black hair is not evolution, even on the micro scale. That's just variation. In order for it to be even microevolution, black hair would need to be weeded out of the population in favor of blond hair. Evolution deals with change among populations and species - not individuals. This is a very basic fundamental of the theory so you really ought to read up on the subject more before you laugh at it.(Vindicated)
Now this evidence that you speak of, where is it? And what is it? I can tell you right now all the evidence you will bring will be circumstantial with absolutely no thread of empirical evidence or even corroborating evidence for that matter. Ive seen it all before. The presupposition that evolution happens must be made before the evidence is looked at, or it has no leg to stand on.
- Similarities in genetic structure between species- Observed instances of microevolution- Observed instances of speciation- Abundant presence of transitional fossils- Similarities in anatomy between species- Evidence based on geographical distribution- Presence of vestigial traits(Vindicated)
the next thing your probably going to talk to me about is how miller and ureys experiment was a success...
No, actually, I'm not, because if you read the original post, you will see that I specifically mentioned that abiogenesis is a separate theory from evolution.(Vindicated)
one question why does this quote not fit for the evolutionary theory?"given enough time anything can happen"thats the premise behind the theory is it not? given enough time an organism can spontaneously arise
Wrong. Again, this is abiogenesis, not evolution.(Vindicated)
the key here is time. the problem is, no one has the time to witness these things.
There are two very large problems with the argument you just made.The first is that we have observed evolution, both on the micro scale (this is undisputed even by you, I assume) and also in numerous instances of speciation.The second problem with that argument is that direct observation is not required for the validity of a scientific theory. After all, gravity has never been directly observed - we only observe the effects of gravity. Similarly, while extreme broad-scale changes in macroevolution (like the evolution of fish into amphibians) have never been directly observed, we can observe the effects of them (transitional fossils like the tiktaalik, or the similarities in genetic code.So, not having witnessed the highest level of macroevolution is not an argument against evolution. If you accept that logic, then you cannot possibly accept gravity as a scientific theory either.(Vindicated)
Vestigial structures don't exist.
That's incorrect. There are many, many vestigial traits among organisms. Some examples, in addition to the ones already mentioned like the appendix (the use which you proposed, by the way, has never been empirically verified):- Small tails develop visibly in human embryos.- Wisdom teeth in humans serve no purpose but to occasionally cause us great deals of pain.- The wings of an ostrich or emu or a similar flightless bird. They are clearly not helping them fly.- The eyes of salamanders, since they do not enable the salamander to see anything.- The formation of goose bumps in humans - ever notice how animals raise their fur/hair when under stress? So too did our coated ancestors, and the goose bump was the mechanism for this. - And many more.Vindicated, I would advise reading more about evolution before you criticize it, because you seem to have some very fundamental misunderstandings about the theory, like the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis, and the level on which evolution occurs. talkorigins.org is a very useful place to get started.

 

[Vindicated]

( first off i would just like to tell you that your receiving your information from biased sources, please look at both ends of the spectrum... something you should know already)http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/i...0408/depqa.htmlheres an interview with a doctor who actually studies the appendix, not just dismisses it because of not understanding it. His findings were accidentaland i would like to point out that the appendix as having a function has never been empirically disproved either. (that was a nice try, and a cute trick but science doesnt work like that, that sounds a bit like the Oort cloud hypothesis...)Now i will go through your laundry list:- Similarities in genetic structure between species - just as easily explained by a creator, and engineer can use similar parts to perform the same basic jobs in different machines, whos to say God cant?- Observed instances of microevolution - yes, blonde -> brown hair... - Observed instances of speciation - Since the fruit flies are more prone to mate with those who had the same diet thats evolution? lol It could easily have to do with the differences in the chemical structure of their pheromones. Does not explain evolution in the slightest. - Abundant presence of transitional fossils - im calling your bluff, Where is the unbiased empirical (no circumstantial) evidence. It is not there (i cant wait to see the archaeoptrix reference)- Similarities in anatomy between species - (see the first line under laundry list)- Evidence based on geographical distribution - expand on this thought?- Presence of vestigial traits - Name a vestigial structure that is certain to have no use. I beg youokay, The abiogenesis thing is the worst argument i have ever heard anyone come up with. Ive heard it numerous times and its asinine. Taking abiogenesis away from evolution is like taking calculus out of physics. Calculus needs to be used to solve complex physics problems, and abiogenesis is needed in order for the theory of evolution to carry any weight with a person who can logically deduce how flawed and completely unrealistic the notion is.the reason abiogenesis is taken away from the theory is because it is dead weight to the theory and does more harm than good. Scientists cannot create living organisms in a test tube, so when intelligence cannot achieve something, how can it occur spontaneously?now please show me some irrevocable unbiased proof of your side of the argument. My argument is you have no evidence, yours is you do, and i would like to see it. (please dont google "proof of evolution" it happens all too often)Ohh i almost forgot, answers to your vestigial structure claim- Small tails develop visibly in human embryos. Does a devolved human have a tail? No its the bottom of a developing spinal cord...- Wisdom teeth in humans serve no purpose but to occasionally cause us great deals of pain. Wisdom teeth are teeth... Used for chewing... Are the rest of your teeth vestigial structure or just the ones you feel you do not need? if this were the case, then your toes and hands are vestigial. even your eyes and ears. Whats the purpose for a body part that does something? (wow seriously)- The wings of an ostrich or emu or a similar flightless bird. They are clearly not helping them fly. Who says wings need to be used to fly? the Ostrich uses it's wings to balance when running over 50 miles per hour. Imagine sprinting with no arms, how would you balance? now imagine running three times that fast...- The eyes of salamanders, since they do not enable the salamander to see anything. (where on earth was this pulled from? i would love some documentation that because i have never heard that, did you own a blind salamander as a child?)- The formation of goose bumps in humans - ever notice how animals raise their fur/hair when under stress? So too did our coated ancestors, and the goose bump was the mechanism for this. The contraction of the muscle fibers produce heat and warm the bodyplease give me some more structures, so i can show you how they are USEFUL! If it has ANY use WHATSOEVER it is not defined as vestigial.now im going to ask you some questions, please think about them before answering1. Why do you trust what someone tells you, when you have not witnessed it yourself?2. Why do you believe these people that tell you how these things happen, and how simple it is, yet these people cannot even replicate the simplest of organisms? (or even the amazing motor known as the flagellum for that matter)If i told you i knew the key to perpetual motion, i just cannot replicate it what would you say to me?how can you blindly profess that over time (infinite amount of space, infinite amount of possibility) the immense complexity of life came from absolutely nothing when intelligence today cannot even replicate the simplest of living organisms.how? Its not logical whatsoever. The logic behind that statement is defined as "given enough time, anything can happen"
But don't just take their word for it. Take mine, too.
that showed how much you think for yourself

 

[For Life]

There is so much that evolutionary theory explains that the God hypothesis does not explain. Why are there so many instances of imperfection in nature, for example, like the extremely high infant mortality rate without modern medicine, or the fact that so many of us need glasses to see properly, or the fact that we have vestigial structures like the appendix? Evolution accounts for this perfectly, but the God hypothesis says nothing about it - indeed, it seems to go against the God hypothesis
I'm not a bible expert but the bible does say man and this world are fallen. That means things die and are imperfect. How is this not explained by the "God hypothesis"? If you knew why God does what He does and how He does what He does wouldn't that make you equal with God? Why would you need God if you were already equal with Him? We can't know God's ways because His ways are too high above us for us to understand. The smartest person on this planet cannot comprehend God. The only way to understand God is to realize you will never understand, you are too dumb. That's a hard pill to swallow, isn't it?Just because we don't know what the appendix was used for doesn't mean it was never used. Wouldn't this actually help disprove evolution since you would expect something that is not used would just stop occurring? Why are people born with appendixes?

 

[Vindicated]

just a quick rebuttal to you for life, read my post (prior to this one), and the link to the duke university website

 

[Lunar]

Are you sure you know how Bayes' theorem works?Let's look at this again.E = Genetic similarities between organisms.H1 = Evolutionary hypothesisH2 = God hypothesisP(E/H1) = 100% - If evolution is true, we must observe similarities in genetic structure between organisms.P(E/H2) = Not 100% - If God created everything, there is no real reason why he would necessarily have genetic structures so closely mirror each other.Thus, the evidence confirms evolutionary theory, and disconfirms the God hypothesis.

Good heavens, stop embarrassing yourself. As I already articulated in the last post, this is not microevolution. Evolution occurs on the level of populations, not individuals. An example of microevolution would be a population of bacteria developing a resistance to a vaccine.I have to question whether it's worthwhile to continue discussion on this with you when you have such fundamental misunderstandings about the subject matter.

- Abundant presence of transitional fossils - im calling your bluff, Where is the unbiased empirical (no circumstantial) evidence. It is not there (i cant wait to see the archaeoptrix reference)

What bluff? I stated three examples of transitional fossils in the original post. Clearly you still haven't read it.Also, the archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil. I assume you're likely to use the dated arguments of Dr. Gish and his ilk, but I'm eager to hear your reasons for stating otherwise.

- Presence of vestigial traits - Name a vestigial structure that is certain to have no use. I beg you

I just named a number of them. None of the uses you have mentioned has ever been verified by empirical science. They are pure' date=' unsubstantiated conjecture offered up by creationist institutes. The one about the development of the human tail is particularly rich - it acts as though the fact that they aren't present in adults is irrelevant, when the mere presence of them at any point demands explanation. Also, with goosebumps, the emergence of goosebumps in cold environments is [i']not[/i] vestigial, since it provides warmth for the body as you say, but the emergence of goosebumps under stress most certainly is.

Absolutely false. Evolution explains how life developed, not where it came from. You can offer up any explanation you like for how single-celled organisms arose, and the evidence for evolution would still be incontrovertible. Let's look at four different scenarios.- Life emerged in a primordial soup 4.4 billion years ago, and then developed through evolution. (You clearly don't believe this, but humor me.)- God created life billions of years ago, which then developed through evolution.- An alien civilization deposited life on our planet billions of years ago, which then developed through evolution.- We don't know how life emerged, but it then developed through evolution.All four of these scenarios - even the theistic one - are perfectly fine for evolutionary theory. To say that evolutionary theory can't survive because we don't know what the origin of life was is like saying all of science can't survive because we don't know what the origin of the universe was. Just because we are missing data from a prior event doesn't mean we can't say anything about it. The origin is irrelevant; it has nothing to do with the data on evolution.

We also can't cause it to rain, how could rain occur spontaneously? We also can't cause supernovae, how could supernovae occur spontaneously? We also can't manipulate gravity, how could gravity occur spontaneously?Your argument can't hold its weight; it is too anthropocentric. Our ability to manipulate natural phenomena is not proof of their ability to occur naturally.

Why do you trust what the Bible tells you, when you have not witnessed it yourself?I'm not going to derail this thread into a dissertation on my system of epistemology, vindicated. Suffice to say, I do not consider my own direct observation of an event to be a necessary criterion for belief. I believe that there is currently a war in Iraq, even though I've never been there. I believe that you are an actual person, even though I've never seen you. And, because of the overwhelming scientific evidence for it, I believe that evolution is real, in spite of never having seen it firsthand.

Because genetic engineering is not a prerequisite to being able to understand life.Honestly, this argument baffles me. In addition to criticizing abiogenesis instead of evolution (it's a particularly weak argument against evolution because we can replicate evolution), it sets unreasonable demands. Is all of physics moot because we can't manipulate gravity?

Vindicated, you are convincing me that you aren't paying very much attention to my posts. I have specifically addressed this point already. Please re-read more carefully, and also read the original post in the thread for goodness sakes. If you continue to exhibit your current lack of attention to my posts, I will have very little motivation to continue this exchange with me.

that showed how much you think for yourself

I thought the smiley face was enough of a giveaway that I was kidding. I suppose not.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

Lunar, you are telling Vindicated that he needs to show proof because the burden is on him. Just because we do not have a known use for something does not mean that it is useless or vestigial. Shouldn't the burden be on the person saying such and such is vestigial because...?Let me humor you however,
How can anyone state that the coccyx is vestigial when all bones function the same way the tailbone does? According to the Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing and Allied Health, the skeletal system’s function is to: give support and structure to the body, protect delicate internal organs, make movement possible, attach with muscles, and many others (Miller, 1139). Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this what the coccyx is exactly doing? If the categories that automatically exclude any bones from being designated as vestigial are similar to the ones stated above, the coccyx, therefore, should not be considered rudimentary.
http://www.geocities.com/gcalla1/coccyx.htmNow it's really easy to research these things all one has to do is google "tonsils, coccyx, appendix etc function"

 

[Vindicated]

Dear Alpha and Omega,Thankyou! I would like to expand on your statement. If you do some more research you will see that the coccyx is connected to the sphincter, and you will notice that if you ever break your tail bone your bowel movements are uncontrollable. That could mean anything from passing gas at the most inopportune time, to pooping yourself at any given time. Now thats just with a broken tail bone and some bad nerve endings, when its not there, your brain cannot control it whatsover :-DDear Lunar,LOL to the burden of proof bit. In order for you to tell me it has no use, you must prove it. Your attempting to put the burden on me, and get off scott-free. Lucky for me this theory is not mutually exclusive. The fatal assumption behind your logic and use of bayes theorum-You are assuming that if God created the world, there would be no similarities in the gene pool. Like my example of an engineer in my previous post, there is no reason why God would not use like structures to perform like tasks. I think you need to realize the assumptions that go into logic such as your own.I program in my spare time for fun. If i need to perform the same task more than once in my program, i will call the same function. There is absolutely no logical reason why God would not make the genetics of different kinds of animals similar. Why would God, the smartest being ever, re invent the wheel for every creation. He above all would be able to maximize efficiency and minimize time spent by re using "functions" if you will. It makes me laugh that you even bring up such a preposterous argument. Think about it for 10 seconds, and you will see how illogical the bayes theorm argument is in the instance your using it.Okay so your telling me microevolution happens in populations. So if i move to alaska with my wife and children, as well as a few friends, and we start a colony there (lol) In 3 generations (or some other arbitrary number) the kids will all have black hair (and be more hairy and bigger nostril. At what point do my grandchildren turn into apes? The illogical portion of this argument is the fact that an individual must be present in the population or the population does not exist. That means that the INDIVIDUALs will slowly go through changes. Now, that being said over time each individual is part of the population. So if a dominant trait such as dark hair pushes blonde hair out of the equation, individuals will not have blond hair (neither will the population). Therefore my argument is perfectly valid. Your hiding behind the word population, but the changes have to happen to the individuals, because if the change doesnt happen to someone it DOES NOT HAPPEN.Your argument on speciation, just out of curiosity, what species have arisen from other species? A poodle being a far descendant of a wolf? They are both in the same family. Please, you have the burden of proof, prove to me speciation happens.
I just named a number of them. None of the uses you have mentioned has ever been verified by empirical science. They are pure, unsubstantiated conjecture offered up by creationist institutes. The one about the development of the human tail is particularly rich - it acts as though the fact that they aren't present in adults is irrelevant, when the mere presence of them at any point demands explanation. Also, with goosebumps, the emergence of goosebumps in cold environments is not vestigial, since it provides warmth for the body as you say, but the emergence of goosebumps under stress most certainly is.
I just had to copy this because it made me laugh. No empirical evidence? Thats halarious. By your logic, any structure not necessary for breathing is vestigial. And hey you might even claim the lungs as well. you immediately dismiss everything anyone tells you because you have your mind made up and refuse to hear the other side of the story. The goosebumps aregument made no sence. essentially what you said to me was, anything that can be used for more than one task is vestigial. For you to tell me something is vestigial, you MUST prove it is vestigial. A study, published in a Medical Journal in not empiracle evidence of the Appendix not being vestigial?(Henry L. Bockus, M.D., Gastroenterology, 2:1134–1148)But no, documented evidence isnt enough.And the spinal cord comment you made is RICH. pure genius! So your telling me the bottom half of the spinal cord does not need to develop. Who needs nerve endings in their legs that connect to the spinal cord and to the brain. who needs to walk? please think before you make such adenine claims. Does the fact that your brain develops over time make your brain vestigial? seriously. I was very close to not even rebutting on that because it was so ridiculous. But since you made a claim that it needed to be explained, i decided what the heck?
Vindicated, you are convincing me that you aren't paying very much attention to my posts
when did you explain that "given enough time anything can happen" was not the logic behind the evolutionary theory? All you did was tell me i was wrong and digress...
Is all of physics moot because we can't manipulate gravity?
I have to admit that was one of your best arguments yet. (sarcasm aside) The problem with that argument is that gravity is manipulated everyday by brute force. When an Airplane takes off it is manipulating gravity. When a rocket is launched into space it is manipulating gravity. In fact the satellites circling the earth are also manipulating gravity.
Also, the archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil. I assume you're likely to use the dated arguments of Dr. Gish and his ilk, but I'm eager to hear your reasons for stating otherwise.
first off, i have no idea who dr gish is.... You have two fossils. One of a reptile and one of a bird. Where are the clues that the legs evolved into wings? Ostriches had claws on their wings (another reason their wings are not vestigial) that are more akin to reptiles than this archaeopteryx. The wings of the bird were completely developed wings. Where is the evidence of evolution? How did legs and scales go to feathers and wings? where is the EVIDENCE of the evolution? You claim its there, i have seen no proof. No journals, no white papers no nothing. What about the fossilized birds found in texas that were in a lower layer of stata the the archaeoptrix?since i like your wiki trick, i thought i would borrow it for my benefithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx 155 million yearshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoavis 225 million yearseven your realm of evolutionary science proves archaeoptrix wrong.protoavis more bird like than archaeoptrix, and older.
Also, the archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil.
lol

 

[Lunar]

Well it's true. If no evidence for the function of an apparently vestigial organ has been found, we do not assume that it is not vestigial anyways simply because there might be one we haven't found yet - just as you don't assume that Santa Claus exists simply because we haven't disproved his existence. If you are to claim that an organ has a function, it needs to be proved that it has a function.

Wrong. I did not say that P(E/H) was 0. I said that it was less than 1, which is true. It is completely possible that God could have created our species without having such similar genetic codes. Since the P(E/H1) (evolutionary theory) is 1, evolutionary theory is confirmed.

The illogical portion of this argument is the fact that an individual must be present in the population or the population does not exist. That means that the INDIVIDUALs will slowly go through changes.

Incorrect. The individual is' date=' genetically, always the same. The variation referred to by evolution occurs at the beginning of the life cycle. It does not "change" in the middle of its life.

Now, that being said over time each individual is part of the population. So if a dominant trait such as dark hair pushes blonde hair out of the equation, individuals will not have blond hair (neither will the population). Therefore my argument is perfectly valid.

It is wrong because it assumes that individuals can change their genetics over time the way a population can. Evolution occurs when populations change. Individuals, as you have noted, will vary from one to the next, but this is not evolution. To suggest that someone "evolves" biologically over the course of their life is about as sophisticated as Pokemon.

Okay.- Darwins finches are one of the most prominent examples, and while the creationist may be inclined to jump and say that this is merely microevolution, the fact remains that new species were produced in this instance.- The evening primrose, hemp nettle, brassica, woodsia fern, and many other species of plant have been found to produce variants which were unable to cross-breed.- The drosophila- The petroia multicolor- If you are looking for something drastic, like a population of fish evolving into amphibians, then you won't find an observed instance of that, of course, because the human lifespan is too short to observe such a change.

No, any organ which has lost its original function is vestigial.

No, that isn't what I said. I'm sorry if you don't understand. The original function of the goosebumps when under stress was to raise the hairs on our bodies. However, we are no longer covered in such a thing. Therefore, it is vestigial.

The problem is that you have limited your definition of vestigiality to "useless." While a vestigial organ may in fact be useless, it may also have simply lost its original function. This is a great deal easier to prove.

every bit[/i] as ridiculous as you think what I am saying is' date=' but thus far I have made my best effort to refrain from the condescending brand of remarks which litter your posts. All you are proving is that the only way for a creationist to win an argument is to be a jerk, so cut it out.

So your telling me the bottom half of the spinal cord does not need to develop.

That isn't what I said at all, actually. Nice strawman, though.

When an Airplane takes off it is manipulating gravity. When a rocket is launched into space it is manipulating gravity. In fact the satellites circling the earth are also manipulating gravity.

No' date=' they aren't. These are structures which all conform to the laws of gravity just like everything else.And secondly, even if they [i']were[/i] manipulating gravity, would that mean that physics was a completely baseless science until we were able to make airplanes?

Of course I can't give you white papers. We're having a discussion on the internet, not in person. If you would like some links, though, then here are a few:http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/bird...haeopteryx.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.htmlI'll answer your point about the wings in particular. We can see that the wings of archaeopteryx are structurlly dissimilar from the wings of modern birds. As with most dinosaurs (but unlike modern birds), the wrist and finger bones are unfused. Also like dinosaurs and unlike modern birds, the wings retain claws in their adult stage. The shoulder joint is visibly similar to the theropod dinosaur Deinoychus. In short, the structure of the wings is very dissimilar from other modern birds and similar in several key ways to theropod dinosaur anatomy.If you are interested in seeing a bunch of articles published in academic journals which support the archaeopteryx as a transitional form, then I'd be happy to simply add the appendix for the latter article to this post.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

(Lunar;55629)
- Darwins finches are one of the most prominent examples, and while the creationist may be inclined to jump and say that this is merely microevolution, the fact remains that new species were produced in this instance.
What exactly did the finches turn into?

 

[Vindicated]

What really tickles me about your argument on vestigial structures, is the fact that your are assuming you know the original intent of the part, and anything that deviates from what you believe to be the intent would qualify it as vestigial. So how do you know the original intent of goosebumps was not for heat related purposes? And on what basis are you calling goosebumps vestigial? What is vestigial about muscle contractions used to generate heat in an individual in a cold environment?
one question why does this quote not fit for the evolutionary theory?"given enough time anything can happen"thats the premise behind the theory is it not? given enough time an organism can spontaneously arise (modern science cannot recreate this... and if it does happen, it proves intelligence was needed) Given enough time the flagellum can arise. given enough time a conscience will develop. given enough time one species can evolve to another.
you misquoted me

your purposely left off the end of my quote because it was inclusive of something you cannot readily dispute. the fact that "evolution" relies on an infinite amount of time.ooh and why can abiogenesis be seperated from evolution anyway? wouldn't the organism have to be living already?
It is wrong because it assumes that individuals can change their genetics over time the way a population can. Evolution occurs when populations change. Individuals, as you have noted, will vary from one to the next, but this is not evolution. To suggest that someone "evolves" biologically over the course of their life is about as sophisticated as Pokemon.
I did not suggest that a person evolves in their lifetime, i dont know where you got that from what i said. Ill reiterate in an attempt at clarificationAn sample of an individual is taken.the individual in question is part of a population.over time the population changes.some random number of generations later another sample is takenthe sample is (obviously) an individual.therefore my analysis was perfectly valid. I said that over some arbitrarily ridiculous amount of time, the sample will be vastly different than the origional. Then you told me thats not what evolution claims, twisted my words, and said my valid argument (because i explain evolution in the argument) was
as sophisticated as Pokemon
Once again with bayes theorum... God definately would (and did) make structures and genetics similiar. recalculate your theorum at P(E/H)=1...If an intelligent person knows that not reinventing the wheel simplifies things, God obviously knows as well. There is no logical reason for P(E/H) not to be 1... other than to bias the results...

 

[Vindicated]

you can rebuttal my last post if you would like but i will not be responding. Neither of us will budge on this topic and the more we argue the more i push you away from the truth. please forgive me1 Timothy 6:20O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called2 Timothy 2:16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

 

[Lunar]

(Alpha and Omega;55646)
What exactly did the finches turn into?
They evolved into different species of finches which were dissimilar enough such that they could not reproduce with one another. The most notable difference is in the size of the beaks, which you can see here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...7s_finches.jpegAs a pre-emptive response to "but they're still just finches, so that's only adaptation:" The fact that they are all finches does not mean that it is not speciation. Again, the different types of finches were so dissimilar that they could not reproduce with one another, which is the most basic criterion for differentiating species. This is actually an incredibly significant jump to be observed within the span of one lifetime, so please do not roll your eyes and ask me to show you an observed instance of a fish evolving into an amphibian or something. That is categorically unobservable (at least directly) by humans.(Vindicated)
Neither of us will budge on this topic and the more we argue the more i push you away from the truth. please forgive me
I forgive you. Just try and play nice in the future, eh?

 

[Alpha and Omega]

(Lunar;55651)
They evolved into different species of finches which were dissimilar enough such that they could not reproduce with one another. The most notable difference is in the size of the beaks, which you can see here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...7s_finches.jpegAs a pre-emptive response to "but they're still just finches, so that's only adaptation:" The fact that they are all finches does not mean that it is not speciation. Again, the different types of finches were so dissimilar that they could not reproduce with one another, which is the most basic criterion for differentiating species. This is actually an incredibly significant jump to be observed within the span of one lifetime, so please do not roll your eyes and ask me to show you an observed instance of a fish evolving into an amphibian or something. That is categorically unobservable (at least directly) by humans.
I've read different
Recent observations have revealed that the finches did not undergo an unlimited variation as Darwin's theory presupposed. Moreover, most of the different types of finches which Darwin thought represented 14 distinct species actually mated with one another, which means that they were variations that belonged to the same species. Scientific observation shows that the finch beaks, which have been mythicized in almost all evolutionist sources, are in fact an example of "variation"; therefore, they do not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. For example, Peter and Rosemary Grant, who spent years observing the finch varieties in the Galapagos Islands looking for evidence for Darwinistic evolution, were forced to conclude that "the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth," a fact which implied that no "evolution" that leads to the emergence of new traits ever takes place there