So all these years evolutionist used the appendix as an example of evolving. They said we have this part that we just no longer need anymore. We just evolved to the point it was useless, but here we go, now we know it has a purpose. Proving once again evolutionist jump the gun everytime they claim to have proof. I just watched a movie the other day of a classroom where the appendix was held up as proof of evolution. I wish I could remember the name of it. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 09 Oct 2007 18:40
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Hrm... But have they figured out why we have tailbones?
Posted: 09 Oct 2007 19:31
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
I'll make a deal with you, Danny. If the tailbone is so useless, I will pay to have yours removed and then we can watch you try to walk. Or sit down. It is far from vestigal. __________________
1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
Posted: 09 Oct 2007 19:53
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
__________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 09 Oct 2007 20:05
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Talk about putting one's butt on the line.
I'm not sold on the tail bone not being vestigial. I bet one could walk or sit without it. From where does your prognosis originate? I've cracked my tail bone and still walked and sat.
I'm going to have to turn down your offer as a personal stand against cosmetic surgery. I think God created evolution to create us this way for a reason. (Or maybe it was all dumb luck).
Regardless, if you try it- I'll give you 5$ just for doing it and 5$ more if you're right about the not being able to walk or sit.
All the same- this isn't the only vestigial issue. Whales occasionally have leg bones, we all have wisdom teeth, and we all certainly have a lot of DNA in common with chimps, for apparently no reason at all if you guys are correct.
The funny thing about this argument, is that it sort of brings up the often repeated misunderstanding that evolution is like a Ferrari being built out of an explosion in a junkyard.
I've always thought that comparison was a little weird, but this throws a new wrench into the works.
A more proper analogy is not that a specific car would be in mind- but just something that had forward locomotion, (or for a more apt analogy- just the ability for something to ask where it came from), over an infinite amount of time, with a continuously propelled "explosion" in an infinite amount of space.
If God built us specifically to look like this- than any number of inconviences come to mind. Age is a drag- and going to the bathroom isn't always convienient, though He must have known we'd never read the paper without it. But why build in race if He knew we'd fight over it so damn much?
I realize the easy answer is that only God knows- or that it might be some sort of test. Thats fine. But there's no discounting that it might just be natural selection at work too. Did God invent sickle-cell anemia? Probably not as directly as rejecting evolution would imply.
Posted: 09 Oct 2007 20:32
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
All I know is score one for Tim on the Appendix proof, and I'll keep waiting and watching for more evidence as I'm sure it will pop up from time to time. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 09 Oct 2007 23:15
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Tim, did you read that entire article? At no point did it lean in your favor. You just interpreted it your way.
The article doesn't really endorse a specific viewpoint- but it does seem to offer plenty of information that indicates the findings fit into the theory of evolution.
Here come the direct quotes...
"If a person's gut flora dies, it can usually be repopulated easily with germs they pick up from other people, he said. But before dense populations in modern times and during epidemics of cholera that affected a whole region, it wasn't as easy to grow back that bacteria and the appendix came in handy.
In less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the U.S., other studies have shown, Parker said.
He said the appendix may be another case of an overly hygienic society triggering an overreaction by the body's immune system."
and then there's this:
"The idea "seems by far the most likely" explanation for the function of the appendix, said Brandeis University biochemistry professor Douglas Theobald. "It makes evolutionary sense."
If that isn't an example of a vestigal organ... what is?
Now go ahead, tell me that your source is liberal propaganda....
Posted: 09 Oct 2007 23:28
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: The article doesn't really endorse a specific viewpoint- but it does seem to offer plenty of information that indicates the findings fit into the theory of evolution.
I wasn't actually going on the opinions of the article rather by the fact that evolutionist have always proclaimed that the apendix was useless by the continuing process of evolution. The fact that it is still being used proves yet another instance where evolutionists got it wrong, and also shows that God put it there for a reason.
Whether or not scientists want to interpret it that way is another matter. You have to expect that evolutionist are going to do the little dance around the new evidence thing like usual. I wouldn't expect them to admit evolution was proven wrong if God himself came down to earth and proclaimed his existence. Well in point of fact He has once already, but that's another discussion.
At least you won't be hearing the appendix is proof of evolution from the perspective of it's uselessness anymore, not without someone like me catching them on it at any rate. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 09 Oct 2007 23:42
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
__________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 10 Oct 2007 02:10
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: The fact that it is still being used proves yet another instance where evolutionists got it wrong
Okay, I still don't think you get it.
The first point is- the appendix isn't really used in industrialized society. Thats why tons of people have it taken out, and no one notices. Things have changed, and it isn't as necessary for some people as it once was. It is vestigial here.
In places where people don't live in industrial societies, the appendix is still used. There's a difference in the way everyone used to live, and the way some people (us) live today.
Secondly, how does the appendix's declining importance prove your point? There's no more evidence that "God put it there" than there was before.
Third, I don't think I ever heard someone say "the appendix has always been useless! Therefore evolution is true! hahah!" That argument would be most illogical Captain.
Finally, if someone has discovered some new bit of knowledge- well, that is always good. Other than your supposed video, I've never heard anyone make the argument you describe- but if they did, now they learn something. Unfortunately, there's no evidence of God in the appendix to learn about- but there is this new theory to muse over. The point of science is to refine what we know.
To me, this indicates we're seeing an organ go vestigial- but doesn't prove anything about evolution or God.
If you come up with something else, okay- but but you're going to have to lay out your case a little better to convince people like me.
Posted: 10 Oct 2007 10:06
zod69
Posted: 10 Oct 2007 14:43
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
Danny, I was just having a bit of fun with you. __________________
1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
Posted: 10 Oct 2007 15:08
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Secondly, how does the appendix's declining importance prove your point? There's no more evidence that "God put it there" than there was before.
It's not about it's declining importance, it's by the fact that it still has a use, Danny. Evolutionist were saying for years that the appendix was useless.
Quote: Third, I don't think I ever heard someone say "the appendix has always been useless!
Well I've heard several times that the appendix was a classic example of evolution. I'm not sure what to do about the fact you haven't. I'm sure a lot of other people have heard the same thing at some point in their lives.
Quote: If you come up with something else, okay- but but you're going to have to lay out your case a little better to convince people like me.
You'd make a great scientist for evolution, but a terrible detective. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 10 Oct 2007 17:01
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: Danny, I was just having a bit of fun with you.
Totally likewise. The stupid internet always removes the tounge-in-cheek nature of such things. I'm kidding back. I don't really want to have a tailbone removing contest. Or do I?
Posted: 10 Oct 2007 17:08
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
please no __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 10 Oct 2007 17:08
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: It's not about it's declining importance, it's by the fact that it still has a use, Danny.
Right- if one's life is not so different from cavemen (no offense to any web savvy hunter gatherer's out there, I'm no Geico salesman...).
For the rest of us- I'm assuming you as well, life has changed and so the appendix is not very important, if at all. Please re-read the article you refrenced.
Quote: Well I've heard several times that the appendix was a classic example of evolution.
Okay, but I think you missed their point. I bet I can think of a way to solve this, but you're not going to like it...
Quote: I'm not sure what to do about the fact you haven't.
Well, you could always CITE A SOURCE.
That way- we'll see exactly what the "evolutionists" were talking about. Right?
Posted: 10 Oct 2007 17:21 Last Edited By: Tim
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
I started out with a source to begin with. I made my point. The appendix has a use maybe not often used, but it's used.
Now listen to Elvis and hush about it. Just kidding keep yacking if you want, but I'm totally right.
I especially love the first two songs so play it dude.
__________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 10 Oct 2007 19:14
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Uh, great. I like Elvis too Tim- but that isn't exactly the source I was looking for.
Although, you typically cite some sort of downhome cultural refrence when you end up in a corner, I do appreciate some Elvis tunes to break up the day.
Its just that what we're looking for here is some evidence that people made claims about the appendix the way you say they did.
Otherwise, your perspective on the CNN story just doesn't hold up- ya know?
I don't doubt that such an argument is out there- I just think you misunderstood it the first time. Then when you saw the CNN headline, you didn't read the whole thing and just assumed it backed you up. Am I on to something?
But if you don't want to validate your own claims- I'll take more elvis songs too- that's never a bad thing.
Quote: The appendix has a use maybe not often used, but it's used.
Correct, in situations where people live a cave man-like existance.
Posted: 10 Oct 2007 19:18
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Otherwise, your perspective on the CNN story just doesn't hold up- ya know
I'm sure you've heard it said that the appendix as being useless as proof of evolution somewhere in your lifetime if you really know evolution like you say you do.
Quote: Am I on to something?
No
My wife hates that cave man show for some reason. I just catch a little here and there of the show. The commercials are kind of interesting, but she hates them too. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 10 Oct 2007 19:53
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: I'm sure you've heard it said that the appendix as being useless as proof of evolution somewhere in your lifetime if you really know evolution like you say you do.
Right, but my point is somewhat rhetorical in nature. I want YOU to look it up so you can read what they're saying about the appendix. From what I gathered, you have misinterpreted the reason supporters of evolution brought up the appendix.
Quote: My wife hates that cave man show for some reason.
Never seen it. The comercials are hilarious though.
The cavemen would ahve an interesting perspective in this argument. Since they play tennis, go on cable news shows, and conduct themselves like uptight yuppies, I presume they also live typical western civilization style lives. So they probably don't have any use for the appendix now either.
Now, if only Elvis were here to weigh in on this...THAT would clear it up.
Posted: 10 Oct 2007 20:08
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Elvis would be on my side. He'd better I've got 8 of his cds, about the same number of cassettes, and a couple of his albums. At least 50's Elvis before he started drugs would be on my side. You could never tell what 70's jumpsuit Elvis was thinking.
You ain't nothin but a hound dog! __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 10 Oct 2007 21:15
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
What can I say Tim? There's just no logical argument against danicng bananas or a hypothetical Elvis. I suppose the "Chewbacca Defense" triumphs again.
Posted: 10 Oct 2007 22:04
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
I usually only go off to crazyville after I think there's nothing else to add. I only have so much energy you know. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 12 Oct 2007 23:21
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 8
Join Date: Oct 2007
The appendix is advanced as an argument for evolution because the evolutionist believes that some organs lose function over time while new organs and functions appear.
The problem is that loss of function is not an evolution, it's a devolution. Consecutive losses to not add up to an increase.
The second part is simple assertion. To the best of my knowledge no new organ has ever been observed to form as a result of random mutations and natural selection. Indeed natural selection would tend to choose against anything that didn't have an immediate survival advantage such as a semi-formed organ. It takes energy to maintain those structures.
Whales are not found with leg bones. The example that is regularly cited comes from Whales by E. Slijper. He records that a Sperm Whale was pulled into a Japanese whaling station and had a 5 inch long growth projecting from it's side. A 5 inch projection, even one with a bone inside, on something the size of a Sperm Whale is not a leg by any stretch of the imagination. The photographs that circulate places like Talk Origins are not photos of whales with legs, but of whales with four fins. To be honest I was rather fascinated by the four finned whales because I had wondered why, if whales were mammals and mammals are built on a four limb pattern, whales didn't have four limbs. Now I know that it's the whole devolution thing again. Four fins aren't necessary to survival so losing them doesn't hurt the whale and may reduce energy demands somewhere along the way.
Here's a Dolphin born with four fins.
As for the similarities between Chimp and Human DNA, the differences are far more interesting. The numbers have gone from 2% difference to 5% difference and in some areas 12% difference. If we assume only 2% difference that's around 70 million bases (35 billion total in the human genome) if we assume that there have been 5 million years of deviation for Chimps and Humans that's 35 million each. If we allow 10 years per generation that's 500,000 generations in 5 million years. That requires each generation to obtain and preserve 70 mutations.
Even using the most favourable assumptions this cannot be achieved when you consider that even evolutionary scientists believe that 999 out of 1000 mutations are harmful. To achieve those 70 helpful mutations would require a load of 69,970 deleterious mutations in every generation.
The organism would self destruct under the load.
Posted: 13 Oct 2007 07:20
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: The appendix is advanced as an argument for evolution because the evolutionist believes that some organs lose function over time while new organs and functions appear.
The problem is that loss of function is not an evolution, it's a devolution. Consecutive losses to not add up to an increase.
In this case at least, thats not true. No organ had to appear for the appendix to lose function. Nor is losing function a "devolution" in this case. It is simply a changing of the circumstances in which an organism finds itself.
The point of evolution isn't that things get "better" by adding or subtracting the stuff they're made of. The point is that whatever the living carrier of DNA is, that it survives to make more of itself. The appendix isn't needed in modern society and doesn't really prove one thing or another about evolution. The notion that it is there at all might point to a difference in how human beings once lived and how they live now. Of course, those differences are obvious if one takes a tour around the globe.
If someone started to live in a very dark place and didn't need their eyes anymore- that wouldn't be a "devolution". It would just mean that they had probably come from somewhere that eyes were useful.
Quote: If we assume only 2% difference that's around 70 million bases (35 billion total in the human genome) if we assume that there have been 5 million years of deviation for Chimps and Humans that's 35 million each. If we allow 10 years per generation that's 500,000 generations in 5 million years. That requires each generation to obtain and preserve 70 mutations.
Even using the most favourable assumptions this cannot be achieved when you consider that even evolutionary scientists believe that 999 out of 1000 mutations are harmful. To achieve those 70 helpful mutations would require a load of 69,970 deleterious mutations in every generation.
Wow, this is going to require a source. I applaud the level of detail, but seriously- I'm no scientist. If you can direct me to where you got these figures, I'd be grateful.
Quote: To the best of my knowledge no new organ has ever been observed to form as a result of random mutations and natural selection.
Right, but the most you could have lived is about 90 years. It takes a lot longer than that for some weird-ism, like a light sensitive spot, to develop into a functioning eyeball many generations later.
I'll say it again- I'm no scientist. I have never met or seen a whale, so far as I can remember (a dolphin maybe?). But there are plenty of well researched opinions that counter the one just posted.
I hardly think that whales legs are needed for evidence when we're sitting on evidence. Tail bones seem to me to be just as ample a proof that evolution occurs. Of course between horsebreeding and fruit fly expereiments done by highschool seniors- there is plenty of evidence that some small degree of change can be brought on in a lifetime if actively brought on by human beings. I think where we differ is on if there was enough time for this to happen randomly. I'm thinking that even randomness is a lot more likely than just being conjured by a strictly supernatural event, especially considering that we're here to observe this chain of events. Where it wasn't as much of fluke- there are either no observers, or someone created by magic.
Posted: 13 Oct 2007 13:46
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
I hate to point out the obvious, but a dolphin with 4 fins is still a dolphin. A cow with 2 heads is still a cow. A fruit fly with 6 wings is still a fruit fly. In none of those cases do you see the emergence of new structures, just scrambled or misplaced versions of already present structures. These mutations are also always harmful.
Contained within the gentic code of each animal is a great amount of variety to adapt to different situations. However, at no point during a mutation is new information added to the gentic code. What you get is harmful scramblings of the code.
One of the great shortcomings of Darwinian evolution is an inablity to explain how the information necessary to generate new, functional structures gets introduced into the genetic code of a species. __________________
1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
Posted: 13 Oct 2007 21:20 Last Edited By: Tim
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: The appendix isn't needed in modern society and doesn't really prove one thing or another about evolution.
so Danny how long is it before modern society doesn't need muscles anymore since most kids only sit around and watch tv and play video games any how. I'd assume after a while they wouldn't need arms or legs. They could just plug themselves into a computer and be done with it.
If evolution were true and the appendix not necessary then why would we even be born with it? Wouldn't it just stop appearing in some people. If you want it out you still got to cut it out. Shouldn't evolution take care of that for us?
Why don't we end up with feet on our face or eyes on our feet? How does this evolution know where to put everything?
And like the preacher said if you take a chicken with two heads and mate it with another chicken with two heads are going to get a whole new line of two headed chickens? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 13 Oct 2007 22:57
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
I'm no scientist either, but I had to throw this in.
Quote: Wouldn't it just stop appearing in some people
Has it happened yet? Will it? How do you know? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 14 Oct 2007 02:10
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: I hate to point out the obvious, but a dolphin with 4 fins is still a dolphin. A cow with 2 heads is still a cow. A fruit fly with 6 wings is still a fruit fly. In none of those cases do you see the emergence of new structures, just scrambled or misplaced versions of already present structures. These mutations are also always harmful.
Okay, so lets say a really intelligent human is still a human. But this one has the highest IQ on the planet and uses it accordingly. Not only does this boost this human's chances for success and survival in a competitive world- it means more people of this never before seen IQ might be brought about in the next generation as the off spring of this mutation.
Useful mutation probably won't take the form of an additional appendage, because at this point in human evolution- we don't need such a thing- it would probably work against us in attracting a mate.
Like you said- we're still dealing with the same species. In my example with human beings, we're just dealing with very very intelligent ones.
But at some point in this process, we're dealing with something new. Now, have I personally seen this happen? I've seen the beginning stages of natural selection- they take place all the time in bars and at cocktail parties. But making a completely different organism takes a lot of time and a lot of generations.
Therefore, for numerous reasons, evolution- especially within our own rather sexually discerning species, will be incredibly difficult to see.
One might think that the most superior survivors would live a long time and be able to make more of itself for the longest amount of time. One might also assume that we'd see every "missing link" in between species.
However, competition is going to sort out the winners quickly, and those that haven't gotten with the program are going to be at a huge disadvantage for resources. Therefore, successful species tend to clean out obvious mutations and plateau to some degree. Despite the spin the X-men put on it- the guy with the claws or laser beam eyes is probably not going to be dating supermodel looking redheads.
Nor were physically stronger apemen going to be as cunning at finding food sources, communicating with each other or finding and impressing girls. So they don't exist now.
But would a super intelligent guy be able to use his hidden trait effectively to "score"? Maybe. And his kids might have a supermodel mom and be even better competitors. I doubt Jakob Dylan has ever had trouble with the ladies, but he's still human.
Quote: so Danny how long is it before modern society doesn't need muscles anymore since most kids only sit around and watch tv and play video games any how. I'd assume after a while they wouldn't need arms or legs. They could just plug themselves into a computer and be done with it.
I'm not saying this won't happen. I don't know what the future holds. We don't need the appendix now- so what our descendants might need in the future is also questionable. Its hard to say. But also bear in mind that if something just seems gross, its going to have a had time reproducing. Now that standards are to some degree being established with regard to human beauty- I'd expect continually better looking people- but that will always be pretty subjective and someone always has to be the ugly duckling.
Now fellas- we're heading into deep scientific territory. I'm just not a trained biologist and evolution can be a fairly complex subject. We can keep at it, but my opinion is unlikely to change in favor of a supernatural explanation when a more rational, step by step theory exists- despite occasional inconsistencies. These are dwarfed by the void of evidence for Genesis being literal.
Furthermore, the existence of numerous other stories, all with their own supernatural explanations doesn't make me think I would accept any one over another. I like Christianity for its moral implications. I don't think it holds up as a comprehensive history of the universe.
Posted: 15 Oct 2007 02:21
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: . I like Christianity for its moral implications. I don't think it holds up as a comprehensive history of the universe.
I really don't see it as a Christianity vs evolution scenario, although I know that's the way a lot of people on both sides of the fence want to play it that way. Darwinian evolution can be shown to be contrary to logic and the very laws of physics without even referencing scripture. It is simply currently the most dominant view of life's origins, with a lot of contrary views (besides creation) squished and suppressed. In fact, Ben Stein is making a movie about this, I think. Dominance does not carry with it a guarantee of truth. __________________
1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
please no
Just kidding keep yacking if you want, but I'm totally right.
You ain't nothin but a hound dog!
