A civil debate forum for people of all persuasions (Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Christians, and adherents of any religion)

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next

Reply to topic
jamesmorlock
First Post
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:48 pm  If you accept microevolution Reply with quote

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 231: Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:02 pm
Reply

Like this post
[quote="TheJackelantern"]

Quote:
Note this Image:




Quote:
TOKYO Nov 5, 2006 (AP), Japanese scientists reported a bottlenose dolphin, has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of hind limbs. The dolphin was captured alive in western Japan on Oct. 28, by Fishermen. "I believe the fins may be remains from the time when dolphins' ancient ancestors lived on land," said Seiji Osumi, of Tokyo's Institute of Cetacean Research. The hind fins are much smaller than the front fins and are about the size of human hands, protruding near the tail. The dolphin measured approx 9 feet in length.


vvv --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 response --- vvv:
I noticed this photograph of the dolphin with the extra set of fins a few years ago on TalkOrigins. The extra fins may be the result of a gene possibly being turned on that was previously turned off. This would therefore not be an example of a creature acquiring new traits by mutations but would be the result of a gene switch rather than developing a new or different gene. If the dolphin were spouting legs or wings I would venture to guess that possibly a gene mutated to produce such an odd trait for a dolphin, but this is not the case.
^^^ --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 post --- ^^^

Quote:
Basic Creationists rebuttal is "Their extra fins".. As if that would make their argument any better :/ Especially when such extra fins provide no functional purpose to a dolphin.. But in all cases where we find evolution, creationists like to play the "it's still the same body type", it's still a dolphin!!.. Same argument even when confronted with such Atavism:

Atavism is the tendency to revert to ancestral type. In biology, an atavism is an evolutionary throwback, such as traits reappearing which had disappeared generations before.[2] Atavisms can occur in several ways. One way is when genes for previously existing phenotypical features are preserved in DNA, and these become expressed through a mutation that either knock out the overriding genes for the new traits or make the old traits override the new one.


Quote:
Examples:

Whale pelvis and thigh bones:






vvv --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 response --- vvv:
Many evolutionists support whale evolution by claiming that there are vestigial hind legs buried in their flesh. However, these so-called ‘remnants’ are not useless at all, but help strengthen the reproductive organs, as the bones are different in males and females. In reality, these four bones have special muscles attaching them to the abdomen to fortify the reproductive system. As with the allegedly functionless limbs of Basilosaurus, one should not assume that although a trait may appear useless that it means there is no function. The predecessors of whales would have had to mutate in a beneficial manner to produce the necessary adaptations. However, science shows that organisms don’t survive a rapid rate of mutation. Also, essential design features would need to prevent the whales from hypothermia (abnormally low body temperature) for a whale to have evolved from a land animal.
^^^ --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 post --- ^^^


Quote:
Chicken Teeth:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mutant-chicken-grows-alli



vvv --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 response --- vvv:
I am not surprised that a chicken would be found to have teeth. If a chicken is considered a bird, it may be possible that whatever genes regulated whether teeth would grow or not were somehow turned on, then I would not be surprised that a chicken would have teeth. I would be surprised if a chicken developed a trait that is uncommon in birds, such as a bird possessing amphibian feet.
^^^ --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 post --- ^^^

Quote:
Snake limbs:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/6187320/Snake-with-foot-found-in-China...

vvv --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 response --- vvv:
I would not be surprised to see a foot on a snake, since a snake is a reptile. Reptiles have feet and therefore it is possible for a snake to have one. A gene might have been turned on that normally are off. Again, this would therefore not be an example of a creature acquiring new traits by mutations but would be the result of a gene switch rather than developing a new or different gene. If a snake sprouted a wing or a fin, then I would be surprised.
^^^ --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 post --- ^^^




Quote:
And even a fossil snake shows how snakes lost their legs:


http://www.examiner.com/paelenotology-science-news-in-national/x-rays-show-how-f...

vvv --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 response --- vvv:
Losing a limb does not appear to be as difficult as developing a new trait. There is no dispute that some creatures lose traits, such as catfish dwelling in dark caves having lost their eyesight. When a creature loses a trait, it is a result of a gene that no longer produces a protein. It is the result of information lost, not new information.
^^^ --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 post --- ^^^


Quote:
You can find ostriches with wings, and all sorts of animals showing things you sir claim can't be done. It gets worse when creationists have to deal with realizing why humans have tailbones, and sometimes are born with fully functional tails:


vvv --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 response --- vvv:
I do not see anything wrong with an ostrich having wings. Just because an ostrich is not able to fly does not indicate that its wings are the result of a four-legged creature that evolved into a bird with wings and feathers. The ostrich appears to survive quite well with wings, even though it is not able to fly. Many believe it is obviously the result of evolution, however, I do not make this same assumption. The ostrich wings appear to suit the ostrich quite well. There are all sorts of strange looking animals. The ducked billed platypus appears to be another strange looking creature. There are multiple others. But I do not believe that any of them even remotely hint of either being in the process of change or the result of a change which allowed them to continue to exist in their habitat.
^^^ --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 post --- ^^^






Quote:
Scientists have actually discovered the tail genes inside the human genome (the


Wnt-3a and Cdx1

Quote:
genes). Humans contain both the gene to develop tails along with apoptosis (programmed cell death) that plays a significant role in removing the tail while humans are still in the embryo form. The tail genes are retained from distance ancestors to humans and apoptosis was adapted later during the course of our ancestors' evolution.


vvv --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 response --- vvv:
It has been claimed that humans have a “tailbone” (also called the sacrum and coccyx), and that it is an indication that humans evolved from apes, however, this is highly debatable. The human tailbone is not useless. In one sense, the sacrum and coccyx are among the most important bones in the whole body. They form a crucial point of muscle attachment required for our distinctive upright posture (and also for defecation). The “tailbone” is important in human development. It is true that the end of the spine sticks out noticeably in a one-month embryo, but that is because muscles and limbs do not develop until stimulated by the spine. As the legs develop, they surround and envelop the “tailbone,” and it ends up inside the body. The caudal appendage does not contain even rudimentary vertebral structures. Also, the appendage is not located at the caudal terminus of the vertebral column. It is possible that this structure is merely a dermal appendage coincidentally located in the caudal region. The nervous system of humans begins as an open system along the back. As it develops it forms ridges and then closes. It closes in the middle first then advances toward the ends. Sometimes it doesn’t close at the bottom. This produces a serious birth defect called “spina bifida.” Sometimes it closes beyond the end. Then the baby will be born with a fatty tumor that evolutionists call a tail. In reality it is skin and a little fatty tissue that the doctor cuts off. It is nothing like a true tail that has muscle, bones, and nerve, so cutting it off is not complicated.
^^^ --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 post --- ^^^

Quote:
The above is actually more than enough evidence to prove evolution.. But no amount of evidence will be enough for a Religious group that will simply ignore it and deny it while making bad arguments about "Kinds", and "Body types"..


vvv --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 response --- vvv:
It all depends on how one perceives the evidence. It is not totally true that “no amount of evidence will be enough for a Religious group that will simply ignore it and deny it…” Some creationists, just like evolutionists, have their biases and simply refuse to consider the evidence and the arguments from opposing views. Others creationists, however, do consider the evidence and some become Theistic evolutionists while others become atheistic evolutionists. I am not exactly sure how this works, as I thought the Christian God was also the Creator. What would God the Creator have created if everything, including the origin of the universe and life, occurred naturally, without any assistance from God the Creator?
The concept of “kinds” is very debatable. I am not sure how Creationists define this term, although, I know it is a Biblical term. It may be possible that the term “kind” somehow refers to a general group of created creatures, but I do not know how these creatures would be grouped, other than perhaps a general classification such as: bacteria, amoebas, worms, fish, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, mammals, birds, insects, etc.
^^^ --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 post --- ^^^


vvv --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 response --- vvv:
Regarding embryos:
Dr. Michael Richardson, an embryologist, stated that vertebrate embryos pass through similar stages during development and that the development of vertebrate embryos reflects a relationship of their evolutionary past. Dr. Richardson stated that variations in the late stage embryo are often indicated by modifications of early embryonic development. He also stated that evolution has produced a number of changes in the embryonic stages of vertebrates, such as: Differences in body size; Differences in body plan (for example, the presence or absence of paired limb buds); Changes in the number of units in repeating series such as a member of a paired segments of arches near the area around the pharynx; Changes in the pattern of growth of different fields; Changes in the timing of development of different fields during evolution. Even though Dr. Richardson and his colleagues are evolutionists, they have stated that even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway. Dr. Richardson stated that the problem of comparing embryos is that embryonic stages are subjected to shifts in developmental timing during evolution so that different organs develop at different times in different species. The developmental timing variation makes it impossible to define a specific stage at which all vertebrate embryos have the same combination of the first stages of organ development. In summary, there is no one stage where embryos of all species have identical structures, which makes comparisons difficult.
Sources:
http://www.mk-richardson.com/pdf/Anat%20Embryol.pdf
http://www.darwinismwatch.com/index.php?git=makale&makale_id=1889

The evolution of living creatures would be more convincing if the comparison of homology (similar organ or structure changed by nature to perform different functions) among living organisms along with embryological and genetic comparisons showed homologous (similar) patterns of development, however, this is not the case. The first division of the egg cell to the blastula stage in amphibians, reptiles, and mammals is different. It is clear that neither the blastula (a solid sphere of cells formed during an early stage of embryonic development in animals) itself, nor the sequence of events which lead to its formation, are identical in amphibian, reptile, or mammal. The differences become even more apparent in the next major phase in embryo formation, which is gastrulation. (A phase early in the embrynoic development of most animals, during which the single-layered blastula is reorganized into a three-layered structure known as the gastrula. These three germ layers are known as the ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm.)
(Michael Denton. 1985. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Adler & Adler. 4550 Montgomery Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. pp. 145-147)
^^^ --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 post --- ^^^


Quote:
Debates only deal with religious Creationists to whom have an religious ideology / myth to protect. Hence, they are displaying survival of the fittest because their ideology is threatened by evolution, science, logic, and reason...


vvv --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 response --- vvv:
It is not just die-hard creationists who do the arguing, there are also atheists and theistic evolutionists who, although they believe in some form of evolution, do not believe that either Darwin’s theory or Neo-Darwinism adequately reflects the current evidence. I do, however, agree that Creationists are the biggest opponents of evolution, especially those who believe that every single species that ever existed was created.
^^^ --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 post --- ^^^


Quote:
Good thing we don't play with "IF" here since that would require ignoring the mutations involved. And here is literally pages and pages of mutations in genomes:


http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=mutations+in+seagull+genome&hl=en&as...


vvv --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 (tentative) response --- vvv:
I read a great portion of one of articles that were listed in the “mutations in seagull genome” Google search. The article “ftsZ mutations affecting cell division frequency, placement and morphology in Bacillus subtilis” http://mic.sgmjournals.org/content/151/6/2053.short was very interesting. I will need to study it in more detail to determine how the mutations were made and what was affected. Since I am not familiar with the process that is used to obtain the mutations, I am not able to form an opinion one way or another as to its validity in demonstrating that mutations could be beneficial to an organism.
^^^ --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 post --- ^^^


Quote:
Funny, no peer reviewed journal exists for this argument.. Please provide an actual source to this assertion. Because from what I understand of how they do genome comparisons, this is a load of self-invented crap. And I did some digging, Brian hasn't published any science journals on this issue what-so-ever. No surprise there.. What's even worse, have you ever read any papers he's had published? Yep, nothing about creationism, and nothing that even supports it. Also, the area in which he's talking about is also accounted for. And you are talking about the same guy who believes dinosaurs ate rice and were people pets while pretending to be an expert in cosmology, physics, astrophysics, or other science fields he has no PHD in..


vvv --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 response --- vvv:
This is the problem with reading material that is not reviewed by someone or a group with opposing views, as many of you would agree. It leaves the author to write whatever they wish. I believe sometimes they may be honest, but mistaken, or the author may be twisting the facts to prove a point. That is why I do not trust any source, but try to utilize as many documents as possible that are related to any one subject. I admit, some who are desperate will use whatever “evidence” they can to support their view. I try not to put too much confidence in any one source.
^^^ --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 post --- ^^^


Quote:
In fact you get things like this from people like him:

Quote:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2010/02/icr-its-official-radioactive-isotope.html


Quote:
Remember when I warned you about posting pseudoscience, or creationists who pretend to be scientists in fields they do not hold PHD's in? He uses religious dogma and miss represents what actual scientists say, and what actual scientific journals say .. He's has no peer reviewed journals on anything he's made claim to. Do me a favor, don't post material from such utter trash..


vvv --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 response --- vvv:
I am not convinced that the universe is less than 10,000 years. Most likely, the universe is a great deal older than that. I believe that since several methods were used to determine the age of the universe that all methods indicate the same conclusion, the evidence should be fairly evident. The problem with many who discuss evolution are not qualified to write about the many different areas of the subject. If an author is not very knowledgeable in whatever field they are discussing, such as a geologist or a paleontologist or a biologist or an embryologist, chemist, physicists, etc., I would prefer the discussion be left to those who are more familiar, more knowledge and more qualified to discuss certain topics. The problem is that someone may be correct in one area, but not in another. This is dangerous, because it sometimes leads someone to accept whatever the author states, regardless of whether the author is qualified or not.
^^^ --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 post --- ^^^


Quote:
Having questions is fine.. However, citing non credible sources such as Brian, or even someone like Sarfati is not a wise idea. Especially creationist fundamentalists to whom are waging a pseudoscience war on the entire institution of science. You are citing people who quote mine other science research out of context, and those who make stuff up with supernatural assertions to their religious ideology in blogs ect.. It's also why he's been attacking the peer review process since he can't get his garbage published.


vvv --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 response --- vvv:
Michael Behe also apparently bypassed the peer review process, most likely because he felt no one in the scientific community would support his views. I believe it is good practice to have research reviewed, as it may help minimize error and confusion. Most likely, one would want someone whom they can trust to be honest in their evaluation.
^^^ --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 post --- ^^^

Thank you for the information you have provided. I will review the information again that everyone has provided. I hope you all also re-read the comments and questions I presented throughout the past month or so.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 232: Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:12 pm
Reply

Like this post
Wow, some of those images are kind of freaky. If there was an intelligent designer, why all these anomalies?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 233: Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:29 am
Reply

Like this post
Quote:
It has been claimed that humans have a “tailbone” (also called the sacrum and coccyx), and that it is an indication that humans evolved from apes, however, this is highly debatable.


Incorrect. It's only debatable by those who are intentionally ignorant for faith sake, or those who literally ignore the genetics involved.

Quote:

The human tailbone is not useless. In one sense, the sacrum and coccyx are among the most important bones in the whole body. They form a crucial point of muscle attachment required for our distinctive upright posture (and also for defecation).


The muscles are typically muscles once used for tail function and are not specifically used to keep upright posture. And it seems you need play circular logic games to avoid having to deal with the fact the tail bone is more specifically for the purpose of a tail.. Yes people with functional tue tails can wag their tails because that is what that bone and muscle group was originally for, and was for.

Again you are posting creationist crap that has no peer review papers..

Quote:

I noticed this photograph of the dolphin with the extra set of fins a few years ago on TalkOrigins. The extra fins may be the result of a gene possibly being turned on that was previously turned off. This would therefore not be an example of a creature acquiring new traits by mutations but would be the result of a gene switch rather than developing a new or different gene. If the dolphin were spouting legs or wings I would venture to guess that possibly a gene mutated to produce such an odd trait for a dolphin, but this is not the case.



Again you are posting nothing intellectual on the subject. Please provide us with peer reviewed work or concede your ignorance on the issue. Avatism doesn't deal with new gene development, it deals with recessive genes from it's ancestor roots. Apparently you don't pay attention before making posts. Hence, this isn't going to say dolphins will sprout legs, or wings. And you seeming don't comprehend what a pelvis is, or why dolphins have them, or even why the fins are where the pelvis is located. And of course this ignores snakes growing legs with claws ect.

Quote:
any evolutionists support whale evolution by claiming that there are vestigial hind legs buried in their flesh. However, these so-called ‘remnants’ are not useless at all, but help strengthen the reproductive organs, as the bones are different in males and females.


Face palm alert!... Let's help you out here a bit.. The bones you are referring to are the pelvis bones. And yes, that is a no duh observation of typical mammals.. But let's take a closer look of what comes along with those pelvic bones:

Quote:


Figure 2.2.1. Bones from the atavistic hind-limbs of a humpback whale. A. From top to bottom, the cartiliginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal, arranged as found in situ in the whale. B. Enlarged detail of the femur and tibia shown in A. (scale is not the same as A). C. Detail of the tarsus and metatarsal shown in A. (Image reproduced from Andrews 1921, Figures 2, 3, and 4.)



Quote:

In reality, these four bones have special muscles attaching them to the abdomen to fortify the reproductive system.


Just like in all mammals! GJ! Some whales still have the femur bone and the pelvis bone... maybe you can come up with something relevant?? Like explaining why these pelvis bones actually have sockets.. And nobody assumes traits are magically useless. Nothing you have stated is evidence against evolution. All you are doing is backpedaling here..

Quote:

I am not surprised that a chicken would be found to have teeth. If a chicken is considered a bird, it may be possible that whatever genes regulated whether teeth would grow or not were somehow turned on, then I would not be surprised that a chicken would have teeth. I would be surprised if a chicken developed a trait that is uncommon in birds, such as a bird possessing amphibian feet.


Again.. FACE PALM! ... I can tell you didn't watch the video as well, the video that also explains your erroneous use of Chicken to amphibian argument... And lets look at feet..Many amphibians and birds have similar characteristics in their feet.. Do webbed feet count?:

[img]http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/232/4/1/Webbed_toes_by_AshWolves5.png [/img]
[img]
http://www.babybirdid.com/bbidhelpimages/webbed_twc.jpg[/img]

[img] http://www.edgeofexistence.org/edgeblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/Blog-2-Xenopu...

Or is it genetics and not appearance of feet since even amphibian feet can range greatly from each other.... Is that person with webbed feet now not human?


Quote:

I would be surprised if a chicken developed a trait that is uncommon in birds, such as a bird possessing amphibian feet.


Scientists would be surprised too! Please learn something about genetics, or at least something about the tree of life and why your argument is utterly nonsensical. Backpedaling isn't fun is it?

Quote:

I would not be surprised to see a foot on a snake, since a snake is a reptile. Reptiles have feet and therefore it is possible for a snake to have one. A gene might have been turned on that normally are off.


More intentional ignorance about Avatism.. Fun stuff! So if a snake grows legs and feet, is it a lizard or a snake? Common, you are the one trying to claim body types and kinds here as your main argument. It's just sad you don't comprehend the failure in your own logic. But then again, that is necessary for the survival of your creationist beliefs.

Quote:
Losing a limb does not appear to be as difficult as developing a new trait. There is no dispute that some creatures lose traits, such as catfish dwelling in dark caves having lost their eyesight. When a creature loses a trait, it is a result of a gene that no longer produces a protein. It is the result of information lost, not new information.


More intentional ignorance of Avatism.. And your argument of new information vs information lost is equal to the following:

Can you tell me which is a loss of information/function or a gain of information /function

Quote:
0011001
1011000


I bet you can't..
Quote:

“spina bifida.” Sometimes it closes beyond the end. Then the baby will be born with a fatty tumor that evolutionists call a tail.


No, there is a difference between a true tail and something from spinal spidifa. Yes true tails in reported cases lack cartilage and vertebrae, but they have what most ought to have for tails you find in mammals. True tails are when the tail in the fetal stages doesn't go away like it's supposed to.

Quote:
Myelomeningocele is the most common type of spina bifida. It is a neural tube defect in which the bones of the spine do not completely form, resulting in an incomplete spinal canal. This causes the spinal cord and meninges (the tissues covering the spinal cord) to stick out of the child's back.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002525/

That is what most cases of spina spidifia look like. But there is a difference between spina bifida vs someone that is born with a true tail. Most pseudo-tails, or true tail cases have nothing to do with spina bifidia.. A true tail will project out from the very bottom of the spinal column, being an extension of the coccyx or tailbone. A tail caused by spina bifida will be attached somewhere higher on the back in the Limbaugh region

Quote:
Human tail with spina bifida.
Chauhan SP, Gopal NN, Jain M, Gupta A.
Source

Postgraduate Department of Surgery, M. L. N. Medical College, Allahabad 211002, India.
Abstract

A true human tail is a rare occurrence and is defined as a caudal, vestigial, midline protrusion with skin covering connective tissue, muscle, vessels and nerves. We report a case of true human tail in a child, which is a very rare happening in humans.


Quote:
Humans have a tail bone (the coccyx) attached to the pelvis, in the same place which other mammals have tails. The tail bone is formed of fused vertebrae, usually four, at the bottom of the vertebral column. It doesn't protrude externally, but retains an anatomical purpose: providing an attachment for muscles like the gluteus maximus."
Source and further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_tail#Human_tails

"The coccyx, or tailbone, is the remnant of a lost tail. All mammals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis. This tail is most prominent in human embryos 31-35 days old. The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, has lost its original function in assisting balance and mobility, though it still serves some secondary functions, such as being an attachment point for muscles, which explains why it has not degraded further. In rare cases a short tail can persist after birth, with 23 human babies possessing tails having been reported in the medical literature since 1884."
Source and further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality#Coccyx




Quote:
In reality it is skin and a little fatty tissue that the doctor cuts off. It is nothing like a true tail that has muscle, bones, and nerve, so cutting it off is not complicated.


You are confused with psuedotails and true tails. But not really relevant. I proved both in my post. More specifically, a true tails have nothing to do with spina bifida:

Quote:
Human tails and pseudotails.
Dao AH, Netsky MG.
Abstract

A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized. The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial. Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails. The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated parasitic fetus.


Kabra NS, Srinivasan G, Udani RH. True tail in a neonate. Indian Pediatr 1999;36:712-3. Back to cited below:

Quote:
True tail in a neonate.
Kothari PR, Gupta A, Shankar G, Jiwane A, Kulkarni B.
Source

Department of Pediatric Surgery, LTM Medical College and General Hospital, Sion, Mumbai, India. drparaskothari@rediffmail.com
Abstract

Distinction between true and pseudo trail in lumbo-sacral region is important since treatment and prognosis are different. Fewer than 40 cases have been reported in literature. The authors report a case of true tail in a neonate, a rare event.


And your argument is even worse when we actually have the tail genes, the same genes we find in Chimps and other mammals with tails. But of course you need to ignore genetics and post pseudoscience from discredited sources like creation.com, or creationist books. But lets further look at what a true tail example is:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2



Hence, this is not spina spidifia or even a pseudo-tail. You might also want to learn something about the Hox Code:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/the_hox_code.php

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 234: Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:38 am
Reply

Like this post
Quote:
Michael Behe also apparently bypassed the peer review process, most likely because he felt no one in the scientific community would support his views. I believe it is good practice to have research reviewed, as it may help minimize error and confusion. Most likely, one would want someone whom they can trust to be honest in their evaluation.


LMAO... No, it's because he's a complete moron, and a proven dishonest liar. He pretends to be an expert in cosmology, astrology, physics, geo-physics, and many fields in bio-chemistry to which he holds no PHD's in. The fact you even used him as a reference is an utter joke. Especially when you are severely backpedaling and trying to move a goal post with appeals to ignorance. Either provide actual peer reviewed material, or sit down.. He also often uses science out of context to which is an act of quote mining to conform it an argument for creationism.. Your use of spina spidifia being a prime example. You do know what quote mining is right?

Definition:

Quote:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining
Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint.[1] It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution.


I see it be no surprise that you use the same dishonest, and most self-refuting arguments out there to which include the "kinds" and "body type" arguments that pretty much goal post every time it's contradicted by it's own argument lol.. The fact I can just go with carbon based life is more than enough to collapse it without having to challenge you on snakes vs lizards vs limbless salamanders vs eels vs worms ec ect ect.. Circular logic and games of pure and utter ignorance do not win you intellectual brownie points. But then again, you are phishing for ignorant people aren't you? Well, you came to the wrong place son..

Here, you can watch all 32 videos of "Why do Creationists Get laughed at", and discover the discredited arguments you find from Michele Behe, Sarfati, or Brian ect.. These videos pretty much cover just about all the Creationist arguments that are completely incoherent with reality.

Quote:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/why-do-people-laugh-at-creationists/


Note:

At the end of each video, it will allow you to select the next one in the series. And here is some examples of Micheal Behe:

http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2005/10/among-michael-behes-many.html

And it's even worse when Following a trial, Behe wrote another book called "The Edge of Evolution," where he says that Darwinian evolution DOES exist, even though he says its role is limited. This is a clear shift from his position in "Darwin's Black Box," where he denied Darwinian evolution outright. His own university discredited him.

Irreducible complexity has been shot down on a number of occasions, most notably in the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Behe was the primary witness/expert for the defense, arguing against evolution using irreducible complexity and also trying to support ID as a legitimate science. Behe failed miserably on both counts in this case.

Case in point, the flagellum, one of the key aspects of Behe's case. Here's a neat video that sums it up with pictures and a description of research done in 2003 on the subject of how it could have evolved.

[url] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w[/url]

Especially in reference to actual peer reviewed material:


http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

Yep, there is a reason why he's discredited and doesn't have any peer reviewed material on any of the subjects he talks about. He doesn't even hold PHD's in 99 percent of the fields he talks about.

So why do creationists still refer to his evolution-denying work when Behe himself backed down from it after being discredited? Well, because it's good material for phishing ignorance of young minds, and those whom are less inclined to do fact checking.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 235: Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:36 am
Reply

Like this post
Here are some more fun examples of Atavism:


Quote:
Snake heart: a case of atavism in a human being.
Walia I, Arora HS, Barker EA, Delgado RM 3rd, Frazier OH.
Source

Department of Cardiology, Texas Heart Institute at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
Abstract

Atavism is the rare reappearance, in a modern organism, of a trait from a distant evolutionary ancestor. We describe an apparent case of atavism involving a 59-year-old man with chest pain whose coronary circulation and myocardial architecture resembled those of the reptilian heart. The chest pain was attributed to a coronary steal phenomenon. The patient was discharged from the hospital on a heightened regimen of β-blockers, and his symptoms improved significantly. To our knowledge, this is only the 2nd reported clinical case of a human coronary circulation similar to that of reptiles.





here is a good video on talk ted about using avatism to make a chicken throw back to being a non-avian dinosaur:

http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_building_a_dinosaur_from_a_chicken.html

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 236: Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:56 pm
Reply

Like this post
two glaring corrections to make:

1)

Quote:
Yes true tails in reported cases usually lack cartilage and vertebrae, but they have what most ought to have for tails you find in mammals.


This is corrected because in some very rare cases they vertabrae and cartilage is there..As seen in the X-ray..

2) I spelled Atavism wrong several times.. Sorry, I have a mild case of dyslexia.. But I can overcome it when I concentrate hard enough. Smile

Cheers!

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 237: Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:36 pm
Reply

Like this post
[quote="TheJackelantern"]

Quote:
we don't care what you think or believe..


Gee. Too bad. I was just starting to like you. Actually, I really have no idea who you are.

Quote:
The fact that I had to debunk you more than once on several issues is bad enough without having to go into how discredited the sources you used are..


Although you may believe that you debunked me on several issues, there were many topics that you totally ignored, for whatever reason. For an example, you did not directly refute any of the claims I made in my previous post regarding the photographs that supposedly illustrated mutations. When you do not respond directly to any of my comments, what am I to think? Would you like a list?

Speaking of credible sources, Alan Hayward, in his book, “Creation and Evolution – Rethinking the Evidence From Science and the Bible” stated:
“One purpose of this book is to present the case for ancient-creationism. But I shall not attempt to bludgeon the reader into agreeing with me. My first aim is to present facts, so that a thoughtful Christian can reach an informed decision as to where he stands. At the very least the book might help him to appreciate that there are other points of view besides his own. In Part 1 I have adopted an unusual method of opposing Darwinism. My arguments and quotations have been drawn exclusively from the writings of evolutionists who oppose Darwinism. This is because creationist writings have a reputation for being unscholarly mixtures of correct and incorrect statements, sound and unsound arguments. Some are not at all like that, but enough are to have given the whole class a bad name. So it seemed best to disregard all arguments emanating from creationist sources. Creationists also have an unhappy reputation for making misleading quotations from evolutional writers. By quoting only a part of what he has written it is sometimes possible to make an evolutionist sound like a creationist… I have tried not to make this mistake, and to be scrupulously fair to all the writers quoted.”
(Alan Hayward. Creation and Evolution – Rethinking the Evidence From Science and the Bible. Publication Date: 2005. Wipf and Stock Publishers. Eugene, OR. P. 8)

Quote:
here's a video you really need to watch:

[url] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6P91pk-Kec&feature=player_embedded#![/b]


Even though you do not care what I think, I watched the video you suggested:
[url] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6P91pk-Kec&feature=player_embedded#![/b]

I thought the video was very well done (even though you do not care what I think), however, I would have preferred it to be in documentation form, as I continually had to re-wind it to catch everything that was being said while reading the visual parts that were written. I believe the video rightly pointed out that evolutionists differ with creationists in that evolutionists label creatures more readily than creationists do. For example, evolutionists label the many different types of fruit flies as being different species, whereas, I would suppose creationists would state that various fruit flies should not have separate labels, as they are all fruit flies. The practice of labeling every type and modification of fruit flies allows evolutionists to justify the claim that new species arise through mutations, whereas, creationists would claim that no new creature developed. If this is true, I can see why there is such a disagreement. If the methods of labeling are not agreed upon, I do not see how there can be any meeting of the minds. I suppose that is how each group wants it.

Charles Darwin did prove many contemporaries wrong regarding their view of saltations (the view that by sudden leaps a new type of organism would appear in a single generation) is the mechanism of how species changed. Those naturalists of Darwin’s day who opposed Darwin could not perceive how a minor change could eventually lead to major ones. It was a view that was outside their way of thinking. I believe this was only natural. It is difficult to abruptly change one’s mind. It takes a great deal of convincing to change one’s way of thinking, a great deal of evidence. I do not fault them, but I would say that they should have at least considered what Darwin was advocating. Perhaps they did listen, for the majority of the scientific community in Darwin’s day did eventually accept Darwin’s views.

Quote:
Darwin was right for the most part with the exception that evolution is dynamic and not always goes at an equilibrium pace. Hence, there can be cases where evolution takes leaps just due to gene sequencing that would drastically alter the out come.. Much like you find in finches, wing length in birds, or twitching lizards growing longer legs... And it's also because evolution does not mean progression, or a guarantee of success. Please see the definition of evolution and stop posting nonsense, especially when we are way beyond Darwin's or Lambark's understanding of evolution here in the modern era. You may as well debate me on basic math vs physics.


I believe you did not read correctly what I wrote. I do not believe the modern usage of the word "evolution" means "progression" or "a guarantee of success." That is what Lamarck believed. The reason why Charles Darwin used the term "Descent with Modifications" instead of "evolution" was to distinguish his views from Lamarck's. Please re-read what I wrote. Charles Darwin believed in a more survival of the fittest than Lamarck did. Lamarck was the one who believed that species progress in a steady improvement. If I was not clear, I apologize.

I got the majority of the information from the following sources:
Young, Matt and Strode, Paul K. 2009. Why Evolution Works (And Creationism Fails). Rutgers Press, 100 Joyce Kilmer Avenue, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8099. Pp.21, 60, 82, 105
Del Ratzsch. 1996. The Battle of Beginnings – Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate. InterVarsity Press. P. O. Box 1400, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515. Pp.14-36
Rhodes, Ron. 2004. The Ten Things You Should Know About the Creation Vs. Evolution Debate. Harvest House Publishers. p.9

I was pleased that you acknowledged that Darwin was not totally correct in every hypothesis he proposed. I would not have expected him to be totally accurate in every claim he made. Darwin was very thorough and did a great deal of research before making any claims. In Darwin’s time, no one knew very much about genetics. And yes I agree, he opposed Lamarck in many areas, that is why he preferred to use the term “Descent with Modifications” rather than “evolution” to prevent people from confusing his theory with Lamarck’s. Charles Darwin did the best he could with the level of knowledge that was available at the time.

Speaking of Darwin, I asked you to provide you interpretation of a portion of Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species” that I quoted previously, however you have not yet responded. Why was that? Was it because you did not think it worth responding to or were you afraid that you would have had to admit what Darwin believed regarding his statement:“inherited effects of the increased use of parts” that is identical to one of the views that Lamarck held? What is so wrong with admitting Charles Darwin was incorrect on an issue? I do not understand why you are so protective of Charles Darwin. I do not see it as poking any holes in Darwin’s theory. How could Charles Darwin have known how genetics worked in the 1800s?

From you comment, “evolution is dynamic and not always goes at an equilibrium pace” you obviously believe that Punctuated Equilibrium is a valid explanation of how evolution works, even if the fossil evidence supports it (only in the respect that there is a lack of many transitional fossils). You most likely believe both Darwin’s concept that changes occur gradually and also Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge’s view that some changes occur more rapidly.

I do not believe that Punctuated Equilibrium occurred, as I believe the scientific community is divided on this. Even though Punctuated Equilibrium states that species change rapidly, during short bursts of change (punctuated), it is not the same as the idea proposed by Richard Goldschmidt, who proposed that one creature could give birth to another creature that was totally different, a view that no one believes today, as far as I know. So, even though you may believe in punctuated equilibrium, you would still agree that changes occur over a period of time, occurring sometimes gradually and sometimes rapidly, but definitely not all at once.

When you are referring to the 'modern era," I suppose you are referring to Neo-Darwinism. This is not the same as Darwinism. With Neo-Darwinism, it is believed that random mutations working with natural selection is one of the ways in which a species change. With Darwinism, it was less clear, except that natural selection placed a big part in determining which species is best suited to survive in the environment. In Darwin's day no one knew anything about cells, DNA, RNA, ribosomes, genes, etc. All they knew was protoplasm.

Quote:
You're desperately grasping at straws


I do not understand why you claim that I am, as you say, “desperately grasping at straws.” As I mentioned previously, I am not attempting to defend any particular view. I am seeking answers to discrepancies I found when comparing evolutionist claims with those of creationists. If creationist claims are false, they should be able to be refuted. You state that I should not read creationist literature because it is all done by incompetent authors. I would agree to a certain extent. Some points creationists make appear to be valid and I have found very little evidence from evolutionists to refute such claims, some of which I have posted previously.

Quote:
Creationists like to cherry pick animals that have a rather incomplete fossil record as their main attack on evolution whilst ignoring entirely those that which have nearly a complete fossil record.


Regarding creationists picking and choosing evidence, evolutionists are just as guilty as creationists. For example, Gareth Nelson, of the American Museum of Natural History, when asked about the question of vertebrate sequence, Nelson responded: “We’ve got to have some ancestors. We’ll pick those. Why? Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates. That’s by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating.” (Gareth Nelson, The Wall Street Journal, December 9, 1986)

I can therefore say the same about evolutionists that they cherry pick evidence that supports their theories and ignore the evidence that contradicts it. Evolutionists too pick and choose whatever evidence agrees with their arguments and ignore the other evidence that does not support it. I could provide several examples, however, I already discussed them in previous posts. But I will say: How many fossils are ignored as anomalies because they do not fit in with the arguments?

The main reason why I do not trust any one source is because both creationists as well as evolutionists only include what evidence appears to support their view and ignore all other evidence. This is one reason why I am asking questions. I need to know what creationists, as well as evolutionists, are hiding, if anything.

Quote:
This is the game, the GOD of the Gaps game. And that game is based on pure intentional ignorance. And you continue to play it, and that really tells me that you are indeed a creationist coming here in an attempt to play that game.


You may make all the accusations you like, however, it does not change the fact of what my motivations are. Just because I use creationist arguments does not prove that I am a creationist. I believe that if I did not present my questions as I did, you would have only provided pat answers. That is what happened when I first began asking questions. By my making comments and also asking probing questions, it only proves that I am familiar with the various arguments and hopefully shows that I am trying to find if there are any arguments that refutes the creationist claims. If evolution is true, then you should be able to refute the claims made by creationists without using obnoxious language, false accusations, and hasty comments. As you use harsh and arrogant comments unnecessarily, it confirms that your only agenda is to defend evolution at all costs and belittle creation concepts whenever possible. You obviously despise anyone who questions the theory of evolution. On 1/15/2012 you claimed that any views other than evolutionist ones are pseudoscience, as you claim the authors of creationist books and articles are not qualified to write about the things they do. I believe some evolutionists are just as guilty. That is why I do not trust any one source.

In spite of what you believe or claim, I am seeking information. I am not playing some sort of game that you accuse me of doing. I would like to know exactly what type of game you think I am playing and why I am playing it. I am tried of trying to convince you that I am seeking information rather than playing some mythical game with some hidden agenda. Your biggest problem that I see is that you talk at people rather than talk to them. There is a difference. When you talk at someone, you do not really listen to what the other person is saying. When to talk to someone, it is a more two way conversation.

This is apparent by some of your comments. I do not believe that my writing is so vague that you are not always able to understand it. However, oftentimes you accuse me of saying something that I never said. I suggest you read the information carefully before responding. It may not mean what you initially think it is stating. I would also suggest that you calm down. I realize that evolution is a touchy subject, I suppose that is why it is better to have this type of forum than communicating face to face. I could only imagine what that would be like.

Since you do not trust me, I see no point in continuing any further communication with you. I believe you are making these false claims about me in an attempt to discourage me from making any further comments that opposes the theory of evolution. You do not want anyone to realize that the evidence that supports the theory of evolution is not as straightforward and conclusive as evolutionists try to portray. Who is the one who is actually trying to hide something? Both sides play the same game. I am trying to decipher what the facts are from the false claims and half-truths presented by both sides.

Quote:
And I really don't think you are here to learn anything at all, so I post the material not for you, but for those whom might actually care about learning something from actual credible sources.


I could say that I do not care what you think, but it would not be truthful. I am greatly disturbed because you refuse to believe what I say, that I am seeking information. It does not matter now as I now have most of the information I sought, thanks to you and your colleagues. Therefore, I believe that I no longer need to communicate with you. I believe I have all the information I currently sought. You were all a big help.

You provided a great deal of information on your last post. I have still not gone through it all yet, but hope to in the near future. Thanks.

Quote:
Anyways, here is some info on Giraffe evolution:


I was only able to read the abstract of: Winning by a neck: sexual selection in the evolution of giraffe [url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2463405]

I suppose you only wanted me to read the abstract. I, Critical_Thinker, found the entire journal on the following web page: http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/182/Giraffe/WinningByANeck.pdf

In the article, “How the Giraffe Got its Long Neck, (Why Evolution is True) http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/how-the-giraffe-got-its-long-... also discussed the possibilities of how the giraffe may have acquired its long neck. They even mentioned a portion of Darwin’s book, “Origin of Species” that I had previously cited:

“In the third edition of the Origin (1861), in the Historical Sketch, Darwin first mentions the neck as an adaptation for feeding. He is here explicating Lamarck, correctly noting Lamarck’s two evolutionary mechanisms, the effects of use and disuse (the inheritance of acquired characters, which Darwin, and essentially all his contemporaries, accepted; the later naming of this as ‘Lamarckian’ inheritance is unhistorical), and the innate drive for progressive development. With respect to the means of modification, he attributed something to the direct action of the physical conditions of life, something to the crossing of already existing forms, and much to use and disuse, that is, to the effects of habit. To this latter agency he seems to attribute all the beautiful adaptations in nature;—such as the long neck of the giraffe for browsing on the branches of trees. But he likewise believed in a law of progressive development; and as all the forms of life thus tended to progress, in order to account for the existence at the present day of very simple productions, he maintained that such forms were now spontaneously generated. (p. xiii) It is not until the sixth edition of the Origin (1872) that Darwin gives extended consideration to the long neck as an adaptation for feeding, but in response to criticisms by Mivart, not to make a contrast with Lamarck. The problems addressed are how incipient stages of adaptive structures can be selected for, and why, if a trait is adaptive, why don’t all species (or at least all similar species) evolve the trait. Here’s the full discussion…”

First, I would say that it was previously proven that by stretching of the neck that it will increase the length of a creature’s neck or will it be passed on to its offspring. We could say that during times of drought, those animals with the longer necks would have been able to reach the leaves on the higher branches and would therefore most likely have a better chance of survival than those animals that had shorter necks. I suppose this is similar to Darwin’s finches. During times of drought, those finches with the smaller, weaker beaks would have a lesser chance of survival than those with the larger, stronger beaks who were able to break open the seeds that had hard shells.

The study was interesting, however, it did not provide any information on how the giraffe could have developed such a long neck, especially considering the auxiliary pumps (more precisely, sponges, valves, expanding or shrinking blood vessels, thick muscle walls, etc..) needed to regulate the blood going from and to the brain from the heart. The journal did provide some interesting insights as to why no giraffes with medium or shorter necks currently exist. The study did, however, provide discussion of fossil evidence. The study also mentioned that the male giraffe neck is longer than the female neck and since male giraffes use their necks during fights, it is evident that giraffes with longer necks would have defeated those giraffes with shorter necks, and possibly ultimately causing the giraffes with the shorter necks to become extinct.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/giraffes-necks-for-food-or-necks-for-s...
was very similar to the previous article regarding the development of giraffes, although it was less technical and more analytical than providing facts. This article suggested that Bohlinia, an animal that looked somewhat like a deer, may have been a predecessor to the giraffe. Some suggestions as to what animal may have been an ancestor to the giraffe was discussed, however, no conclusions were provided. I believe the document was well researched and honest.

Winning by a neck: sexual selection in the evolution of giraffe
[PDF] from newpaltz.edu RE Simmons… - American Naturalist, 1996 - JSTOR
A classic example of extreme morphological adaptation to the environment is the neck of the giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis), a trait that most biologists since Darwin have attributed to competition with other mammalian browsers. However, in searching for present-day ...

Quote:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/giraffes-necks-for-food-or-necks-for-sex/
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/how-the-giraffe-got-its-long-...
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/04/can_sexual_selection_account_f.php
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/5/57
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0&feature=player_embedded#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlPhp_RCRYE
http://evomech1.blogspot.com/2006/12/evolution-winning-by-neck-giraffes.html
http://www.bringyou.to/GiraffeEvolution.pdf
http://www.idlex.freeserve.co.uk/idle/evolution/general/fossils.html


Quote:
And yes, the Giraffe has an incomplete fossil record, congratulations on a poor example for your creationist argument that has no intellectual honesty, especially when it takes utter ignorance of everything we do know about evolution.


First, I am not trying to win any battles or contests here. As I mentioned previously, I am seeking information, regardless of what you think. I appreciate your honesty regarding the giraffe fossil record, however, I do not perceive an omission in the fossil record an indication that something never existed. It only indicates that no fossil evidence exists to support a specific claim, and in this case, the evolution of the giraffe long neck. As I mentioned previously, if no evidence to support a claim is available, then no one should state a claim as fact. I discussed giraffes in more detail in previous posted (see posts 12/9/2011 –12/19/2011)

Quote:
Here is another good source on issues dealing with evolution, followed by the listed peer reviewed journals:


I plan to check out all the information you listed in this section. Thanks again for all the information you have provided.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 238: Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:05 pm
Reply
Re: If you accept microevolution

Like this post
jamesmorlock wrote:
Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.


First, what is your concept of the the universe, do you imagine it as 'Eternal' where you can take 'Infinite' steps In?

If it is 'Eternal', your question makes no sense putting it within the Big bang-Evolution theory, because the universe was believed to have been a specific size, even the size of a pinhead.

As far as I understand the meaning of Infinity/Eternity, it does NOT have a size, ... not before or after as defined by some supposed sci-fi theory.

If Eternity and Infinity had a size at its 'Start' (as the universe is thought to have had), ... then 'sooner or later', you will get closer and closer to the 'End of Eternity taking Infinite steps'.

But then, science would have to redefine the terms 'Infinity and Eternity', ... which I guess would be no problem since Big bang Evolution redefines the meaning of many words and places them within a limited theistic/atheistic concept of creation, like through evolution. Whistle

What I mean is that if light has speed, and the distance in the universe is defined by this measurement then we should eventually get to the 'END' of the universe even taking small steps let's say in a straight line going 'That Way!' (we cannot get anywhere going in circles),

jamesmorlock wrote:
A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.


"A thousand years" pass WHERE? Is it in Infinity/Eternity, or within the universe?

If you're measuring steps within this universe, then Yes, you will be 'further' from one edge, and closer to the other. How much closer? Well, you would calculate the size of your step by how many steps you can take in 'one day' times days in a year, times a thousand years and you will be 'That Much' closer to the edge of the universe.

jamesmorlock wrote:
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.


Exactly, further and further away from one edge, closer and closer to the other. You don't have to walk, ... you can take a spaceship and go 10,000 mph and you will use up less time in this universe, where space/time exists even according to the BB theory.

Only then this theory faces the same problem I have been pointing out all along: "What is on the other side of the universe, since according to the BB, the universe is all there IS?

No 'God', no 'nothing', then WHERE?

jamesmorlock wrote:
For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.


EXACTLY my friend, ... finally someone is really thinking here!

Now please I beg you all to listen to me; "If we can actually 'travel in space', then the universe cannot be 'Eternal' where we can travel 'Infinitely'.

We cannot confuse Gods Eternal/Spiritual realm, the only place where we can place the concept of infinity, and put it within your pin-sized universe, even if it is bigger than we can imagine right now.

The Universe is limited, and science both shows and knows this. But in an attempt to keep GOD out of the equation, this BB theory was invented to replace God as the Creator.

Our 'spiritual mind' KNOWS that both Eternity and Infinity exists, and is in a constant conflict with the physical 'worldly mind' that wants nothing to do with GOD, so we redefine both 'eternity and infinity' by placing 'limits' on them, just as they do to the existence of 'nothing'.

"Nothing is no more nothing" they say.


jamesmorlock wrote:
Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?


Exactly. Just like the 'Voyager', it is 'far away from its starting point' and is a little closer to the edge of the universe.

God created a limited physical realm called the universe, and placed everything we see within it, including us humans. Matter of fact, .. it was all created for us. With our spiritual mind, ... we can go beyond this limited universe and see/understand GOD, our Creator.

God created the universe as we see it, and as science has revealed those things we cannot see with the naked eye.

Quarks, dark matter, ... sure, why not?

No Creator GOD, Black holes, BB, biological evolution from soup, ... now come on, you got to be kidding, ... right?

The real question is, "why did God create such a huge universe to contain this tiny earth, and even tinier man in?"

It's easy, ... want to know why?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 239: Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:18 pm
Reply

Like this post
Quote:
Gee. Too bad. I was just starting to like you. Actually, I really have no idea who you are.


We are still waiting for you to post a credible source, engage in honest discourse, to stop self-inventing what you want to believe while intentionally ignoring the evidence provided to you, and refrain from dogmatic appeals to ignorance as your main means of argument. I actually don't care if you like me or not..


Quote:
Although you may believe that you debunked me on several issues


I had entirely, and that includes gene duplication.. I actually provided actual source material, prime literature, and actual peer reviewed material.. The topics I ignored were non-issue topics that had no baring on the subject... But don't you worry, you can keep copy pasting from the Creation institute, or other creationist sources that are pretty much nothing but psuedo-science wrapped into religious dogma. Flat Earthers tell me the same thing.
Quote:

photographs that supposedly illustrated mutations.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110809-fingerprints-skin-disease...

Or:



Quote:
A genetic mutation causes people to be born without fingerprints.

Almost every person is born with fingerprints, and everyone's are unique. But people with a rare disease known as adermatoglyphia do not have fingerprints from birth. Affecting only four known extended families worldwide, the condition is also called immigration-delay disease, since a lack of fingerprints makes it difficult for people to cross international borders.


Boy that was tough!

Quote:
When you do not respond directly to any of my comments, what am I to think? Would you like a list?


I responded to pretty much the very bulk of your main arguments.. Especially when considering your main arguments from from discredited sources, and demonstrated as such. I don't even need bother going any further in this debate.
Quote:


Speaking of credible sources, Alan Hayward, in his book, “Creation and Evolution – Rethinking the Evidence From Science and the Bible” stated:
“One purpose of this book is to present the case for ancient-creationism.


Have any peer reviewed material?... Like I donno, something that actually shows Creation in action? Perhaps some photographs of GOD done it? You want to be taken seriously here, you need to do a better job than posting stuff that just makes assertions that presume them as magical facts when the evidence proves otherwise.
Quote:

have been drawn exclusively from the writings of evolutionists who oppose Darwinism.


No, you have been posting from creationist websites and material.. I even cited the sources in which your copy pasted material came from. Lie much?

Quote:
however, I would have preferred it to be in documentation form, as I continually had to re-wind it to catch everything that was being said while reading the visual parts that were written.


If you want a higher education on this subject, you need to go to school since people don't have 6-8 years to spend here trying to educate you on the basics of evolution, bio-chemistry ect. Basics you continuously show no comprehension of, and continuously ignore for the sake of circular arguments based on what you like to believe. And that is your problem. You have no actual education in biochemistry to understand gene mutation, gene duplication, or how evolution works. If you can't grasp the basics, there is no point in discussing this with you.

Quote:
evolutionists label creatures more readily than creationists do


There is no such group called the evolutionists first of all. That's a made up label / name by creationists who are a group that claims themselves to be such a group. lastly, creationists means of labeling is fallacious and intended to be used for moving the goal post. It actually self-refutes and ignores how living organisms are actually classified and why..
Quote:

For example, evolutionists label the many different types of fruit flies as being different species, whereas, I would suppose creationists would state that various fruit flies should not have separate labels, as they are all fruit flies.


That's because they need to ignore genetics son! They can't have fruit flies be insects and related genetically to other species now can they? Of course not, so they need to move the goal post.. They even try to classify all insects as insects, or all of a body type a body type ect. Their classification system depends on the ability to move the goal post when it refutes itself. It's a pile of crap, and an appeal to utter ignorance. So it's not worth my time discussing that nonsense with you.
Quote:

The practice of labeling every type and modification of fruit flies allows evolutionists to justify the claim that new species arise through mutations


That's because they DO!!...

Quote:
creationists would claim that no new creature developed.


New creation? Evolution makes no such claim.. Nice hand trick though.. Now do me a favor, compare the dna and differences in the species... let me know if you come up with an exact duplication.. Creationists tend to argue as if they live in a static world that never changes over time.. And that takes some serious intentional ignorance to believe sir.

Quote:
If the methods of labeling are not agreed upon, I do not see how there can be any meeting of the minds. I suppose that is how each group wants it.


That sir is impossible to do with people trying to profess is religious ideology dishonestly while preying on people's ignorance. Religion and science will never see eye to eye since religion actually requires the need of ignorance to survive.

Quote:
(the view that by sudden leaps a new type of organism would appear in a single generation)


This is not how evolution works unfortunately.. Evolution is a chaotic process of change over time. It's pace, rate, or changes to a species is very subjective, and does not say x-thing will happen, or x-thing will change into this, or even develop this X trait. All evolution states is that change will occur for better or worse over time. It matters not how much or how little that change is. It matters not how fast or slow change occurs. It matters not if there is new information, lost, or simply a re-sequencing of information.. It matters not what physical traits are gained, lost, or changed.

Quote:
is the mechanism of how species changed.


That is not the mechanism of how species change.. Please see the definition of evolution and overview the mechanisms involved. It even includes horizontal gene transfers from things lime misquotes to other animals.:



Quote:
Horizontal Gene Transfer and Homologous Recombination Drive the Evolution of the Nitrogen-Fixing Symbionts of Medicago Species▿

Xavier Bailly1,2,*,
Isabelle Olivieri2,
Brigitte Brunel1,
Jean-Claude Cleyet-Marel1, and
Gilles Béna1


--

Quote:
Curr Biol. 2009 Nov 3;19(20):1683-91. Epub 2009 Oct 1.
Horizontal gene transfer of the secretome drives the evolution of bacterial cooperation and virulence.
Nogueira T, Rankin DJ, Touchon M, Taddei F, Brown SP, Rocha EP.
Source

Institut Pasteur, CNRS, URA, Paris, France.


--
Quote:

Horizontal Transfer, Not Duplication, Drives the Expansion of Protein Families in Prokaryotes

Todd J. Treangen1,2,3¤*, Eduardo P. C. Rocha1,2,3

1 Institut Pasteur, Microbial Evolutionary Genomics, Département Génomes et Génétique, Paris, France, 2 CNRS, URA2171, Paris, France, 3 UPMC Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Atelier de Bioinformatique, Paris, France


You can also read good source material here:

http://classic.the-scientist.com/news/display/57962/

Abstract:

Quote:
Gene swap key to evolution
Horizontal gene transfer accounts for the majority of prokaryotic protein evolution

[Published 27th January 2011 10:00 PM GMT]

Microbes evolve predominantly by acquiring genes from other microbes, new research suggests, challenging previous theories that gene duplication is the primary driver of protein evolution in prokaryotes. The finding, published today (January 27) in PLoS Genetics, could change the way scientists study and model biological networks and protein evolution.


And here:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/12/532

Abstract:

Quote:
Within-species lateral genetic transfer and the evolution of transcriptional regulation in Escherichia coli and Shigella

Elizabeth Skippington and Mark A Ragan*



Other sources:

Quote:
http://www.socialgenes.org/research/hgt.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8844169
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/category/genetics/horizontal-...
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/horizontal_gene_transfer


Now I could sit here and list actual peer reviewed / primary source material all damn day.. But I don't think it will ever sink into the mind of a Creationist.

Quote:
Those naturalists of Darwin’s day who opposed Darwin could not perceive how a minor change could eventually lead to major ones.


let me quote someone for you:


Quote:
modern evolutionary theory has its foundations in Darwin’s theorys but many of his ideas have been proved incorrect since the 1860′s and many new things have been added. If someone today believed in Darwin’s theory of evolution without adding any of the changes that have accrued in the past 150 years thats like believing in Newtonian physics with the exclusion of Einsteinian mechanics.


If you are stuck on Darwin in concerning evolution, you really are lost in this discussion. We are way beyond Darwin here in the 21st Century.

Quote:
"Descent with Modifications" instead of "evolution" was to distinguish his views from Lamarck's.


And if you actually read what science has learned since then, you would realize that evolution theory goes way beyond just a laymen argument of decent with modifications.. It's not all about just survival of the fittest as it goes much deeper than that. So I hope we are clear here on this issue then.
Quote:

Young, Matt and Strode, Paul K. 2009. Why Evolution Works (And Creationism Fails). Rutgers Press, 100 Joyce Kilmer Avenue, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8099. Pp.21, 60, 82, 105
Del Ratzsch. 1996. The Battle of Beginnings – Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate. InterVarsity Press. P. O. Box 1400, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515. Pp.14-36
Rhodes, Ron. 2004. The Ten Things You Should Know About the Creation Vs. Evolution Debate. Harvest House Publishers. p.9


That's great.. None of which is peer reviewed material. And yes, they got a lot of their information from the same sources I pointed out.. So until you can provide me with credible source material, I will simply dismiss your arguments... If you have a question to ask on a subject, it's good to ask and do a lot of research. The best research you can do is by actually reading peer reviewed material / prime literature by people who actually have PHD's in the fields they are discussing. And the first thing you should note as a red flag is when someone tries pushing an ideological belief system through dishonest means.. Flat Earthers, Creationists, and Scientologists are prime examples of groups to whom have zero credibility.

So I will not even bother with your posts from this point on until you can provide me something worth responding to :/ And I don't mean that in the way of being a jerk, it's just not worth my time to sit here and discuss the circular logic games of creationists.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 240: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:15 pm
Reply

Like this post
[quote="TheJackelantern"]

Quote:
It has been claimed that humans have a “tailbone” (also called the sacrum and coccyx), and that it is an indication that humans evolved from apes, however, this is highly debatable.


Quote:
[It is debatable whether a human tailbone could be an indication that humans evolved from apes is] Incorrect. It's only debatable by those who are intentionally ignorant for faith sake, or those who literally ignore the genetics involved.


Discussed below

Quote:
The muscles are typically muscles once used for tail function and are not specifically used to keep upright posture. And it seems you need play circular logic games to avoid having to deal with the fact the tail bone is more specifically for the purpose of a tail.. Yes people with functional tue tails can wag their tails because that is what that bone and muscle group was originally for, and was for.


Discussed below

Quote:
I can tell you didn't watch the video as well, the video that also explains your erroneous use of Chicken to amphibian argument...


I watched the majority of the videos you suggested. The problem is that I do not usually absorb as much from a video as I do from printed material. I would prefer written information than videos, if possible. It is also very difficult for me to retain technical information or quote from a video.


Quote:
And lets look at feet..Many amphibians and birds have similar characteristics in their feet.. Do webbed feet count?:


Yes. Web feet do count. The problem is with looking at fossils. Over 40% of the animal evidence is no longer available to examine. I realize that fossils can tell a great deal, however, I have not yet read any literature that explains how it was determined that Ambulocetus, an otherwise land animal that is used in the land animal to whale sequence, had webbed feet.

Quote:
No, there is a difference between a true tail and something from spinal spidifa. Yes true tails in reported cases lack cartilage and vertebrae, but they have what most ought to have for tails you find in mammals. True tails are when the tail in the fetal stages doesn't go away like it's supposed to.



Quote:
Myelomeningocele is the most common type of spina bifida. It is a neural tube defect in which the bones of the spine do not completely form, resulting in an incomplete spinal canal. This causes the spinal cord and meninges (the tissues covering the spinal cord) to stick out of the child's back.


Quote:
That is what most cases of spina spidifia look like. But there is a difference between spina bifida vs someone that is born with a true tail. Most pseudo-tails, or true tail cases have nothing to do with spina bifidia.. A true tail will project out from the very bottom of the spinal column, being an extension of the coccyx or tailbone. A tail caused by spina bifida will be attached somewhere higher on the back in the Limbaugh region


Quote:
A true human tail is a rare occurrence and is defined as a caudal, vestigial, midline protrusion with skin covering connective tissue, muscle, vessels and nerves. We report a case of true human tail in a child, which is a very rare happening in humans.



Quote:
Humans have a tail bone (the coccyx) attached to the pelvis, in the same place which other mammals have tails. The tail bone is formed of fused vertebrae, usually four, at the bottom of the vertebral column. It doesn't protrude externally, but retains an anatomical purpose: providing an attachment for muscles like the gluteus maximus."
Source and further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_tail#Human_tails


Quote:
"The coccyx, or tailbone, is the remnant of a lost tail. All mammals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis. This tail is most prominent in human embryos 31-35 days old. The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, has lost its original function in assisting balance and mobility, though it still serves some secondary functions, such as being an attachment point for muscles, which explains why it has not degraded further. In rare cases a short tail can persist after birth, with 23 human babies possessing tails having been reported in the medical literature since 1884."
Source and further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality#Coccyx


Quote:
You are confused with psuedotails and true tails. But not really relevant. I proved both in my post. More specifically, a true tails have nothing to do with spina bifida:


Quote:
And your argument is even worse when we actually have the tail genes, the same genes we find in Chimps and other mammals with tails.







Thanks for clarifying that a “true tail” on a human is not the same as one having “spina bifida.” This will allow me to focus on what is considered a true human tail rather than attributing the appendage to “spina bifida.” According to Wikipedia, it appears that humans who are born with an appendage that might be considered a tail, does not have vertebrae, but has only blood vessels, muscles, and nerves.
I read this on Wikipedia:
“Human embryos have a tail that measures about one-sixth of the size of the embryo itself. As the embryo develops into a fetus, the tail is absorbed by the growing body. The developmental tail is thus a human vestigial structure. Infrequently, a child is born with a "soft tail", which contains no vertebrae, but only blood vessels, muscles, and nerves, although there have been a very few documented cases of tails containing cartilage or up to five vertebrae. Modern procedures allow doctors to eliminate the tail at delivery. Some of these tails may in fact be sacrococcygeal teratomas. The longest human tail on record belonged to a twelve-year-old boy living in what was then French Indochina, which measured 229 mm (9 inches). A man named Chandre Oram, who lives in West Bengal, a state in India, is famous because of his 13-inch (330 mm) tail. It is not believed to be a true tail, however, but rather a case of spina bifida.
Humans have a tail bone (the coccyx) attached to the pelvis, in the same place which other mammals have tails. The tail bone is formed of fused vertebrae, usually four, at the bottom of the vertebral column. It doesn't protrude externally, but retains an anatomical purpose: providing an attachment for muscles like the gluteus maximus." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_tail#Human_tails


Quote:
But of course you need to ignore genetics and post pseudoscience from discredited sources like creation.com, or creationist books.


Your comment indicates that both chimpanzees and humans have tail genes. Would you attribute the cause of the appendage (human tail) as being the result of a gene that was expressed (turned on) when it is normally turned off in humans or is the appendage of human tails caused by something else?

Quote:
Hence, this [referring to an x-ray of a human tail vertebrae] is not spina spidifia or even a pseudo-tail.


Regarding “Human tails,” it appears that the issue is questionable (debatable), as I read in the following article (I omitted the reference so you could concentrate on the arguments rather than the source):
vvvvv vvvvvv
In fact that x-ray shows a normal healthy spine, as admitted in the original research paper by Bar-Maor et al. from which that x-ray image (Figure 3 in the paper) was taken, [Bar-Maor, et al., Human tails, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, British Volume 62-B(4):508–510, November 1980, http://www.jbjs.org.uk/cgi/reprint/62-B/4/508.] [The] webpage [talkOrigins] will have gained the same incorrect impression that [I] got, namely that there exist people whose coccyxes (or ‘tailbones’) are longer than normal and form the core of a protruding and movable appendage, i.e. a functioning tail. This turned out not to be the case. And as a modern embryology textbook notes, ‘Rarely a caudal appendage is found at birth. Such structures are of varied origin (some are teratomata); they practically never contain skeletal elements and are in no sense tails.’ [O’Rahilly, R. and Müller, F., Human Embryology & Teratology, Second Edition, Wiley-Liss, 1996; page 93]
[Between 4 and 7 weeks the caudalmost part of the trunk tapers, probably as a result of a precocious growth of the neural tube. The proximal part of the projection contains some coccygeal vertebrae16,17, whereas the distal portion, although it contains neural tube, is non-vertebrated. By the end of the embryonic period23, the vertebral column has lengthened relative to the spinal cord so that both end at the same level. Moreover, the surrounding tissues have increased in volume, cellular death has occurred, and the former tip of the trunk is now more or less flush with the general surface. Rarely a caudal appendage is found at birth. Such structures are of varied origin (some are teratomata); they practically never contain skeletal elements and are in no sense “tails.” Projections that contain skeletal elements are caused by a dorsal bending of the coccyx, do not contain more vertebrae than normal, and have nothing to do with “atavism” (Hornitzki).]
Caudal appendages occur in around 1 to 3 people per thousand. Most consist of skin and fatty tissue, and are located 1.5 centimetres from the midline of the back. Many are removed surgically shortly after birth.
The Bar-Maor paper discusses three patients, all children:
· Child 2 was a three-month old baby, with a coccyx of three vertebrae, plus a soft caudal (lower back) appendage a few centimetres long lying flush against the body. There were ‘no pathological findings’ (i.e. no disease or pain) and the coccygeal vertebrae were ‘well-developed’. For cosmetic reasons, the parents had the appendage surgically removed.
· Child 3 was a six year old girl. She also had a coccyx of three vertebrae, plus a soft caudal appendage. The researcher described her condition as being the same as that of Child 2, so her caudal appendage was presumably also a few centimetres long, and lying flush against the body, and her coccyx healthy and well developed. There was no pain and no cosmetic complaint, so surgery to remove the appendage was not undertaken.
· Child 1 had a long coccyx consisting of five vertebrae, but no caudal appendage, i.e. no ‘tail’. He was prone to occasional pain at the base of his spine, especially if he had been sitting on hard concrete surfaces. Surgical shortening of his coccyx was considered, but not undertaken, because his parents felt their son’s symptoms were not sufficient to warrant surgery.
The x-ray that appears on the TalkOrigins webpage is of Child 3, who had a healthy, well developed coccyx. Being soft tissue, Child 3’s benign caudal appendage does not appear in the x-ray, except perhaps to the trained expert eye. What does appear is the normal healthy coccyx, albeit of only three bones—most of us have four coccygeal vertebrae; a few percent of people have five and a few percent have three. [Moore, K.L. and Persaud, T.V.N., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, Saunders 2003, page 388]
[About 95% of people have 7 cervical, 12 thoracic, 5 lumbar, and 5 sacral vertebrae. About 3% of people have one or two additional vertebrae and about 2% have one fewer. To determine the number of vertebrae, it is necessary to examine the entire vertebral column because an apparent extra (or absent) vertebra in one segment of the column may be compensated for by an absent (or extra) vertebra in an adjacent segment; for example, 11 thoracic-type vertebrae with six lumbar-type vertebrae.]
Alarmingly, despite Child 2’s coccyx being normal and healthy, the Bar-Maor paper goes on to say that part of the coccyx was removed during the surgery, i.e. not just the fatty caudal appendage was removed.
[Alternatively, ‘well-developed’ could mean ‘having large processes’. If the caudal appendage was attached to the body along its length, rather than merely lying flush against it, then perhaps some well-developed processes from the coccyx bones could be sticking into the appendage, in which case ‘excising part of the coccyx’ could have meant trimming down the protuberances, while leaving all three coccyx bones in place. This whole scenario seems unlikely to me, but the Bar-Maor paper is ambiguous as to exactly what part of the coccyx was removed, and why. Andrew Lamb.]
I say ‘alarmingly’ because unnecessary removal of part of the coccyx can have potentially tragic consequences. This danger had long been recognised in sober medical circles at the time Bar-Maor and colleagues published their paper in 1980. As one writer commented in 1961:
Take it away and patients complain; indeed the operation for its removal has time and again fallen into disrepute, only to be revived by some naive surgeon who really believes what the biologists have told him about this useless ‘rudiment.’ [Shute, Evan, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, Craig Press 1961, page 40; cited in Ref. 7, page 34.]
In the past, bolstered by the idea that this organ was vestigial and unneeded, surgeons would sometimes remove a person’s coccyx peremptorily (as was once done routinely with tonsils). But this results in severe problems for the patient, because the coccyx serves as a crucial anchor point for various important muscle groups. Victims of coccygectomy (tailbone removal) in the past have had as a consequence difficulty sitting down and standing up, difficulty giving birth, and difficulty getting to the toilet in time. [Bergman, J. and Howe, G., “Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional, pages 32–34, Creation Research Society Books, 1990.]
Nowadays, coccygectomies are only performed as an extreme last resort, and involve reattachment elsewhere of the crucial muscles. For more on the functions of the coccyx.
Both the TalkOrigins webpage and the original Bar-Meor paper promulgate the false idea that in the womb people have an ‘embryonic tail’. The correct term for the structure in question is the caudal eminence. They claim it contains extra somites8 (the embryo's bead-like somites are precursors to several different structures, including vertebrae) and that if these continued growing instead of degenerating and getting reabsorbed that they would develop into extra tail bones, adding to the regular three to five coccygeal vertebrae that develop normally. They thus call these features ‘coccygeal somites’. But since they do not develop, it is pure evolution-inspired supposition to presume to know what they would develop into, and to label them ‘coccygeal’. As one modern human embryology textbook puts it, ‘Supernumerary vertebral centra that would later degenerate are not present and hence no tail exists’9 and ‘the caudal tip of the trunk appears particularly tapered at 5 weeks, because it contains merely neural tube, but is in no sense a (future) vertebrated “tail”. [O’Rahilly, R. and Müller, F., Human Embryology & Teratology, Second Edition, Wiley-Liss, 1996; page 331] Only three to five bones have ever been recorded in the human coccyx.
[Regarding spina bifida] In a high percentage of cases, people with a caudal appendage will also have another medical condition too, such as spina bifida, in which a vertebra is incompletely closed. [Lin, P.J., et al., Human tail and myelomeningocele, Pediatric Neurosurgery 43(4):334–337, July 2007, http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowAbstract&Artike...
People with caudal appendages, spina bifida, and other conditions are not regarded as more highly evolved. In fact many thousands of human genetic mutations have been identified that are causatively linked with crippling and lethal diseases15, and yet the basic premise of neo-Darwinian evolution is that such mutations provide the material from which natural selection will bring forth upward evolution! Note that even if there occurs or has occurred a case of a person having a movable tail-like caudal appendage containing bone, that does not mean the appendage is vestigial. And even if human caudal appendages were vestigial (which they are not) this would constitute degenerative change (loss of an organ) whereas evolution requires generative change, producing new types of organs that did not exist before.
… Caudal appendages and short and long coccyxes are facts—observable, measurable, and hence scientific facts. But the idea that they are vestigial (evolutionary ‘left-overs’ or ‘throwbacks’) is pure assumption. And the idea that a vestigial organ would be evidence of evolution is just fallacious logic. Evolution would require nascent (beginning development) organs of new types, not degenerate or aberrant organs of existing types.”
^^^^ end of quote ^^^^


Quote:
You might also want to learn something about the Hox Code:


I will indeed check the web site you suggested. I am very interested in Hox Genes. I believe they play a big part in the discussion of changes in traits. I appreciate it. Thanks again for all the information. Oh, by the way, I am not "back peddling," as you claim. I am trying to determine which arguments are more believable.

^^^ Critical_Thinker 01-25-2012^^^^

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version