Vestigial/unneeded organs
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
asdf

Da Nang, Vietnam

#1 Oct 3, 2012
How is it that 'unnecessary' parts of the body (appendix, pinky toe) could evolve off if they don't affect our reproductive abilities? Having a larger or smaller pinky toe will not affect one's procreation, so why should it be getting smaller? This question goes for anything that essentially does not lead to a person dying before they can procreate their genes.
Logical Atheist

Gainesville, FL

#2 Dec 8, 2012
asdf wrote:
How is it that 'unnecessary' parts of the body (appendix, pinky toe) could evolve off if they don't affect our reproductive abilities? Having a larger or smaller pinky toe will not affect one's procreation, so why should it be getting smaller? This question goes for anything that essentially does not lead to a person dying before they can procreate their genes.
Because evolution is not based solely on procreation, it is also affected by environment, predators, prey, and living conditions (kind of with environment). When we were traveling bare foot millions of years ago (as a slightly different species, as humans have only been here for roughly 250,000 years) perhaps the pinkie toe contributed to slight speed increase for catching prey or escaping predators, or for balance and stamina.

When we had no medicine, the appendix essentially "rebooted" the digestive system and created and protected necessary good and healthy germs/bacteria in our body.

Everything we have today either affects us or did affect millions of years ago. The much removed tonsil (I personally had mine removed) are actually a contributor to your immune system, though not largely enough so that we can still safely remove them. So, what we may find unneeded today did help the survive of our species a long time ago. They do not evolve there for procreation purposes.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#3 Feb 12, 2013
Logical Atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Because evolution is not based solely on procreation, it is also affected by environment, predators, prey, and living conditions (kind of with environment). When we were traveling bare foot millions of years ago (as a slightly different species, as humans have only been here for roughly 250,000 years) perhaps the pinkie toe contributed to slight speed increase for catching prey or escaping predators, or for balance and stamina.
When we had no medicine, the appendix essentially "rebooted" the digestive system and created and protected necessary good and healthy germs/bacteria in our body.
Everything we have today either affects us or did affect millions of years ago. The much removed tonsil (I personally had mine removed) are actually a contributor to your immune system, though not largely enough so that we can still safely remove them. So, what we may find unneeded today did help the survive of our species a long time ago. They do not evolve there for procreation purposes.
Typical Darwinian BS. A lot of stories and no science. Storytelling is not science.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#4 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Typical Darwinian BS. A lot of stories and no science. Storytelling is not science.
I agree.

Although the "Storytelling" is SOLELY the method used by Creationists and ID'ers.

Not one iota of science thereabouts.

Meanwhile, the ToE has scientific evidence in spades.

Recent example:

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-professor-evolut...

Professor uses evolution, informatics to uncover secrets of the genome.

February 8th, 2013 in Biology / Evolution

Sudhir Kumar has sought to make his contributions broadly available to both the scholarly community and interested lay enthusiasts. He has assembled thousands of divergence times among organisms in the published literature into a resource known as TimeTree – a public knowledge-base for information on the evolutionary timescale of life.

What patterns exist in the evolutionary design of living things? What particular processes produced these patterns? And how might this information be used to untangle the complexities of health and disease, coded in human genes? These are among the central questions examined by Sudhir Kumar in his path-breaking research.

The evolutionary design of nature has given rise to the staggering diversity of life on Earth. But a full appreciation of the richness associated with the tree of life requires new techniques to harness large-scale data at the DNA level and bring order to its bewildering complexity.

<<more at link above>>
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#5 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Typical Darwinian BS. A lot of stories and no science. Storytelling is not science.
Hey, aren't you the guy who says science you don't like is wrong because Goddidit with magic? Why yes, you are!

Therefore you can see the irony in you complaining about the alleged validity of science.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#6 Feb 13, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
Although the "Storytelling" is SOLELY the method used by Creationists and ID'ers.
Not one iota of science thereabouts.
Meanwhile, the ToE has scientific evidence in spades.
Recent example:
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-professor-evolut...
Professor uses evolution, informatics to uncover secrets of the genome.
February 8th, 2013 in Biology / Evolution
Sudhir Kumar has sought to make his contributions broadly available to both the scholarly community and interested lay enthusiasts. He has assembled thousands of divergence times among organisms in the published literature into a resource known as TimeTree – a public knowledge-base for information on the evolutionary timescale of life.
What patterns exist in the evolutionary design of living things? What particular processes produced these patterns? And how might this information be used to untangle the complexities of health and disease, coded in human genes? These are among the central questions examined by Sudhir Kumar in his path-breaking research.
The evolutionary design of nature has given rise to the staggering diversity of life on Earth. But a full appreciation of the richness associated with the tree of life requires new techniques to harness large-scale data at the DNA level and bring order to its bewildering complexity.
<<more at link above>>
Kumar is merely propagating bedtime stories. Molecular homology relies on metaphysical presuppositions and therefore cannot be regarded as scientific evidence. What you presented appears scientific to the uninitiated, but it is nothing more than philosophical conjecture.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#7 Feb 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, aren't you the guy who says science you don't like is wrong because Goddidit with magic? Why yes, you are!
Therefore you can see the irony in you complaining about the alleged validity of science.
I find it amusing that you are constantly chiding me with your worn out "goddidit" retort, all-the-while putting your faith in "evolution-did-it" without any scientific evidence to support your religion.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Kumar is merely propagating bedtime stories. Molecular homology relies on metaphysical presuppositions and therefore cannot be regarded as scientific evidence. What you presented appears scientific to the uninitiated, but it is nothing more than philosophical conjecture.
There is nothing metaphysical about evolution. Nothing theological about evolution. Nothing philosophical about evolution. It is purely based on biology.
HTS wrote:
I find it amusing that you are constantly chiding me with your worn out "goddidit" retort, all-the-while putting your faith in "evolution-did-it" without any scientific evidence to support your religion.
I find it amusing that you are constantly conflating evolution with atheism based on your own metaphysical presuppositions and therefore cannot present a valid critique of scientific evidence, of which there is plenty.

I could provide it for you again but all you'd do is ignore it without rebuttal.

As usual.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#9 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> I find it amusing that you are constantly chiding me with your worn out "goddidit" retort, all-the-while putting your faith in "evolution-did-it" without any scientific evidence to support your religion.
LMAO!!! A most beautiful example of projection.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#10 Feb 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing metaphysical about evolution. Nothing theological about evolution. Nothing philosophical about evolution. It is purely based on biology.
<quoted text>
I find it amusing that you are constantly conflating evolution with atheism based on your own metaphysical presuppositions and therefore cannot present a valid critique of scientific evidence, of which there is plenty.
I could provide it for you again but all you'd do is ignore it without rebuttal.
As usual.
No tenet of evolution can be defended without bring up religion. If you read Origin of Species, Darwin himiself repeatedly cited "evidences" in nature that indicated to him a lack of intelligent design. Gould, Dawkins, Mayr, and many other prominent voices of Darwinism have repeatedly used attempted disproofs of God to prove evoltution. That is religion.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#11 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>No tenet of evolution can be defended without bring up religion. If you read Origin of Species, Darwin himiself repeatedly cited "evidences" in nature that indicated to him a lack of intelligent design. Gould, Dawkins, Mayr, and many other prominent voices of Darwinism have repeatedly used attempted disproofs of God to prove evoltution. That is religion.
Their religious opinions are irrelevant to the validity of science. The fact is that "God" cannot be disproved, since it is a non-scientific non-falsifiable concept. Nothing about evolution disproves (a) God, especially since nothing about evolution makes any theological claims. The same way weather prediction is not "atheistic" for not mentioning Thor or Zeus as the cause of storms.

And there are also plenty of Christians, scientists included who accept evolution. They just happen to think that God did it that way. And if such an entity exists, this thing creates entire universes as a hobby. So I doubt it cares about your opinion that it "can't" have used evolution because it's "impossible". But the fact is that their religious opinions are no more valid than the atheist scientists religious opinions. The only ones that count are the scientific ones.

And the facts are that evolution is scientific and IDC is not. Period. All your whining cannot change that.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#12 Feb 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Their religious opinions are irrelevant to the validity of science. The fact is that "God" cannot be disproved, since it is a non-scientific non-falsifiable concept. Nothing about evolution disproves (a) God, especially since nothing about evolution makes any theological claims. The same way weather prediction is not "atheistic" for not mentioning Thor or Zeus as the cause of storms.
And there are also plenty of Christians, scientists included who accept evolution. They just happen to think that God did it that way. And if such an entity exists, this thing creates entire universes as a hobby. So I doubt it cares about your opinion that it "can't" have used evolution because it's "impossible". But the fact is that their religious opinions are no more valid than the atheist scientists religious opinions. The only ones that count are the scientific ones.
And the facts are that evolution is scientific and IDC is not. Period. All your whining cannot change that.
You've been totally duped if you suppose that NDT makes no theological assumptions. It is ASSUMED by evolutionists that no intelligent design exists. That is religion masquerading as science.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#13 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You've been totally duped if you suppose that NDT makes no theological assumptions. It is ASSUMED by evolutionists that no intelligent design exists. That is religion masquerading as science.
Wrong. Where are the ID studies? Oh right ,there aren't any and none are forth coming. The only assumptions are yours.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#14 Feb 13, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong. Where are the ID studies? Oh right ,there aren't any and none are forth coming. The only assumptions are yours.
If you think that NDT can be validated by what you perceive as a lack of evidence for ID, you are a stranger to the scientific method.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#15 Feb 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Their religious opinions are irrelevant to the validity of science. The fact is that "God" cannot be disproved, since it is a non-scientific non-falsifiable concept..
You fail to see that NDT is based solely of RELIGIOUS OPINION and nothing more. It is your religious opinion that homology means common descent. It is your religious opinion that nested hierarchies indicate evolution as opposed to ID. It is your religious opinion that vestigial organs are inconsistent with ID. etc., etc.
If you want to prove NDT, demonstrate through experimentation that one species can evolve into another. Show utiilizing mathematical concepts of probability that mutations can result in increased information in the genome of any species.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#16 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You fail to see that NDT is based solely of RELIGIOUS OPINION and nothing more. It is your religious opinion that homology means common descent. It is your religious opinion that nested hierarchies indicate evolution as opposed to ID. It is your religious opinion that vestigial organs are inconsistent with ID. etc., etc.
If you want to prove NDT, demonstrate through experimentation that one species can evolve into another. Show utiilizing mathematical concepts of probability that mutations can result in increased information in the genome of any species.
Wrong as usual. Religion has nothing to do with the study of Evolution. It only in the mind of the anti-science, anti-intellectual creationismist that the study of science is considered a religion.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#17 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You've been totally duped if you suppose that NDT makes no theological assumptions. It is ASSUMED by evolutionists that no intelligent design exists. That is religion masquerading as science.
Except it does not assume that. I do not assume that. Francis Collins does not assume that. Kenneth Miller does not assume that. Dr Allan Chapman does not assume that. Lord Robert Winston does not assume that. And most importantly, the hypothesis of common ancestry does not assume that.

It's just that they understand the difference between their theological opinions and what can be demonstrated scientifically.

The complete and total lack of scientific evidence for Intelligent Design does not mean there is no God. It only means that no scientific theory of Intelligent Design exists.

We know this because we keep asking you what it is and you never answer.

In fact on the other thread you're even trying to get ME to provide evidence for YOUR position. How ironic is that?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#18 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>If you think that NDT can be validated by what you perceive as a lack of evidence for ID, you are a stranger to the scientific method.
You have that azz backwards, bub. IDC is nothing but anti-evolution arguments. The scientific theory of evolution does not rely on IDC in any way shape or form whatsoever.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#19 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You fail to see that NDT is based solely of RELIGIOUS OPINION and nothing more. It is your religious opinion that homology means common descent.
It is my scientific opinion that DNA indicates common descent.

Oh and uh, and 99% of the scientific community.
HTS wrote:
It is your religious opinion that nested hierarchies indicate evolution as opposed to ID.
No, it's a scientific opinion because every time I ask you for an alternative scientific opinion using IDC as a hypothesis you can't provide one.
HTS wrote:
It is your religious opinion that vestigial organs are inconsistent with ID. etc., etc.
Incorrect. Nothing is inconsistent with IDC because it's non-falsifiable. If it's non-falsifiable then it's not scientific. What does ID have to say about the probability of the existence of Centaurs? Mermaids? Pegasus? Crocoduck? Anubis? Pigs with compound eyes? Sheep with 7 or 8 legs?

Nothing.

If there aren't any then the designer made life that way. If there are then the designer made them that way.

There's nothing stopping the designer from making stupid designs. All we can do there is point out that they're stupid, therefore the designer would appear incompetent.

Not that it matters since you can't even demonstrate that such a thing exists in the first place.
HTS wrote:
If you want to prove NDT, demonstrate through experimentation that one species can evolve into another.
Ring species.
HTS wrote:
Show utiilizing mathematical concepts of probability that mutations can result in increased information in the genome of any species.
Can do even better - I can provide actual observed physical evidence. Math alone is only abstract. So here's actual data on the scientifically observed generation of new genes:

http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/TCTDUMIJ55H2B...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#20 Feb 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Except it does not assume that. I do not assume that. Francis Collins does not assume that. Kenneth Miller does not assume that. Dr Allan Chapman does not assume that. Lord Robert Winston does not assume that. And most importantly, the hypothesis of common ancestry does not assume that.
Oh, and the Catholic Church does not assume that. And the 12,000 or so signatories of the Clergy Letter Project does not assume that.

Ergo every time you claim evolution equals atheism you are ignoring the 9th Commandment and lying your big fat azz off for Jesus.

Remember, God is watching you...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 27 min Subduction Zone 1,999
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Eagle 12 58,273
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr MADRONE 159,359
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Eagle 12 27,339
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 22 hr Dogen 219,599
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Thu Sentinel 1,758
News Intelligent Design Education Day Feb 19 replaytime 2
More from around the web