More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

[abu afak]

If I was an atheist and didn't agree with evolution, then what do I have left?

You could make up a new god like you did.

`

 

[abu afak]

Another little known but strong point for Evo, and it's on your body.
See the OP at least.
Seymour Flops

 

[Seymour Flops]

Another little known but strong point for Evo, and it's on your body.
See the OP at least.
Seymour Flops

I don't refute evolution.

I do question the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species. It strikes me as a Rube Goldberg-like attempt to explain the existence of such a wide variety of apparently designed life forms without a designer.

Most importantly, in a country like the United States, even if I became completely convinced that Darwinian evolution is true, I could still respect people who disagree with that.

The existence of vestigial organs is somewhat of a refutation of creationism, but a very poor refutation of intelligent design theory.

You could ask, 'why would a creator include vestigial organs.' But you would not convince a creationist. Creationism cannot be scientifically refuted, because it falls back on "appearance of age." If your belief in a creator who make all life on Earth in a matter of days includes the belief that the creator also make life look old, there is no way to prove that false.

This may be hard for you to grasp, so you may want to research it: If a purported theory cannot be falsified, it is not a theory in the scientific sense, but only in the colloquial sense.

Vestigial organs do not refute intelligent design theory, for two reasons:

1) vestigial organs, such as the snake's leg bones, and human appendixes can just as well be interpreted as trial and error by the apparent designer as it can a gradual reduction of usefulness during the process of Darwinian evolution.

2) it is possible that there are health benefits to the appendix that health science has not fully realized.

Researchers are learning that your appendix may play a role in good health.

What Does the Appendix Do?

www.healthline.com

One theory is that the appendix acts as a storehouse for good bacteria, “rebooting” the digestive system after diarrheal illnesses.

The Appendix (Human Anatomy): Appendix Picture, Definition, Function, Conditions, Tests, and Treatments

WebMD’s Appendix Anatomy Page provides detailed images, definitions, and information about the appendix. Learn about its function, parts, location in the body, and conditions that affect the appendix, as well as tests and treatments for appendix conditions.

www.webmd.com

If you hear someone mention their appendix, you might expect the words “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway” to follow. But new research by scientists in Australia and France suggests that this little-appreciated part of your gut might not be quite as pointless as once thought.

Their study, published in Nature Immunology, shows that the appendix may in fact act as a reservoir for ‘good bacteria’. These bacteria contribute to keeping the gut healthy and helping you recover from infections. The study’s findings contradict a commonly held belief that the appendix has no function.

What does the appendix do? A lot more than we thought…

If someone mentions their appendix, you might also expect to hear “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway,” but new research suggests it might not be as pointless as once thought.

www.sciencefocus.com

If it turns out that the appendix indeed has a function in modern humans, that would tend to show that either the appendix evolved to serve that function, or that the designer is even smarter than scientists of previous decades.

 

[abu afak]

I don't refute evolution.

I do question the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species. It strikes me as a Rube Goldberg-like attempt to explain the existence of such a wide variety of apparently designed life forms without a designer.

"apparently designed"
How so?
Implies you are indeed a Creationist as design needs a designER.
Ahhh, stealth creationism is at the bottom of most 'scientific ' objection.

Most importantly, in a country like the United States, even if I became completely convinced that Darwinian evolution is true, I could still respect people who disagree with that.

The existence of vestigial organs is somewhat of a refutation of creationism, but a very poor refutation of intelligent design theory.

I just showed you they are the same in another thread.
Simple substitution after the 1987 USSC ruling.
and No, vestigal/useless/even dangerous parts ae not designer work.

You could ask, 'why would a creator include vestigial organs.' But you would not convince a creationist. Creationism cannot be scientifically refuted, because it falls back on "appearance of age." If your belief in a creator who make all life on Earth in a matter of days includes the belief that the creator also make life look old, there is no way to prove that false.

This may be hard for you to grasp, so you may want to research it: If a purported theory cannot be falsified, it is not a theory in the scientific sense, but only in the colloquial sense.

Sorry that's laughable

also see #3 in "15 Answers..."

Vestigial organs do not refute intelligent design theory, for two reasons:

1) vestigial organs, such as the snake's leg bones, and human appendixes can just as well be interpreted as trial and error by the apparent designer as it can a gradual reduction of usefulness during the process of Darwinian evolution.

2) it is possible that there are health benefits to the appendix that health science has not fully realized.

Researchers are learning that your appendix may play a role in good health.

What Does the Appendix Do?

www.healthline.com

One theory is that the appendix acts as a storehouse for good bacteria, “rebooting” the digestive system after diarrheal illnesses.

The Appendix (Human Anatomy): Appendix Picture, Definition, Function, Conditions, Tests, and Treatments

WebMD’s Appendix Anatomy Page provides detailed images, definitions, and information about the appendix. Learn about its function, parts, location in the body, and conditions that affect the appendix, as well as tests and treatments for appendix conditions.

www.webmd.com

If you hear someone mention their appendix, you might expect the words “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway” to follow. But new research by scientists in Australia and France suggests that this little-appreciated part of your gut might not be quite as pointless as once thought.

Their study, published in Nature Immunology, shows that the appendix may in fact act as a reservoir for ‘good bacteria’. These bacteria contribute to keeping the gut healthy and helping you recover from infections. The study’s findings contradict a commonly held belief that the appendix has no function.

What does the appendix do? A lot more than we thought…

If someone mentions their appendix, you might also expect to hear “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway,” but new research suggests it might not be as pointless as once thought.

www.sciencefocus.com

If it turns out that the appendix indeed has a function in modern humans, that would tend to show that either the appendix evolved to serve that function, or that the designer is even smarter than scientists of previous decades.

As it turns out some of the parts have some lesser use, but, ie, Wisdom teeth would have been killing people before modern dentistry an anti-biotics.
The Coxxys also useless.

So let's be clear, you ARE creationist if you think things "appear designed."
Intelligent design needs a designer/god.

You are also suffering a logical fallacy that what looks designed/coherent to you... is actually all that was left of 10,000x more failed mutations (you call designs) that survived best. Random trial and error.


Lots off keyboard issues 13.9" Yoga. done for now.
`

 

[Hollie]

I don't refute evolution.

I do question the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species. It strikes me as a Rube Goldberg-like attempt to explain the existence of such a wide variety of apparently designed life forms without a designer.

Most importantly, in a country like the United States, even if I became completely convinced that Darwinian evolution is true, I could still respect people who disagree with that.

The existence of vestigial organs is somewhat of a refutation of creationism, but a very poor refutation of intelligent design theory.

You could ask, 'why would a creator include vestigial organs.' But you would not convince a creationist. Creationism cannot be scientifically refuted, because it falls back on "appearance of age." If your belief in a creator who make all life on Earth in a matter of days includes the belief that the creator also make life look old, there is no way to prove that false.

This may be hard for you to grasp, so you may want to research it: If a purported theory cannot be falsified, it is not a theory in the scientific sense, but only in the colloquial sense.

Vestigial organs do not refute intelligent design theory, for two reasons:

1) vestigial organs, such as the snake's leg bones, and human appendixes can just as well be interpreted as trial and error by the apparent designer as it can a gradual reduction of usefulness during the process of Darwinian evolution.

2) it is possible that there are health benefits to the appendix that health science has not fully realized.

Researchers are learning that your appendix may play a role in good health.

What Does the Appendix Do?

www.healthline.com

One theory is that the appendix acts as a storehouse for good bacteria, “rebooting” the digestive system after diarrheal illnesses.

The Appendix (Human Anatomy): Appendix Picture, Definition, Function, Conditions, Tests, and Treatments

WebMD’s Appendix Anatomy Page provides detailed images, definitions, and information about the appendix. Learn about its function, parts, location in the body, and conditions that affect the appendix, as well as tests and treatments for appendix conditions.

www.webmd.com

If you hear someone mention their appendix, you might expect the words “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway” to follow. But new research by scientists in Australia and France suggests that this little-appreciated part of your gut might not be quite as pointless as once thought.

Their study, published in Nature Immunology, shows that the appendix may in fact act as a reservoir for ‘good bacteria’. These bacteria contribute to keeping the gut healthy and helping you recover from infections. The study’s findings contradict a commonly held belief that the appendix has no function.

What does the appendix do? A lot more than we thought…

If someone mentions their appendix, you might also expect to hear “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway,” but new research suggests it might not be as pointless as once thought.

www.sciencefocus.com

If it turns out that the appendix indeed has a function in modern humans, that would tend to show that either the appendix evolved to serve that function, or that the designer is even smarter than scientists of previous decades.

Which ''designer gods'' are responsible for the appendix?

 

[Hollie]

I don't refute evolution.

I do question the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species. It strikes me as a Rube Goldberg-like attempt to explain the existence of such a wide variety of apparently designed life forms without a designer.

Most importantly, in a country like the United States, even if I became completely convinced that Darwinian evolution is true, I could still respect people who disagree with that.

The existence of vestigial organs is somewhat of a refutation of creationism, but a very poor refutation of intelligent design theory.

You could ask, 'why would a creator include vestigial organs.' But you would not convince a creationist. Creationism cannot be scientifically refuted, because it falls back on "appearance of age." If your belief in a creator who make all life on Earth in a matter of days includes the belief that the creator also make life look old, there is no way to prove that false.

This may be hard for you to grasp, so you may want to research it: If a purported theory cannot be falsified, it is not a theory in the scientific sense, but only in the colloquial sense.

Vestigial organs do not refute intelligent design theory, for two reasons:

1) vestigial organs, such as the snake's leg bones, and human appendixes can just as well be interpreted as trial and error by the apparent designer as it can a gradual reduction of usefulness during the process of Darwinian evolution.

2) it is possible that there are health benefits to the appendix that health science has not fully realized.

Researchers are learning that your appendix may play a role in good health.

What Does the Appendix Do?

www.healthline.com

One theory is that the appendix acts as a storehouse for good bacteria, “rebooting” the digestive system after diarrheal illnesses.

The Appendix (Human Anatomy): Appendix Picture, Definition, Function, Conditions, Tests, and Treatments

WebMD’s Appendix Anatomy Page provides detailed images, definitions, and information about the appendix. Learn about its function, parts, location in the body, and conditions that affect the appendix, as well as tests and treatments for appendix conditions.

www.webmd.com

If you hear someone mention their appendix, you might expect the words “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway” to follow. But new research by scientists in Australia and France suggests that this little-appreciated part of your gut might not be quite as pointless as once thought.

Their study, published in Nature Immunology, shows that the appendix may in fact act as a reservoir for ‘good bacteria’. These bacteria contribute to keeping the gut healthy and helping you recover from infections. The study’s findings contradict a commonly held belief that the appendix has no function.

What does the appendix do? A lot more than we thought…

If someone mentions their appendix, you might also expect to hear “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway,” but new research suggests it might not be as pointless as once thought.

www.sciencefocus.com

If it turns out that the appendix indeed has a function in modern humans, that would tend to show that either the appendix evolved to serve that function, or that the designer is even smarter than scientists of previous decades.

You claim you don't refute evolution but then go on to introduce ''designer gods'' as somehow being required to somehow explain diversity of life on the planet.

Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather he took all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time) and explained them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural gods).

In the particular case of the fossil record, it was well known to geologists & paleontologists long before Darwin wrote Origin of Species that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record there were more differences in the animals represented vs. those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You claim you don't refute evolution but then go on to introduce ''designer gods'' as somehow being required to somehow explain diversity of life on the planet.

Hollie, putting works in quotation marks is supposed to indicate . . . well . . . a quote. Meaning a word for word repetition of what the quoted person actually said. I never said, "designer gods," that I know of.

Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather he took all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time) and explained them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural gods).

In the particular case of the fossil record, it was well known to geologists & paleontologists long before Darwin wrote Origin of Species that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record there were more differences in the animals represented vs. those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.

Yes, that species evolved, one from another, is the fairest interpretation of the fossil record. It isn't scientific fact, but it is solid natural history.

None of that refutes the apparent design of life on Earth. That apparent design is so difficult to refute that why even Richard Dawkins proposed an intelligent designer.

 

[abu afak]

Hollie, putting works in quotation marks is supposed to indicate . . . well . . . a quote. Meaning a word for word repetition of what the quoted person actually said. I never said, "designer gods," that I know of.

Yes, that species evolved, one from another, is the fairest interpretation of the fossil record. It isn't scientific fact, but it is solid natural history.

None of that refutes the apparent design of life on Earth. That apparent design is so difficult to refute that why even Richard Dawkins proposed an intelligent designer.

You keep repeating the Big Lie.
You have not demonstrated/evidenced this "apparent design" in any way.
You just keep repeating it like "Stolen Election."

Further, a designer/god-guided progression is Religion/creationism, not science.

You did not answer any of my posts refuting you, including that ID was indeed replacement creationism.
Game over.

Yet you persist with and ignore that you were refuted.
You are a religion-based objector, a Religionist/godist/Creationist, and behave exactly like one.
A predictable show for someone living with faith instead of fact.
`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

don't refute evolution.

I do question the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species. It strikes me as a Rube Goldberg-like attempt to explain the existence of such a wide variety of apparently designed life forms without a designer

Then yes, you do "refute" the theory of evolution. Literally all of it, top to bottom.

So let's get that clear immediately.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, putting works in quotation marks is supposed to indicate . . . well . . . a quote. Meaning a word for word repetition of what the quoted person actually said. I never said, "designer gods," that I know of.

Yes, that species evolved, one from another, is the fairest interpretation of the fossil record. It isn't scientific fact, but it is solid natural history.

None of that refutes the apparent design of life on Earth. That apparent design is so difficult to refute that why even Richard Dawkins proposed an intelligent designer.

What apparent design? I don't see any indication of design by any supposed designer. If someone was going to refute some alleged apparent (supernatural) design, there would first be the need for a rational case to be made for such a designer. Why don't you provide some evidence of design? Evidence of design implies something in the natural world is, how shall we say, unnatural. Can you identify an unnatural event, object or circumstance that would point to a supernatural designer?

 

[Ringtone]

I don't refute evolution.

I do question the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species. It strikes me as a Rube Goldberg-like attempt to explain the existence of such a wide variety of apparently designed life forms without a designer.

Most importantly, in a country like the United States, even if I became completely convinced that Darwinian evolution is true, I could still respect people who disagree with that.

The existence of vestigial organs is somewhat of a refutation of creationism, but a very poor refutation of intelligent design theory.

You could ask, 'why would a creator include vestigial organs.' But you would not convince a creationist. Creationism cannot be scientifically refuted, because it falls back on "appearance of age." If your belief in a creator who make all life on Earth in a matter of days includes the belief that the creator also make life look old, there is no way to prove that false.

This may be hard for you to grasp, so you may want to research it: If a purported theory cannot be falsified, it is not a theory in the scientific sense, but only in the colloquial sense.

Vestigial organs do not refute intelligent design theory, for two reasons:

1) vestigial organs, such as the snake's leg bones, and human appendixes can just as well be interpreted as trial and error by the apparent designer as it can a gradual reduction of usefulness during the process of Darwinian evolution.

2) it is possible that there are health benefits to the appendix that health science has not fully realized.

Researchers are learning that your appendix may play a role in good health.

What Does the Appendix Do?

www.healthline.com

One theory is that the appendix acts as a storehouse for good bacteria, “rebooting” the digestive system after diarrheal illnesses.

The Appendix (Human Anatomy): Appendix Picture, Definition, Function, Conditions, Tests, and Treatments

WebMD’s Appendix Anatomy Page provides detailed images, definitions, and information about the appendix. Learn about its function, parts, location in the body, and conditions that affect the appendix, as well as tests and treatments for appendix conditions.

www.webmd.com

If you hear someone mention their appendix, you might expect the words “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway” to follow. But new research by scientists in Australia and France suggests that this little-appreciated part of your gut might not be quite as pointless as once thought.

Their study, published in Nature Immunology, shows that the appendix may in fact act as a reservoir for ‘good bacteria’. These bacteria contribute to keeping the gut healthy and helping you recover from infections. The study’s findings contradict a commonly held belief that the appendix has no function.

What does the appendix do? A lot more than we thought…

If someone mentions their appendix, you might also expect to hear “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway,” but new research suggests it might not be as pointless as once thought.

www.sciencefocus.com

If it turns out that the appendix indeed has a function in modern humans, that would tend to show that either the appendix evolved to serve that function, or that the designer is even smarter than scientists of previous decades.

But creationists do not necessarily assume a young Earth, and the Bible doesn't actually depict a young Earth.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Then yes, you do "refute" the theory of evolution. Literally all of it, top to bottom.

So let's get that clear immediately.

No, you are wrong immediately.

People talked about evolution long before Darwin.

 

[Seymour Flops]

But creationists do not necessarily assume a young Earth, and the Bible doesn't actually depict a young Earth.

Not all of them. But many do. Or at least they used to.

I haven't debated a Creationist in a long time, since it was usually fruitless. When I did do that, the idea that they Earth was young, but with an appearance of age seemed pretty common.

Maybe creationism has evolved, no pun intended.

 

[Seymour Flops]

What apparent design? I don't see any indication of design by any supposed designer. If someone was going to refute some alleged apparent (supernatural) design, there would first be the need for a rational case to be made for such a designer. Why don't you provide some evidence of design? Evidence of design implies something in the natural world is, how shall we say, unnatural. Can you identify an unnatural event, object or circumstance that would point to a supernatural designer?

The incredible intricacy of the "simplest" of organisms on Earth lends itself much more to having been designed, than having randomly occurred though random genetic mutations.

Don't take my word for it, Hollie. Listen to Richard Dawkins, strong advocate of Darwinian evolution and opponent of creationism:

Atheist Richard Dawkins is hopping mad at the makers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Dawkins accuses the filmmakers of “lying for Jesus” because they make it seem that he believes in intelligent design and space aliens.

Dawkins is an outspoken critic of intelligent design (ID). In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins defined biology as “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

Is the “Science” of Richard Dawkins Science Fiction?

Atheist Richard Dawkins is hopping mad at the makers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Dawkins accuses the filmmakers of "lying for Jesus" because they make it seem that he believes in intelligent…

www.discovery.org

 

[Hollie]

The incredible intricacy of the "simplest" of organisms on Earth lends itself much more to having been designed, than having randomly occurred though random genetic mutations.

''... because I say so'' is not an argument.

We have irrefutable evidence of genetic mutations and irrefutable evidence that biological organisms mutate due to chemical, environmental and other external forces. Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer

What the supernaturalists don’t understand is that the forces that act upon biological organisms are not random. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness

 

[Seymour Flops]

''... because I say so'' is not an argument.

We have irrefutable evidence of genetic mutations and irrefutable evidence that biological organisms mutate due to chemical, environmental and other external forces. Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer

This results in the corresponding physical trait evolving in the direction of greater fitness. Since these traits already have genes coding for them, they are not acquired. They are therefore completely inheritable. Genetic variation is constantly being added to by random point mutations on the DNA molecule. Some of this new variation makes the animals slightly less fit, some makes it slightly more fit, and most makes no difference whatsoever

I guess you are smarter than Richard Dawkins, then?

Here's some more quotes from the same article:

By ruling out design, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

So, Dawkins' purpose in denying intelligent design is to support his religious faith.

Even so, he had to admit that there is "apparent" design, just as I say.

Surprisingly, in a lengthy interview with Ben Stein in Expelled, Dawkins says that living things on the Earth could be actually (and not just apparently) designed — and that the design might be detectable.

What more do you need?

 

[abu afak]

I guess you are smarter than Richard Dawkins, then?

Here's some more quotes from the same article:

By ruling out design, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

So, Dawkins' purpose in denying intelligent design is to support his religious faith.

Even so, he had to admit that there is "apparent" design, just as I say.

Surprisingly, in a lengthy interview with Ben Stein in Expelled, Dawkins says that living things on the Earth could be actually (and not just apparently) designed — and that the design might be detectable.

What more do you need?

Dawkins [seemingly] against the whole weight of Biology/Sci community is nothing and also constitutes another of my seminal Debunking threads:

The Dishonest Creationist Tactic of 'Quote Mining'

Used hourly here mainly by Political Sheik. Indeed it is her Main and Bogus line of attack. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining Quote mining (also contextomy) is the Fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint...

www.usmessageboard.com

Quote-Mining
as you are doing now is a creationcYst's mainstay. Taking out of context quotes.
You owe full contexted quotes which is one reason You don't like them links. Full context and source.

You'll note we see this temporal disingenuity/Dishonesty regularly also referred to in my Gould signature below.
Gould too has been quote-MINED questioning/disagreeing with Evo even tho though he is a 100% Darwinist.

You really want to see the bulk of Dawkins quoteS on evo?

You haven't answered anything I said/refuted you on. (ID, etc)
You have not stated your precise position on Evo.
Pretty sleezy.
Your whole effort is sleezy, not straightforward, and dodging stating your position or answering my rebuttals.

My estimate now is that it is something like 'god guided Evo' which is Not Evo, or what you did say before, 'god' makes things look old to fool people.
Nonsensical and obfuscatory as that is.

You can't debate me and quit trying.
You lost.
Losing with Hollie too.

`

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not all of them. But many do. Or at least they used to.

I haven't debated a Creationist in a long time, since it was usually fruitless. When I did do that, the idea that they Earth was young, but with an appearance of age seemed pretty common.

Maybe creationism has evolved, no pun intended.

Very few people believe the earth is young

 

[RetiredGySgt]

''... because I say so'' is not an argument.

We have irrefutable evidence of genetic mutations and irrefutable evidence that biological organisms mutate due to chemical, environmental and other external forces. Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer

What the supernaturalists don’t understand is that the forces that act upon biological organisms are not random. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness

What science doesnt have is ANY proof a mammal every evolved into two or more entirely different species.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Very few people believe the earth is young

Have the creationists moved away from that position?