More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

[Seymour Flops]

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.

`

Is Hollie your sock? That's what it usually turns out to be when one poster tells me that another poster is "winning."

I didn't tell Dawkins to start on about Space Aliens being the intelligent designer, he thought of that one all on his own. Or maybe someone else thought of it, but it was not me.

Sure, you could attempt to distract from those quotes that I quoted with a flood of other words from Dawkins about other topics. But when it comes to the apparent design of life on Earth, he takes the same stance that I do: It's apparent.

 

[Hollie]

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?

I need more than praying at the altar of Richard Dawkins.

So-called ''intelligent design'' is just a label for Christian fundamentalism.

Natural selection is widely studied and carries undeniable support in science. What can you tell us about supernaturalism as a field of study? Which gods are front-runners for the title of Head Designer in Charge?

 

[Hollie]

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

The Gods have played a cruel joke on you.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

www.talkorigins.org

 

[Seymour Flops]

I need more than praying at the altar of Richard Dawkins.

I think you misunderstand. Richard Dawkins is not a creationist, nor an intelligent design proponent. He hates both of those ideas. He's written books attempting to debunk intelligent design.

But even he had to admit that life on Earth has an apparent design. His explanation was space aliens, not a supernatural being or whatever, but it is still intelligent design.

So-called ''intelligent design'' is just a label for Christian fundamentalism.

Wrong.

Natural selection is widely studied and carries undeniable support in science. What can you tell us about supernaturalism as a field of study? Which gods are front-runners for the title of Head Designer in Charge?

Natural selection is widely studied in an attempt to find support for it. Other than, "it sounds like it could be right," there really is no evidence that Darwinian "natural selection" is what led to the abundance and variety of life on Earth. It is speculation, just as intelligent design is.

The difference is that I am perfectly content to have you believe in Darwinian evolution. The fact that Darwinians are so insistent that no other ideas be allowed telegraphs a pretty extreme weakness in their case.

I never mentioned any God or gods. You keep bringing that up.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Have the creationists moved away from that position?

very few ever believed it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Gods have played a cruel joke on you.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

www.talkorigins.org

That doesnt say anything about one species evolving into 2 different species.

 

[Hollie]

I think you misunderstand. Richard Dawkins is not a creationist, nor an intelligent design proponent. He hates both of those ideas. He's written books attempting to debunk intelligent design.

But even he had to admit that life on Earth has an apparent design. His explanation was space aliens, not a supernatural being or whatever, but it is still intelligent design.

Wrong.

Natural selection is widely studied in an attempt to find support for it. Other than, "it sounds like it could be right," there really is no evidence that Darwinian "natural selection" is what led to the abundance and variety of life on Earth. It is speculation, just as intelligent design is.

The difference is that I am perfectly content to have you believe in Darwinian evolution. The fact that Darwinians are so insistent that no other ideas be allowed telegraphs a pretty extreme weakness in their case.

I never mentioned any God or gods. You keep bringing that up.

At some point, I would have thought that you would make a case for your designer gods. It’s fine to have ideas about supernatural gods magically creating all of existence but so far, you haven’t identified which of the gods have done that, nor have you offered any evidence of those gods. While your fascination with Dawkins seems a bit misplaced, I suppose he has a following as god-like for some.


Accepting the facts of biological evolution is a rational position. There is every reason to accept a naturalistic explanation to the physical world as opposed to any claimed supernatural causation and that is because we have no evidence of any supernatural events. It is a pretty simple matter that the supernaturalists fail to comprehend; they need to provide some support for the existence of their supernatural gods before they can assign universe building tasks to them

 

[Hollie]

That doesnt say anything about one species evolving into 2 different species.

Actually, it does.

"Species-to-species transition":
This is a set of numerous individual fossils that show a change between one species and another. It's a very fine-grained sequence documenting the actual speciation event, usually covering less than a million years. These species-to-species transitions are unmistakable when they are found. Throughout successive strata you see the population averages of teeth, feet, vertebrae, etc., changing from what is typical of the first species to what is typical of the next species. Sometimes, these sequences occur only in a limited geographic area (the place where the speciation actually occurred), with analyses from any other area showing an apparently "sudden" change. Other times, though, the transition can be seen over a very wide geological area. Many "species-to-species transitions" are known, mostly for marine invertebrates and recent mammals (both those groups tend to have good fossil records), though they are not as abundant as the general lineages (see below for why this is so). Part 2 lists numerous species-to-species transitions from the mammals



Are you ready for part 2?

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A

 

[Seymour Flops]

At some point, I would have thought that you would make a case for your designer gods.

Why would you have thought that, given that I never mentioned any "designer gods?"

It’s fine to have ideas about supernatural gods magically creating all of existence but so far, you haven’t identified which of the gods have done that, nor have you offered any evidence of those gods. While your fascination with Dawkins seems a bit misplaced, I suppose he has a following as god-like for some.

"God, god, god, god!" You seem obsessed with God. What's that about?

Accepting the facts of biological evolution is a rational position. There is every reason to accept a naturalistic explanation to the physical world as opposed to any claimed supernatural causation and that is because we have no evidence of any supernatural events. It is a pretty simple matter that the supernaturalists fail to comprehend; they need to provide some support for the existence of their supernatural gods before they can assign universe building tasks to them

Is your only argument to nag people to "accept the facts?" Doesn't seem very effective; does it fool the rubes?

 

[Hollie]

Why would you have thought that, given that I never mentioned any "designer gods?"

"God, god, god, god!" You seem obsessed with God. What's that about?

Is your only argument to nag people to "accept the facts?" Doesn't seem very effective, does it fool the rubes?

If naturally occurring processes are not sufficient to produce the diversity of life we see on the planet and you propose that supernatural designers are the cause, what can you offer to convince us these supernatural designers are the cause?

I understand those nagging facts are a bothersome chore to deal with but some of us live within a reality based worldview where old men dressed in long, flowing white robes and fat, naked babies playing harps while floating in the clouds is not all that convincing an argument relative to the natural world.

 

[Seymour Flops]

If naturally occurring processes are not sufficient to produce the diversity of life we see on the planet and you propose that supernatural designers are the cause, what can you offer to convince us these supernatural designers are the cause?

Well, at least you're asking a reasonable question. I don't propose that "supernatural" designers are the cause. That the apparent design implies a designer is self-evident. But it is rebuttable, by anyone who has another explanation for the apparent design. It would not be Darwinian evolution, though, that theory is too weakly supported and has nothing to say about how life began in the first place, not counting Dawkins' Space Alien Theory.

Recognizing the apparent design, does not make me responsible to describe the designer. If astronauts ever land on a distant planet and find the ruins of an apparent civilization, they don't have to describe the designers, and neither do people on Earth who see pictures and videos of the extra-terrestrial archeology.

Not knowing what the designer, or designers were like does not mean that it is crazy to think that design implies a designer.

I understand those nagging facts are a bothersome chore to deal with but some of us live within a reality based worldview where old men dressed in long, flowing white robes and fat, naked babies playing harps while floating in the clouds is not all that convincing an argument relative to the natural world.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the old man in the sky, and the fat, naked babies idea either.

In fact, I would love to hear a completely naturalistic, and reasonable explanation for how life on Earth began. Science should always first look to natural explanations, not super-natural ones. But, for a "scientist" to Just say that Darwin is all we have given that we insist on no designer is nowhere near sufficient.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually, it does.

"Species-to-species transition":
This is a set of numerous individual fossils that show a change between one species and another. It's a very fine-grained sequence documenting the actual speciation event, usually covering less than a million years. These species-to-species transitions are unmistakable when they are found. Throughout successive strata you see the population averages of teeth, feet, vertebrae, etc., changing from what is typical of the first species to what is typical of the next species. Sometimes, these sequences occur only in a limited geographic area (the place where the speciation actually occurred), with analyses from any other area showing an apparently "sudden" change. Other times, though, the transition can be seen over a very wide geological area. Many "species-to-species transitions" are known, mostly for marine invertebrates and recent mammals (both those groups tend to have good fossil records), though they are not as abundant as the general lineages (see below for why this is so). Part 2 lists numerous species-to-species transitions from the mammals



Are you ready for part 2?

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A

Again it does not say anything about one species changing into 2 different species.

 

[Hollie]

Well, at least you're asking a reasonable question. I don't propose that "supernatural" designers are the cause. That the apparent design implies a designer is self-evident. But it is rebuttable, by anyone who has another explanation for the apparent design. It would not be Darwinian evolution, though, that theory is too weakly supported and has nothing to say about how life began in the first place, not counting Dawkins' Space Alien Theory.

Recognizing the apparent design, does not make me responsible to describe the designer. If astronauts ever land on a distant planet and find the ruins of an apparent civilization, they don't have to describe the designers, and neither do people on Earth who see pictures and videos of the extra-terrestrial archeology.

Not knowing what the designer, or designers were like does not mean that it is crazy to think that design implies a designer.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the old man in the sky, and the fat, naked babies idea either.

In fact, I would love to hear a completely naturalistic, and reasonable explanation for how life on Earth began. Science should always first look to natural explanations, not super-natural ones. But, for a "scientist" to Just say that Darwin is all we have given that we insist on no designer is nowhere near sufficient.

You use the term ''apparent design'' but offer nothing to support what that means. Creationists typically appeal to feelings and such subjective measures when making appeals to their proposed supernatural designers, ie. their gods.

Another attribute common among creationists is a profound misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution. The theory has nothing to do with the beginning of life. The TOE addresses changes in populations over time. Common descent with modification is among the most basic, best supported elements of biological evolution.

If evidence for life on the planet is not naturally occurring then some supernatural forces were seemingly involved. What are those supernatural forces? Another common attribute of creationists is complete rejection of biological evolution in favor of their supernatural designers but they offer nothing to support who those supernatural designers are or how those supernatural designers managed their designs.

 

[Hollie]

Again it does not say anything about one species changing into 2 different species.

Actually, it does.

 

[abu afak]

Is Hollie your sock? That's what it usually turns out to be when one poster tells me that another poster is "winning."

I didn't tell Dawkins to start on about Space Aliens being the intelligent designer, he thought of that one all on his own. Or maybe someone else thought of it, but it was not me.

Sure, you could attempt to distract from those quotes that I quoted with a flood of other words from Dawkins about other topics. But when it comes to the apparent design of life on Earth, he takes the same stance that I do: It's apparent.

If you really thought Hollie was my sock you wouldn't have stopped responding to me and only replying (if not answering) her.

Because the Fact is you LOST to me and went mum
once I smashed your ID and it's twin 'Apparent design', along with 'appeal to authority.

in fact, after my Sciam fact/theory citation you said:

Make your point in your own words, and I'll happily debate you on it, or tell you that I agree with you.

What you posted is just the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Which was of course wrong too, and I had to explain that fallacy to you.

But you could NOT justify in your own words 'apparent design' so quote-mined (another fallacy) Evolution believer/'authority' Dawkins. What YOU would have called 'Appeal to Authority' but for my explaining the term!

And you still have not shown anything is "apparently" or "intelligently" "Designed." And the two are the same and bogus Creationism clones.

Beyond that you have not really explained or responded to my probing of your idea of how life spread on earth. But I guess it's "apparent design" with an unspecified parent/god even though you believe in one you are not naming to maintain some sci 'credibility.'

My turn.
Are you a creationist?
An anti-evolutionist on 'scientific grounds?' (at least it seems)
Of course, at least about half of creationist try the science Route and it does not go well.
If you don't believe species can morph into another you believe they were put out here roughly as is: Creationism.
We have an ever increasing fossil record with more 'tweeners' that only Evo would and does predict before they are found.
Predictability is also weighty.
Or do you believe in another natural explanation? On what evidence?

Some believe in "god guided evolution" which of course is not evolution (but extended or intermittent creationism) as real evolution is life 'responding' through a multitude of mutations (trial and error) to the ever changing conditions. (and after Billions of things died off what's left looks 'intelligent' for current conditions I suppose), but only after the fact. Had a meteor not hit earth, we might still be in a world of dinosaurs instead of small mammals spreading/being able to mutate into various related larger species.

`

 

[Woodznutz]

Another Evidence of Evolution.
Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
One rarely mentioned but very telling.
Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.

Heavily Edited incl Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Prediction 2.1: Anatomical vestiges

Some of the most renowned Evidence for evolution are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...​

[.......]​

Geoffroy was at a loss for why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ", yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy​

[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.​

​

Confirmation:​

There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence, snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles. Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity. Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...​

Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes....​

[.......]​

The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth).​

Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted [*]. These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death [*]​

​

Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."​

​

Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx, the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back. Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""​

[.......]​

​

How many Millions of H sapiens and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.​

Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.​

Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.​

`​

In the grand scheme of things there is still more evidence of creation than of evolution.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, you are wrong immediately.

People talked about evolution long before Darwin.

Irrelevant.

If you deny evolution as the origin of species, you reject the theory of evolution.

No way out of it. You must admit it. You don't get to have it both ways.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That doesnt say anything about one species evolving into 2 different species.

Again it does not say anything about one species changing into 2 different species.

Didn't even look at it, did you?

Yes it does.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In the grand scheme of things there is still more evidence of creation than of evolution.

Well that's a laughable lie.

 

[Woodznutz]

Well that's a laughable lie.

Everything that you believe evolved had to be created.