More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

[james bond]

Another Evidence of Evolution.
Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
One rarely mentioned but very telling.

Such a hypocrite. You're using circular reasoning.

"

Declaring Useful Organs to Be Useless Can Be Dangerous​

Once an organ is considered to be useless, it may be ignored by most scientists, or even worse, surgically removed by physicians as a useless evolutionary leftover. The oft repeated claim that the human appendix is useless is a case in point. The evolutionist Alfred Romer in his book The Vertebrate Body said of the human appendix: “Its major importance would appear to be financial support of the surgical profession.”6 We can only wonder how many normal appendices have been removed by surgeons since Darwin first claimed them to be a useless vestige. Even more frightening would be the surgical removal of a “useless” parathyroid or pituitary gland.

The Definition of Vestigial Organs Has Been Changed​

As the list of “functionless” organs has grown smaller and smaller with advancing knowledge, the definition of vestigial organs has been modified to include those whose functions are claimed to have “changed” to serve different functions. But such a definition removes the burden of proof that vestigial organs are a vestige of evolution. Thus, the evolutionist might concede that the human coccyx (“tail bone”) does indeed serve an important function in anchoring the pelvic diaphragm—but still insist, without evidence, that it was once used by our ancestors as a tail.

Circular Reasoning​

The most conspicuous logical flaw in the use of vestigial organs as evidence for evolution is circular reasoning.

The most conspicuous logical flaw in the use of vestigial organs as evidence for evolution is circular reasoning. Evolutionists first declare vestigial organs to be a result of evolution, and then they turn around and argue that their existence is evidence for evolution. This kind of argument would hardly stand up in a court of law."

 

[Hollie]

Billions have 'faith' in science, that science will save us. Billions also have faith in God, that God will save us. I have more faith in God than science.

I think you misapplied the definitions that separate faith and trust. What we must understand about faith is that it is often confused with trust. Those pressing a religious agenda usually argue that we have faith in things. That's not accurate.

Ultimately, there is a deep difference between trust and faith. Faith is belief despite or contrary to evidence, Belief in Gods for example. Whereas trust requires evidence to be maintained. People talk about "faith" in one's doctor, and "faith" in one's friends, but I suggest to you it's really trust based upon their behavior-- if your doctor misdiagnoses you or a loved one or a friend fully betrays you, your "faith" is gone. What you had all along was trust, which they betrayed, which is why you no longer trust them.

With faith, you would continue to trust them no matter what they did to you

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No. People TRUST science due to having mountains of good evidence that shows thry should. That is not faith. That is a safe bet. That is an evidence-based determination. IE, the opposite of faith.

Your attempts to place science on the same shelf as your unevidenced faith will NEVER WORK.

Not ever. So you can stop trying.

There is no scientific evidence on how life started.

 

[Woodznutz]

No. People TRUST science due to having mountains of good evidence that shows thry should. That is not faith. That is a safe bet. That is an evidence-based determination. IE, the opposite of faith.

Your attempts to place science on the same shelf as your unevidenced faith will NEVER WORK.

Not ever. So you can stop trying.

The great value of religion as opposed to science in regard to our well-being is that God requires us to repent of our self-destructive ways. Science does not.

 

[Woodznutz]

I think you misapplied the definitions that separate faith and trust. What we must understand about faith is that it is often confused with trust. Those pressing a religious agenda usually argue that we have faith in things. That's not accurate.

Ultimately, there is a deep difference between trust and faith. Faith is belief despite or contrary to evidence, Belief in Gods for example. Whereas trust requires evidence to be maintained. People talk about "faith" in one's doctor, and "faith" in one's friends, but I suggest to you it's really trust based upon their behavior-- if your doctor misdiagnoses you or a loved one or a friend fully betrays you, your "faith" is gone. What you had all along was trust, which they betrayed, which is why you no longer trust them.

With faith, you would continue to trust them no matter what they did to you

Faith exercised becomes trust.

 

[Woodznutz]

Your attempts to place science on the same shelf as your unevidenced faith will NEVER WORK.

Faith in God is 'top shelf' stuff.

 

[Hollie]

Faith exercised becomes trust.

No, it's not. I have trust in the words and actions of my friends and family because I have a personal history of behavior that builds such trust.

Tell us about how faith in any of the various gods is built on your personal history with them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, it's not. I have trust in the words and actions of my friends and family because I have a personal history of behavior that builds such trust.

Tell us about how faith in any of the various gods is built on your personal history with them.

LOL of course we have a PERSONAL history with our God

 

[Woodznutz]

No, it's not. I have trust in the words and actions of my friends and family because I have a personal history of behavior that builds such trust.

Tell us about how faith in any of the various gods is built on your personal history with them.

God, through his writers, has shown us (me) a way of life that is happy, healthy, and prosperous. Those ways are the 'works' of faith mentioned by James.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no scientific evidence on how life started.

Sure there is some. We know about when it happened, and what about what conditions were present on our Planet at the time. We can therefore constrain time and temperature and other environmental factors.

We also know which elements and chemicals that comprise life. So, we have constraints on the building blocks as well.

Another constraint: it happened in a liquid environment .( So you can toss out the silly "life from rocks" creationist talking point. )

So, we have a good basis from which to start, based on evidence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Faith in God is 'top shelf' stuff.

But not the same shelf as evidence based determination.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Faith exercised becomes trust.

False. Trust is based on evidence. Faith is belief without evidence. A semantic difference that is actually important here,to delineate two non overlapping Concepts.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The great value of religion as opposed to science in regard to our well-being is that God requires us to repent of our self-destructive ways. Science does not.

Says you. If it makes you happy, then I am happy for you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sure there is some. We know about when it happened, and what about what conditions were present on our Planet at the time. We can therefore constrain time and temperature and other environmental factors.

We also know which elements and chemicals that comprise life. So, we have constraints on the building blocks as well.

Another constrant: it happened in a liquid environment .( So you can toss out the silly "life from rocks" creationist talking point. )

So, we have a good basis from which to start, based on evidence.

And yet no actual ability to recreate it or have a reasonable explanation of how it occurred.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And yet no actual ability to recreate it or have a reasonable explanation of how it occurred.

We have reasonable explanations. You need to pay more attention.

As for recreation: so what? We also can't make a star or a volcano in a lab. Yet we know stars and volcanoes do indeed form in the universe. That's another silly creationist talking point that you can toss out.

 

[abu afak]

Such a hypocrite. You're using circular reasoning.

"

Declaring Useful Organs to Be Useless Can Be Dangerous​

Once an organ is considered to be useless, it may be ignored by most scientists, or even worse, surgically removed by physicians as a useless evolutionary leftover. The oft repeated claim that the human appendix is useless is a case in point. The evolutionist Alfred Romer in his book The Vertebrate Body said of the human appendix: “Its major importance would appear to be financial support of the surgical profession.”6 We can only wonder how many normal appendices have been removed by surgeons since Darwin first claimed them to be a useless vestige. Even more frightening would be the surgical removal of a “useless” parathyroid or pituitary gland.

The Definition of Vestigial Organs Has Been Changed​

As the list of “functionless” organs has grown smaller and smaller with advancing knowledge, the definition of vestigial organs has been modified to include those whose functions are claimed to have “changed” to serve different functions. But such a definition removes the burden of proof that vestigial organs are a vestige of evolution. Thus, the evolutionist might concede that the human coccyx (“tail bone”) does indeed serve an important function in anchoring the pelvic diaphragm—but still insist, without evidence, that it was once used by our ancestors as a tail.

Circular Reasoning​

The most conspicuous logical flaw in the use of vestigial organs as evidence for evolution is circular reasoning. Evolutionists first declare vestigial organs to be a result of evolution, and then they turn around and argue that their existence is evidence for evolution. This kind of argument would hardly stand up in a court of law."

You Lying POS.
Bible/god/Bible/god IS Circular reasoning.
(for the 1000th time)
YOU LOST.. again.
It's Over.
Your answer is NOT a reply to what you posted/post Regularly: PROSELYTIZE.

You are also an Illiterate.
My reasoning was not "circular,'" however you may "disagree" you showed no circularity.
You Blithering fool.

Now you also PLAGIARIZE/HIDE (LOL) AnswersInGenesis (steal their organs)

Vestigial Organs—Evidence for Evolution?

Vestigial organs have long been one of the classic arguments used as evidence for evolution.

answersingenesis.org

`

 

[Hollie]

LOL of course we have a PERSONAL history with our God

Your PERSONAL history with your gods is quite different than the PERSONAL histories other have (and have had), with their gods.

With all these gods competing for believers, you might want to interview a bunch of them to find the ones most anxious for your worship and adoration.

 

[Hollie]

God, through his writers, has shown us (me) a way of life that is happy, healthy, and prosperous. Those ways are the 'works' of faith mentioned by James.

Are you aware that none of the writers of the Bible (presuming those are the writers you're referring to), ever spoke to, were interviewed by, or received revelations by any of the Christian gods?

Are you aware that most of the supposed authors of the Bible are unknown?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are you aware that none of the writers of the Bible (presuming those are the writers you're referring to), ever spoke to, were interviewed by, or received revelations by any of the Christian gods?

Are you aware that most of the supposed authors of the Bible are unknown?

Are you aware we believe God inspired each writer to write what he wrote?

 

[Woodznutz]

False. Trust is based on evidence. Faith is belief without evidence. A semantic difference that is actually important here,to delineate two non overlapping Concepts.

God wants us to have both faith and trust. "Faith" is also the "body of beliefs and doctrines" of the church. The proscriptions found in the ten commandments are such.