One-third of Americans reject evolution

[GregariousWolf]

And you would thank God on your knees, if you were in a country full of real Christians...

I'd love to be in a nation full of Christians, but instead we're saddled with a country full of people like you.

[CalmWind]

I've known some people who would kick your ass, theologically speaking, on this subject. Not atheists, either.

Ok so you are definitely just going to move on and change the subject, because you were mistaken earlier. That's fine.

I'd love to be in a nation full of Christians, but instead we're saddled with a country full of people like you.

Ooh, trying to cut deep, are you? I am a Christian. Try not to be so angry. I merely show you the Truth. Stop putting so much faith into scientific fields that are very shaky.

A lot of people never stop to think twice about the information they are fed by society about science. When you stop to really look at it, some of these "scientific" beliefs are actually assumptions.

[MaximosJ]

I am a Christian.

Do you feel any conflict between this and being part of the *Still pull out even if girl claims she's on birth control crew*?

[CalmWind]

If you know where you were and where you are, then you have the tools to make an educated guess (a prediction) of where you will be. That is the power of science.

No, that is a guess. It is not a fact. It's the same as a weather forecast. It's an "educated" guess, based on the latest and most current information, but you have absolutely no idea what unknown factors are at play, what complications can happen. Ever heard of the phrase "You don't know what you don't know"

A simulation is a simulation. It's not fact. It's a best guess.

Yes, I know I am talking to a guy who believes Methuselah was literally 900 years old.

I see no issue with this. Early humans were genetically perfect and without defect. We don't know what makes us age, but what if you could "turn it off"? Manipulate the genes that age you, and activate regenerative genes and force your body to re-create cells, that previously would be irreplaceable?

We don't know how God did things. It is entirely possible.

[CalmWind]

Do you feel any conflict between this and being part of the *Still pull out even if girl claims she's on birth control crew*?

That's just a belief and a joke. I don't have casual sex.

[MaximosJ]

That's just a belief and a joke. I don't have casual sex.

Okay, was just curious. Saw your post and then your crews and was like uwotm8?

[Kharvok]

So CalmWind, how do you explain vestigal anatomy and functions in humans?

[CalmWind]

So CalmWind, how do you explain vestigal anatomy and functions in humans?

I think that's a loaded question.

What specific functions are vestigial?

[GregariousWolf]

Evolution is a fact. For example, we make use of the fact evolution happens when prospecting for oil. The field of micropalaeontology is the study of the fossils of microscopic marine animals called diatoms. Over time new species of these organisms evolve and spread throughout the oceans. Knowing about these fossil species helps geologists characterize mineral deposits under the sea floor and predict where to drill for oil.

[Kharvok]

I think that's a loaded question.

What specific functions are vestigial?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

at a glance

[ThoughtRiot]

I think that's a loaded question.

What specific functions are vestigial?

The appendix.

[MaximosJ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

at a glance

Possessor of Darwin's tubercule checking in.

[CalmWind]

The appendix.

[CalmWind]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

at a glance

The coccyx, aka tailbone, actually has a very important use in our bodies and is not vestigial at all. Nine muscles of the pelvic region all attach to it.

Quoting from an article :

The coccyx is the anchor point for the muscles that form the entire pelvic diaphragm. Therefore, while the coccyx has a clear function in humans today, the only reason to claim that the function has been modified is because of evolutionary assumptions. If you believe that humans descended from animals that possessed tails, then there must have been a modification of the tailbone. In contrast, if our ancestor Adam was created by God then there was no modification, and our tailbone is just as it always was. Without the evolutionary presupposition, the evidence that the tailbone is vestigial evaporates.

[Kharvok]

The coccyx, aka tailbone, actually has a very important use in our bodies and is not vestigial at all.

Quoting from an article :

The coccyx is the anchor point for the muscles that form the entire pelvic diaphragm. Therefore, while the coccyx has a clear function in humans today, the only reason to claim that the function has been modified is because of evolutionary assumptions. If you believe that humans descended from animals that possessed tails, then there must have been a modification of the tailbone. In contrast, if our ancestor Adam was created by God then there was no modification, and our tailbone is just as it always was. Without the evolutionary presupposition, the evidence that the tailbone is vestigial evaporates.

So why would god make a bone like a shortened tail if he built humans from stratch?

Way to not address hardly any of the other functions.

What about the routing laryngeal nerve?

[CalmWind]

So why would god make a bone like a shortened tail if he built humans from stratch?

What does it matter what shape it is? It has a function, as almost a dozen muscles need to attach to it.

Way to not address hardly any of the other functions.

What about the routing laryngeal nerve?

I think, after debunking two of the ones on the list, I have no further need to go for more. The third one I read, about the ear, and how we have muscles attached to it and you can't move the ear, so it's "vestigial" is a crock of ****. I can move my ears just fine. I can move both at the same time, or each one independently, and move them a lot.

[Mr Beer]

It's all a joke, just humans being haughty and thinking too much of themselves.

It's funny because the real reason that creationists reject evolution is an emotional response to the notion that they are not qualitatively different and special in comparison to the rest of life on Earth, the "I'm not a monkey Mr Darwin!" rebuttal if you will.

[MaximosJ]

The coccyx, aka tailbone, actually has a very important use in our bodies and is not vestigial at all.

Vestigial body parts are not body parts that have no use. From the Wikipedia article you were supposed to look at:

In the context of human evolution, human vestigiality involves those characters (such as organs or behaviors) occurring in the human species that are considered vestigial—in other words having lost all or most of their original function through evolution. Although structures usually called "vestigial" often appear functionless, a vestigial structure may retain lesser functions or develop minor new ones.

What do you make of the fact that the coccyx develops from an observable embryonic tail seemingly shared by all mammals? What do you make of the fact that the tail sometimes remains in humans (even possessing vertebrae or cartilage)?

The fact that the coccyx still has some functions does not show that it is not vestigial. And you don't need "evolutionary assumptions" to come to think that it is vestigial. Instead, all you need to do is do some reasoning to the best explanation using the data that we all have available. If the function of the coccyx in humans was, as your quote from "an article" maintains, to serve as "the anchor point for the muscles that form the entire pelvic diaphragm," then there is no reason to expect that it should initially form as an actual tail, in the same way it forms in other mammals, and sometimes even remains after birth. That would be entirely unnecessary and superfluous. On the other hand, if the coccyx is in fact the vestigial remnant of a tail, then one would expect it to initially form as a tail (as it does with all other mammals) that is ultimately absorbed, thought it remains at times. So, the hypothesis that it is in fact the vestigial remnant of a tail best fits the data. This is particularly so given that the tail actually sometimes includes its own vertebrae, cartilage, muscles, nerves, and so on, and can even be moved via muscle contractions -- functions that go well beyond merely serving as "an anchor point for the muscles that form the entire pelvic diaphragm."

What's more, this sort of evidence combines with evidence indicating that humans share certain genes with all other animals that possess tails and that express themselves at the same phase of embryonic development (see here, for example: http://news.discovery.com/animals/an...es-embryos.htm). The genes that control the development of tails in mice and other vertebrates have been identified; they also exist in the human genome. This is exactly what one would expect if it were true that the coccyx is vestigial, so the hypothesis that it is vestigial is further confirmed. Additionally, if the coccyx is vestigial, resulting from shared genetic material that is expressed during embryonic development across mammalian species, then we should expect that the embryos of such species at least sometimes look very similar at certain phases of development. This is also what we find, constituting some additional reason to make the inference that the coccyx is indeed vestigial.

None of this reasoning requires assuming that evolution occurs. All that it requires is looking at the total data and making the most reasonable inference in the light of the evidence, using a familiar kind of reasoning that we all regularly employ (e.g., inference to the best explanation).

[_Ryan_]

It's funny because the real reason that creationists reject evolution is an emotional response to the notion that they are not qualitatively different and special in comparison to the rest of life on Earth, the "I'm not a monkey Mr Darwin!" rebuttal if you will.

Why even argue with him? He's proven time and time again that he is scientifically illiterate. Or rather, simply ignores strong evidence against his backless belief.

Since it's apparent that he takes the bible literally, then that also means he believes the Moon to be an independent light source. Can't argue evidence, logic, and reason with someone who doesn't value either of those.

[illriginalized]

OP what do you expect? You have atheists parading around claiming that the, "how" is the, "why" and because they make this claim, they believe that there is no such thing as God.

You want people to be capable of understanding evolution? Stop adding the idea that evolution debunks God.


Here's a better idea.. point them towards actual scientists and don't let the atheist-trolls try to educate those who won't take the time to learn the theory of evolution.

[_Ryan_]

OP what do you expect? You have atheists parading around claiming that the, "how" is the, "why" and because they make this claim, they believe that there is no such thing as God.

You want people to be capable of understanding evolution? Stop adding the idea that evolution debunks God.


Here's a better idea.. point them towards actual scientists and don't let the atheist-trolls try to educate those who won't take the time to learn the theory of evolution.

Fully agree. A belief in God (or Gods) can work just fine with the theory of evolution, assuming one doesn't take scripture literally.

[CalmWind]

Fully agree. A belief in God (or Gods) can work just fine with the theory of evolution, assuming one doesn't take scripture literally.

Actually, you can take scripture literally and fit it with evolution.

The only issue is Humans.

[CalmWind]

Vestigial body parts are not body parts that have no use. From the Wikipedia article you were supposed to look at:

If a body part has a use, then claiming it to be vestigial is pure imagination. Without the assumption of evolution, then the idea of a vestigial body part is a fantasy and would not exist.

[ThoughtRiot]

If humans were made by God and in His image, then why are we so inefficient at giving birth?

[ODBM]

CalmWind just subscribed to a belief in a theory regarding the functionality of the human appendix based on less evidence than is on hand for the theory of evolution.

[MaximosJ]

If a body part has a use, then claiming it to be vestigial is pure imagination.

That is not what "vestigial" means. Refer to the article already given to you.

Without the assumption of evolution, then the idea of a vestigial body part is a fantasy and would not exist.

This is a strong non-response (a mere assertion) that completely ignores everything I just said. Unfortunately, this is the way I see you ultimately end up responding in every one of these threads, so I'm not really surprised.

EDIT: You might also stop and really ask yourself whether you are ignoring this material and coming to the conclusions to which you come because of your own assumptions about evolution. Based on your posts that I have seen, I suspect that that is the case.

[CalmWind]

That is not what "vestigial" means. Refer to the article already given to you.

Once again, if a body part has a function, then why would someone claim it to be vestigial, "lesser than before"?

How exactly do you know that a body part once had a greater function? How do you know that the body part in question, wasn't ALWAYS like this?

The answer is, you need the evolution assumption. You go into the question with a corrupted mind, and see vestigial parts where there are none. If you go into the situation believing in evolution, you see a vestigial body part. Even if it has a function, you will claim "it's a smaller secondary function", even though you have no proof of that.

Meanwhile, it could very well be that the body part was always like this, and this so called "lesser secondary function" is actually it's primary one.

[MaximosJ]

Once again, if a body part has a function, then why would someone claim it to be vestigial, "lesser than before"?

How exactly do you know that a body part once had a greater function? How do you know that the body part in question, wasn't ALWAYS like this?

The answer is, you need the evolution assumption. You go into the question with a corrupted mind, and see vestigial parts where there are none.

I already explained all of this. These^ are more mere assertions (and questions that I have already addressed). You have a knee-jerk reaction to evolution that you really need to honestly assess.

[CalmWind]

If humans were made by God and in His image, then why are we so inefficient at giving birth?

What does inefficient mean to you?

Loaded question

[_Ryan_]

Actually, you can take scripture literally and fit it with evolution.

The only issue is Humans.

There's already contradictions in the first and second chapter of Genesis.

[1:27] So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Prior to this, he created animals first.

Chapter two we see that Adam was created first and is alone so God creates animals and then a woman from his rip.

Please explain how taking this literally makes sense....