Question for anti-Evolutionists

[Thunder]

If you guys don't believe in Evolution of man from lower species, how do you explain:

-human finger nails and toe nails.

-the human tail bone.

there is no true functional reason for "God" to have given us finger and toe nails. did he expect us to hunt with them? the only logical explenation is that they used to be claws...millions of years ago.

the same thing, with the tail bone. we dont have tails, yet we have a tail bone. why would "God" give us this useless bone? the only logical explenation, is that we evolved from animals that had a tail.

[ServiceSoon]

I think the standard answer is that the devil did it to trick you.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by parky76

If you guys don't believe in Evolution of man from lower species, how do you explain:

I reject the term "lower". All species alive today are exactly as evolved as humans. Humans are here because our ancestors were fitter than other organisms around them, not because they were in any sense higher except in brain function.

Quote:

-human finger nails and toe nails.

I thought they did have the purpose of providing some rigidity to the tips of the fingers and toes. Actually, I was pondering my answer to this question while opening a can of beer. At exactly the moment when I was wondering what fingernails are for, I was hooking one of them under the ring pull.

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by parky76

If you guys don't believe in Evolution of man from lower species, how do you explain:

-human finger nails and toe nails.

-the human tail bone.

there is no true functional reason for "God" to have given us finger and toe nails. did he expect us to hunt with them? the only logical explenation is that they used to be claws...millions of years ago.

the same thing, with the tail bone. we dont have tails, yet we have a tail bone. why would "God" give us this useless bone? the only logical explenation, is that we evolved from animals that had a tail.

They sure come in handy when you got an itch.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by parky76

If you guys don't believe in Evolution of man from lower species, how do you explain:

-human finger nails .

One word: boogers

[geni]

Originally Posted by parky76

If you guys don't believe in Evolution of man from lower species, how do you explain:

-human finger nails and toe nails.

-the human tail bone.

Weak. Finger nails and toe nails provide useful protection just as they do in the other great apes.

The Coccyx is used as an anchor for muscles and may have uses related to sitting. Again much like the other apes.

Wisdom teeth and certian ear muscles would probably be better examples. Goose bumps and the plica semilunaris would be other options.

[plumjam]

It's amazing how this stuff persists in the popular mind. I guess nonsense does when it supports the prevailing world view.
See below for the coccyx.
As for fingernails.. how many times do you use them per day? At least dozens I'd say. If you didn't have them what would you use instead? We'd all have to be issued at birth with Swiss Army Knives.


from http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/tailbone.html

Quote:

Contributions of The Coccyx
The coccyx is triangular in shape and attached to the bottom of the sacrum. Its name “coccyx” means cuckoo; it was named because of its resemblance to a cuckoo’s bill—see Walker (1987:253). Because it is not connected to the ribs, the coccyx does not have pedicles, lamina, or spinous processes that are present on certain other vertebrae. The coccygeal vertebrae have only three transverse grooves which provide an attachment to the ventral sacrococcygeal ligaments and the levatores aid, two broad thin muscles which form part of the hammock-like floor of the pelvis. These muscles function as a single sheet which extends across the middle line, forming the principal part of the pelvic diaphragm and support for the rectum. The coccygeus muscle also helps to support the posterior organs of the pelvic floor, especially during blocked forced expiration, as in elimination.

Edited by Darat:

Breach of Rule 4 removed.

[Foster Zygote]

I would like them to explain the fact that humans and chimpanzees have the same random mutations in the unused portions of their DNA. What other explanation can account for this other than that those mutations first occurred in the population from which came the common ancestor of humans and chimps?

[geni]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

I would like them to explain the fact that humans and chimpanzees have the same random mutations in the unused portions of their DNA. What other explanation can account for this other than that those mutations first occurred in the population from which came the common ancestor of humans and chimps?

Have fun trying to rigiously prove that they are unused.

[Wowbagger]

I would like to know how Intelligent Design, or some other variation of Creationism, could be applied to medical research, to help us fight diseases.

You never seem to see I.D. proponents developing solutions to real scientific problems.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by plumjam

It's amazing how this stuff persists in the popular mind. I guess nonsense does when it supports the prevailing world view.
See below for the coccyx.
As for fingernails.. how many times do you use them per day? At least dozens I'd say. If you didn't have them what would you use instead? We'd all have to be issued at birth with Swiss Army Knives.


from http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/tailbone.html

It continues to amaze me how Creationists and ID-iots continue to not understand that vestigial does not mean useless...but then they never bother to do things like learn.

BTW: You still haven't explained the development of the tailbone and fingernails using your ID/Creation "Science". Evolution explains it very well.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by plumjam

It's amazing how this stuff persists in the popular mind. I guess nonsense does when it supports the prevailing world view.
{snip}]

Originally Posted by paximperium

It continues to amaze me how Creationists and ID-iots continue to not understand that vestigial does not mean useless...but then they never bother to do things like learn.

BTW: You still haven't explained the development of the tailbone and fingernails using your ID/Creation "Science". Evolution explains it very well.

Exactly. It means "a vestige" of a former or greater function. I can wiggle my ears and pick things up with my feet like other species, decended from our LCAs can do, but not as well as they can. That doesn't mean my ears are going to fall off or that my toes are useless.

aside to Plumjam, you could probably find a more robust source for your superfluous* response than an angelfire page.

*

[Baby Nemesis]

Oh for goodness' sake, you two, at least read what he posted before condemning it.

Of course, anyone who wants the truth of the matter need only follow the third link in my signature.

[Baby Nemesis]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

I would like to know how Intelligent Design, or some other variation of Creationism, could be applied to medical research, to help us fight diseases.

You never seem to see I.D. proponents developing solutions to real scientific problems.

It would be interesting if you could elaborate on what evolutionary biology does.

I do think this is an interesting article: Evolutionary Biology: Technology for the 21st Century.

Quote:

Evolutionary biology is central to the development of:
•*drug/chemical compounds for medical use
•*methods for tracking pathogens, i.e., infectious diseases
•*biochemicals for medicine and other industrial use
•*data that reveals relationships among organisms

...

Drug resistance and chemical resistance in microbes, plants, and animals. In the latter half of this century, industry has been exceptionally good at providing compounds to kill viruses, bacteria, insects that eat crops and weeds that grow in crop fields. We even have an abundance of chemotherapy drugs to kill rogue cancer cells. Yet virtually without exception, our attempts to kill these organisms cause them to evolve resistance against the chemicals used to kill them. For example:
AIDS is an example of a virus that evolves to thwart its destruction.
•*Isolates of the AIDS virus with up to 15 different drug-resistance mutations are known, and the latest drugs are becoming ineffective.
•*Some strains of bacteria are resistant to all available antibiotics.
•*For multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, surgery is the only cure because antibiotics don’t work and only 50% of those infected survive.
•*Chemotherapy for cancer often fails because drug-resistant cells evolve during treatment.
•*Pesticide resistance and herbicide resistance is so common now that the financial incentive to make new pesticides and herbicides is break-even or worse.

Evolutionary biology suggests how best to prolong the useful life of drugs/chemicals. The amounts of chemicals used, what combinations of chemicals to use, and when to apply them are all questions that can be assessed from the perspective of preventing or slowing the evolution of resistance. In some cases now, the companies marketing the compounds have a financial interest in maintaining the longevity of their product, and they are funding studies by evolutionary biologists to develop wise use protocols. In other cases, however, economic and emotional forces dictate policies that speed up the evolution of resistance (e.g., patients demand and physicians write prescriptions for antibiotics for viral infections; antibiotics are used in animal feed). ...

Yuck.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Originally Posted by Baby Nemesis

Oh for goodness' sake, you two, at least read what he posted before condemning it.

Of course, anyone who wants the truth of the matter need only follow the third link in my signature.

I did read the whole thing, Plumjam is wrong and the other two you're whining at were right. The article relies on the common misconception, mostly creationists and ID-iots, that vestigial means useless. The only requirement for an organ to be labeled vestigial is for the organ to have existed in a previous form that held more apparent or greater use. The coccyx, to use this example, existed previously and is the remnants of a vestigial tail. It's useful in being a part of a weight-baring structure that acts as support for sitting and as an attachment for various muscles, tendons, and ligaments. The problem you, Plumjam, and the article he referenced is making is that if an organ becomes vestigial it is more than welcome by our biological functions to assume new minor functions or continue lesser ones. Vestigial organs are only removed if they are burdensome to the population. Take junk DNA for example, largely useless yet most of the human genome is made-up of junk DNA.

A better example of vestigial organs would be male nipples. Junk DNA is another great example, new research is coming out showing that junk DNA may be even more useless than we originally thought, yes that's despite the wave of headlines informing us to "stop trashing junk DNA" that came out in 2007. Or, to break into other animals, explain the vestigial eyes of blind mole rats.

[Baby Nemesis]

Edited by Darat:

Breach of Rule 11 removed.

Now I'm going to whine at you, big time!

The first post in this thread obviously implied that there would be no reason for God to create finger-and-toenails and the coccyx, since there was no use for them. Plumjam's post was explaining that in fact there is a use for them, and thus it's reasonable to assume God created them. That was all he meant by it, if I understand correctly. Since the article was too squeamish-making and technical for me, I didn't read it all, so the two I complained at might have been correctly responding to points in the article. But they did seem to be totally missing the point as regards the purpose of him putting it there.

Why were all the headlines asking people not to "trash" "junk DNA" invalid? (In layman's language, please.)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Baby Nemesis

Oh for goodness' sake, you two, at least read what he posted before condemning it.

Why? It's the same creationist nonsense I've been dealing with for years based on a straw man that evolutionary theory claims that vestigial structures are useless. That's not what evolutionary theory says though. If you want to read a very layman friendly version of what evolutionary theory actually predicts in terms of vestigials read this.

Originally Posted by Baby Nemesis

{snip crazy breathless stuff}The first post in this thread obviously implied that there would be no reason for God to create finger-and-toenails and the coccyx, since there was no use for them.{snip}

Which is why I only responded to plumjam's straw man post instead of chiming in agreeing with parky's OP. I'm assuming KF's response was with a similar intent.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Originally Posted by Baby Nemesis

The first post in this thread obviously implied that there would be no reason for God to create finger-and-toenails and the coccyx, since there was no use for them. Plumjam's post was explaining that in fact there is a use for them, and thus it's reasonable to assume God created them. That was all he meant by it, if I understand correctly. Since the article was too squeamish-making and technical for me, I didn't read it all, so the two I complained at might have been correctly responding to points in the article. But they did seem to be totally missing the point as regards the purpose of him putting it there.

Why were all the headlines asking people not to "trash" "junk DNA" invalid? (In layman's language, please.)

Well I'd question why creator-deities would create humanity with organs that could so easily be confused with older organs from other animals that could now be considered vestigial when they're in fact being used for the purpose "god" intended for them. It makes said creator-deity appear dishonest to put it simply. And I agree that toe-nails and the coccyx is a bad example, particularly since the coccyx is rather important. There are better examples to be had.

The new research has focused around deleting junk DNA from animals and observing changes in behavior, appearance, and the like. You could also make observations in organisms who naturally have no junk DNA such as puffer-fish. I believe researchers have removed the junk DNA from a mouse entirely and it functioned as normal. The headlines I've noticed were making haughty claims about unproven hypothesis. A google search won’t turn up much I’m afraid, neither will wikipedia and much of this research is fairly recent.

Read me.

[sphenisc]

Originally Posted by plumjam;4131743...

As for fingernails.. how many times do you use them per day? At least dozens I'd say. If you didn't have them what would you use instead? We'd all have to be issued at birth with Swiss Army Knives.

How do you open a Swiss Army Knife?

[Baby Nemesis]

Edited by Darat:

Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

Or perhaps I can pull this conversation back from the brink. ... I know: What do you think of This? Does the human fetus temporarily develop gills, a tail, and a yolk sac?
"Did humans evolve from fish and is this “ancestry” reflected by so-called “embryonic recapitulation” and “vestigial” organs?"

Interesting stuff, eh? Or not? Don't expect me to know. Is it true, in your opinion?

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by Baby Nemesis

Or perhaps I can pull this conversation back from the brink. ... I know: What do you think of This? Does the human fetus temporarily develop gills, a tail, and a yolk sac?
"Did humans evolve from fish and is this “ancestry” reflected by so-called “embryonic recapitulation” and “vestigial” organs?"

Interesting stuff, eh? Or not? Don't expect me to know. Is it true, in your opinion?

Yes, not very interesting at all... and also very old, boring and rather retarded. Non-scientific Creationists should not play with science when they don't understand it.

But I'll play:
Gills:Not really
"Human embryos do not have gill slits; they have pharyngeal pouches. In fish, these develop into gills, but in reptiles, mammals, and birds, they develop into other structures and are never even rudimentary gills. Calling them gill slits is reading Darwinian theory into the evidence. There is no way gill slits can serve as evidence for evolution."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB704.html

Tails: YES
"One of the most striking is the existence of the rare "true human tail" (also variously known as "coccygeal process", "coccygeal projection", "caudal appendage", and "vestigial tail"). More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988). Pseudo-tails are not true tails; they are simply lesions of various types coincidentally found in the caudal region of newborns, often associated with the spinal column, coccyx, and various malformations."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...l#atavisms_ex2

Yolk Sac:YES
"Carnegie Stage 11 human embryo, 3 mm long, (14 somites) showing amniotic and yolk sacs. Note: amniotic sac (relatively tense), yolk sac (less tense), head fold region, region of heart tube ventral to the head fold, and the somites. The opaque walls of the left umbilical vein are seen clearly in the body wall just ventral to the somites. The connecting stalk passes to the right of the caudal part of the embryo across the chorionic sac and out of the picture! The whole structure is bathed by chorionic fluid (from Exalto et al., 1980).
http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/medicine/BGDlab8.htm

[paximperium]

BTW: Oh baby Nemesis, you should never use a self created Creationist straw man.

Because this argument of "Did humans evolve from fish and is this “ancestry” reflected by so-called “embryonic recapitulation” and “vestigial” organs?" has not been a part of biology or evolution in over 100 years.

Please come to the modern times or do you want to argue about leaches and blood letting?

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Originally Posted by Baby Nemesis

Or perhaps I can pull this conversation back from the brink. ... I know: What do you think of This? Does the human fetus temporarily develop gills, a tail, and a yolk sac?
"Did humans evolve from fish and is this “ancestry” reflected by so-called “embryonic recapitulation” and “vestigial” organs?"

Paximperium beat me to it, but he did a good job.

Here check these links out.

Boom!

Bam!

Pow!

Piff!

Spat!

[Baby Nemesis]

Originally Posted by paximperium

Yes, not very interesting at all... and also very old, boring and rather retarded. Non-scientific Creationists should not play with science when they don't understand it.

But I'll play:
Gills:Not really
"Human embryos do not have gill slits; they have pharyngeal pouches. In fish, these develop into gills, but in reptiles, mammals, and birds, they develop into other structures and are never even rudimentary gills. Calling them gill slits is reading Darwinian theory into the evidence. There is no way gill slits can serve as evidence for evolution."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB704.html

Tails: YES
"One of the most striking is the existence of the rare "true human tail" (also variously known as "coccygeal process", "coccygeal projection", "caudal appendage", and "vestigial tail"). More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988). Pseudo-tails are not true tails; they are simply lesions of various types coincidentally found in the caudal region of newborns, often associated with the spinal column, coccyx, and various malformations."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...l#atavisms_ex2

Yolk Sac:YES
"Carnegie Stage 11 human embryo, 3 mm long, (14 somites) showing amniotic and yolk sacs. Note: amniotic sac (relatively tense), yolk sac (less tense), head fold region, region of heart tube ventral to the head fold, and the somites. The opaque walls of the left umbilical vein are seen clearly in the body wall just ventral to the somites. The connecting stalk passes to the right of the caudal part of the embryo across the chorionic sac and out of the picture! The whole structure is bathed by chorionic fluid" (from Exalto et al., 1980).
http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/medicine/BGDlab8.htm

This bit of the article's interesting though, and a bit scandallous, if true:

Quote:

The concept of vestigial organs even resulted in cases of “evolutionary medical malpractice.” Young children once had their healthy and helpful, disease-fighting
tonsils removed because of the widespread belief that they were only useless vestiges. That idea actually slowed down scientific research for many years.
If you believe something is a useless, nonfunctional leftover of evolution, then you don’t bother to find out what it does.

Have such attitudes really slowed down scientific progress in some spheres? On another forum once, I spoke to someone who felt sure a back problem he had was a flaw in evolutionary design; and I wondered if such a conclusive attitude in scientists might stop investigation into other possible causes and thus what could actually be done about itsince they might think it was something that couldn't be fixed by anything other than altering the design - i.e. doing something surgically. Or would that happen? What I have heard of is doctors attributing back pain to entirely organic causes and thus leaving patients with little hope, when it's later discovered that their pain can be diminished quite a lot by reductions in stressful living conditions - muscle tension obviously made their back pain a lot worse, - and changes in posture.

[Baby Nemesis]

Originally Posted by Kthulhut Fhtagn

Paximperium beat me to it, but he did a good job.

Here check these links out.

Boom!

Bam!

Pow!

Piff!

Spat!

Where's Plumjam? He's got a lot of work to do if he wants to refute all those. LOL

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Originally Posted by Baby Nemesis

What might make them think it was discredited if it wasn't?

You'll notice the link Paximperium provided states that the human embryo does not have gills. Therefore, if the readers digest did publish this information, they are wrong. I know of no instance in which a human embryo had gills. There are much more common atavisms that help spread the lie of our godless theory.

Originally Posted by Baby Nemesis

And this bit of the article's interesting, and a bit scandallous, if true:

I'm curious what you're point is here. Our understanding of evolution and the human body changes ergo all of our understanding is wrong?

Originally Posted by Baby Nemesis

Have such attitudes really slowed down scientific progress in some spheres? On another forum once, I spoke to someone who felt sure a back problem he had was a flaw in evolutionary design; and I wondered if such a conclusive attitude in scientists might stop investigation into other possible causes and thus what could actually be done about itsince they might think it was something that couldn't be fixed by anything other than altering the design - i.e. doing something surgically. Or would that happen? What I have heard of is doctors attributing back pain to entirely organic causes and thus leaving patients with little hope, when it's later discovered that their pain can be diminished quite a lot by reductions in stressful living conditions - muscle tension obviously made their back pain a lot worse, - and changes in posture.

Well if we consider that our body hasn't developed a way to deal with back pain an evolutionary flaw I suppose he'd be correct. One of the flaws that comes to mind would be our inability to pump blood out of our brain. Our the fact that we breath and eat out of the same hole guaranteeing a portion of our population is going to choke to death.

Surgery can often be a reduce back pain. A friend of mine has breasts that are too large and have to be reduced because of her constant back pains. A woman's large breasts could be considered an evolutionary flaw that causes back pain. If you're suggesting that surgeons are going to start attempting to alter the shape of a person's body in order to avoid back-pain, I'm reminded of an episode of South Park in which Kyle was surgically made black so he could play basketball, than I think you have the wrong idea about how surgery works.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Originally Posted by Baby Nemesis

Where's Plumjam? He's got a lot of work to do if he wants to refute all those. LOL

I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by Baby Nemesis

This bit of the article's interesting though, and a bit scandallous, if true:

The concept of vestigial organs even resulted in cases of “evolutionary medical malpractice.” Young children once had their healthy and helpful, disease-fighting
tonsils removed because of the widespread belief that they were only useless vestiges. That idea actually slowed down scientific research for many years.
If you believe something is a useless, nonfunctional leftover of evolution, then you don’t bother to find out what it does.

That is the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Are Creationist plain ignorant liars or just stupid? Why don't you guys do some research?

Tonsils were considered useless because we did not know what it did. It was and continues to be a vestigial organ. It was researched, again and again and again.

Tonsils were removed because of the multitude of infections and other problems it caused. Nowadays due to SCIENCE and RESEARCH(wow...did we actually stop research?), we've found some vestigial uses for it. Because that's what it is, a vestigial organ. It has some minor uses in the immune system.

What's the scandal again? We discovered it was more harmful to remove tonsils than not and we changed our practise.

Quote:

Have such attitudes really slowed down scientific progress in some spheres? On another forum once, I spoke to someone who felt sure a back problem he had was a flaw in evolutionary design; and I wondered if such a conclusive attitude in scientists might stop investigation into other possible causes and thus what could actually be done about itsince they might think it was something that couldn't be fixed by anything other than altering the design - i.e. doing something surgically. Or would that happen? What I have heard of is doctors attributing back pain to entirely organic causes and thus leaving patients with little hope, when it's later discovered that their pain can be diminished quite a lot by reductions in stressful living conditions - muscle tension obviously made their back pain a lot worse, - and changes in posture.

Thanks for a single useless anecdote and an essential made up strawman. Do you have anymore?

What's your Creation Science and ID answer? Goddidit!!!

[Baby Nemesis]

Originally Posted by paximperium

BTW: Oh baby Nemesis, you should never use a self created Creationist straw man.

Because this argument of "Did humans evolve from fish and is this “ancestry” reflected by so-called “embryonic recapitulation” and “vestigial” organs?" has not been a part of biology or evolution in over 100 years.

Please come to the modern times or do you want to argue about leaches and blood letting?

Well why not? Leeches eat away dead tissue, and the sucking motion can re-start the circulation in areas where it had been damaged, thus preventing flesh from going rotten.

Yeah, why don't doctors use more leeches? I know, it's just the "yuck factor". If only people could be persuaded that leeches are really our long-lost evolutionary uncles who only want to do us good, then everyone would accept them. ... Then again, why would they? Since you suggest you're an evolutionary relative and all you seem to want to do is jump down the throat of anyone who throws an argument into the ring for discussion, why shouldn't they be scared that a leech would only want to jump down their throat? :-7

And as I suggested earlier in this thread, anyone who wants to know what I really believe about the creationism/evolution issue should follow the third link in my signature.

Failing that, take it that since whatever happened happened before I was born, I don't pretend to have any idea. (They weren't big on science educations at my school, and in the 134 years since I left, I've followed up on different interests.) :-7 Or something.

And it's interesting you should point out that the argument was discredited a long time ago; what you don't seem to realise is that that's exactly what the article I linked to suggests:

Quote:

In 1986, the Reader’s Digest Book of Facts published an erroneous “fact” that further spread a popular piece of evolutionary misinformation. They told readers that a human embryo re-traces the history of evolution: it develops slits in the neck like fish gills, it has a tail, and so on. This “fact” is so wrong that the idea was discredited and thrown out decades ago.

So you're basically accusing me of creating a straw man based on a premise that is itself one. :-7 Funny how this relates to what I said earlier - read what you're refuting first.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Ugh. I don't have time now (at home, nearly bed time {some of us in the U.S. work nights... even on weekends}) to address all the nonsense BN has posted, but this one just drove me nuts.

Originally Posted by Baby Nemesis

Well why not? Leeches eat away dead tissue...

Ummm. No. Leeches only suck blood. They don't have the jaws to "eat". Perhaps you're confusing the medical use of maggots to treat gangrene with the medical use of leeches to treat blod clots. Whatever the reason behind your misstatement, it shows you don't know enough about medicine or biology to be engaged in a discussion of whether structures which are considered vestigial according to evolutionary theory are or are not.

An error of this magnitude is the same as asserting that elephants use their trunks to extract nectar from flowers.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Originally Posted by Baby Nemesis

Well why not? Leeches eat away dead tissue, and the sucking motion can re-start the circulation in areas where it had been damaged, thus preventing flesh from going rotten.

Yeah, why don't doctors use more leeches? I know, it's just the "yuck factor". If only people could be persuaded that leeches are really our long-lost evolutionary uncles who only want to do us good, then everyone would accept them. ... Then again, why would they? Since you suggest you're an evolutionary relative and all you seem to want to do is jump down the throat of anyone who throws an argument into the ring for discussion, why shouldn't they be scared that a leech would only want to jump down their throat? :-7

What in the wide wide world of sports are you on about?

Quote:

And as I suggested earlier in this thread, anyone who wants to know what I really believe about the creationism/evolution issue should follow the third link in my signature.

I read it, it's stupid. The bit about chocolate was funny though. I take it you assume candy bars grow naturally in the wild.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by Baby Nemesis

Well why not? Leeches eat away dead tissue, and the sucking motion can re-start the circulation in areas where it had been damaged, thus preventing flesh from going rotten.

Nope. Maggots remove dead tissue. Leaches are used in very specific microvascular treatments of worries of microvascular clotting. We don't use leaches like how we did in the middle ages...it's called progress and science.

Quote:

Yeah, why don't doctors use more leeches?

Because there is only a few specific uses for it. We're trying to isolate the anticoagulant they produce. Just about got it.

Quote:

I know, it's just the "yuck factor".

No its because we know what they are good for.

Quote:

If only people could be persuaded that leeches are really our long-lost evolutionary uncles who only want to do us good, then everyone would accept them. ... Then again, why would they?

Thanks for showing your complete and utter ignorance of evolution. Bravo.

Quote:

Since you suggest you're an evolutionary relative and all you seem to want to do is jump down the throat of anyone who throws an argument into the ring for discussion, why shouldn't they be scared that a leech would only want to jump down their throat? :-7

Yawn...I treat Creationist like how they treat science. With disdain. If you were actually interested in learning, I'd be more than happy to have a discussion with you. But Creationist who love to dump lies and garbage from garbage sites, deserve to be hauled off and dumped out and buried under ridicule. You guys are a joke.

Quote:

And as I suggested earlier in this thread, anyone who wants to know what I really believe about the creationism/evolution issue should follow the third link in my signature.

Yawn...being coy? Either state your beliefs or we can all just read into your inane posts and decide on our own.

Quote:

Failing that, take it that since whatever happened happened before I was born, I don't pretend to have any idea. (They weren't big on science educations at my school, and in the 134 years since I left, I've followed up on different interests.) :-7 Or something.

Translation: "I'm ignorant therefore that gives me a license to post lies and BS." Thanks.

Quote:

And it's interesting you should point out that the argument was discredited a long time ago; what you don't seem to realise is that that's exactly what the article I linked to suggests:

In 1986, the Reader’s Digest Book of Facts published an erroneous “fact” that further spread a popular piece of evolutionary misinformation. They told readers that a human embryo re-traces the history of evolution: it develops slits in the neck like fish gills, it has a tail, and so on. This “fact” is so wrong that the idea was discredited and thrown out decades ago.

So you're basically accusing me of creating a straw man based on a premise that is itself one. :-7 Funny how this relates to what I said earlier - read what you're refuting first.

Yawn...Reader's Digest is the best you can do? BTW, its not a scientific journal or textbook. NOR is it a misinformation, it is a layperson's article based on ignorance.

It is nothing more than a pathetic Creationist strawman, an argument used by Creationists to "prove" that is long discredited "theory" is still believed by science. Get real. How sad.

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by paximperium

Tails: YES
"One of the most striking is the existence of the rare "true human tail" (also variously known as "coccygeal process", "coccygeal projection", "caudal appendage", and "vestigial tail"). More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988). Pseudo-tails are not true tails; they are simply lesions of various types coincidentally found in the caudal region of newborns, often associated with the spinal column, coccyx, and various malformations."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...l#atavisms_ex2

well this one always makes me laugh.
I thought the theory was that humans descended from apes.
Apes don't have tails.
Yet the fact that about 30 babies in known human history have had birth deformities resembling tails (clearly by those who are seeing what they want to find in order to fit the evidence to the theory) as some kind of proof that we descended from monkeys (which generally do have tails, unlike apes who are supposedly our nearest relatives).
Are there any examples of ape babies being born with these 'tails'? Given that apes are supposed to be evolutionarily closer to tailed monkeys then there should be quite a lot of such cases, at least more than in humans.

Please stand back a bit and ponder on the reasoning taking place here.

The belief is that we are descended from apes/monkeys. Therefore the believing mind actively looks for 'evidence' that will confirm this. But this leads to all kinds of ridiculous consequences.
To illustrate.
Imagine the belief is that creatures other than apes/monkeys are our closest evolutionary relatives. According to which belief was adopted (which particular creature) similar birth deformities would be similarly irrationally interpreted as some kind of supporting 'evidence'.

Belief - humans closest relatives are hares
Interpretation of birth defect - babies born with a hare-lip are evidence that we are descended from hares

B - humans closest relatives are spiders
I - Siamese twins with a total of 8 limbs are evidence that we are descended from spiders

B - leopards
I - babies with lots of moles on their skin are evidence that we used to be leopards

B - moles
I - humans born with poor eyesight are evidence that we are descended most directly from moles

B - snakes
I - babies born without limbs clearly demonstrate the human-snake cousin relationship

B - sloths
I - humans born with a penchant for sleeping in tree houses mean sloths are our closest relatives

B - monkeys (although it should really be apes)
I - babies born with something superficially resembling a tail mean we used to be monkeys... although it should really, according to theory, be apes, which are without tails.

So you get the picture. It's a case of people being so wedded to a theory that they interpret what they see, no matter how absurd and tenuous, as supporting evidence, despite clear problems (which I have detailed) with their rationale.

[calebprime]

Q. Plumjam, do you think humans evolved from some ape-like or monkey-like
primate? If not, why do you think not? If so, what's your passion here?

(not a trick question. just trying to figure out your angle.)

[Darat]

Attempted to clean-up the bickering and personal attacks wit ha few edits and a split to AAH. Also let me remind participants that this is the R&P section, if you wish to discuss the science of evolutionary theory please do so in the "Science...." section.

Posted By:Darat

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by calebprime

Q. Plumjam, do you think humans evolved from some ape-like or monkey-like
primate? If not, why do you think not? If so, what's your passion here?

(not a trick question. just trying to figure out your angle.)

My angle is something like this.
If we were to selectively breed humans in the direction of, say, chimpanzees I don't think we'd get anywhere near. Round about Danny Devito we'd hit the limits beyond which selective breeding could not pass. This has been shown to be the case both in millennia of selective breeding of livestock, plus more recently in intensive experimentation with creatures like fruit flies.

However, I am not entirely closed to the possibility of common descent.
If common descent took place I am definite that it did not take place via the natural selection of random mutations.
To put it simply, if the intelligent design practiced by humans via selective breeding cannot cross certain barriers then natural selection of random mutations doesn't have a hope in hell.
The only thing that, IMO, would have a hope in hell would be a form of intelligent design that goes way beyond human beings doing selective breeding. This of course would necessitate a super-intelligent designer.
How the super-intelligent designer might effect this I, unsurprisingly, do not know. If it was a kind of progressive transformation via super-intelligent re-arrangements of DNA then that would leave the road open to common descent. Intelligently designed common descent, which is very far from the Darwinian version.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Plumjam, look for the nearest palm you can find. Then please insert your face into said palm.

Originally Posted by plumjam

well this one always makes me laugh.
I thought the theory was that humans descended from apes.
Apes don't have tails.
Yet the fact that about 30 babies in known human history have had birth deformities resembling tails (clearly by those who are seeing what they want to find in order to fit the evidence to the theory) as some kind of proof that we descended from monkeys (which generally do have tails, unlike apes who are supposedly our nearest relatives).
Are there any examples of ape babies being born with these 'tails'? Given that apes are supposed to be evolutionarily closer to tailed monkeys then there should be quite a lot of such cases, at least more than in humans.

So Plummy boy are you prepared to make the claim that apes do not possess a coccyx? Because I can cite numerous sources that say they do. [1] [2]

Now as for atavisms; tails in humans aren't the only known atavism in existance. Darwin noted humans being born with large ape-like canines.

Quote:

The author of “The Ancestor Within,” Michael Le Page, cited the babies with tails as a likely example of atavism, a phenomenon in which ancestral traits suddenly reappear after thousands or even millions of years. Another example, one remarked on by Charles Darwin, is the appearance in some human mouths of large, ape-like canine teeth. (Stephen King, call your office.)

Now as for atavistic tails occurring in great apes. Well, first off, the odds of humans observing an atavism in apes in the wild is slim-to-none. Especially given the fact that many animal species murder infants with defects, the defective infant dies off of natural causes, or is simply left behind by it's family. However, normal chimpanzee infants are born with white tail tuft. Source

I'd also suggest you read up on the current taxonomic relationship between humans and apes. Humans did not descend from apes but in fact both of us are apes and both evolved from a common ancestor. Please see this chart and bare in mind that pan is referring to chimps and homo to humans.

For your final claim I'd like to see your evidence that, simply because the Great Apes look more like monkeys, there should be a higher rate of atavism amongst apes than in humans. Given how similar humans and chimps are on a genetic level, some current estimates are around 94%, I find that claim to be in question.

Quote:

Please stand back a bit and ponder on the reasoning taking place here.

...done. Your reasoning is still flawed.

Quote:

The belief is that we are descended from apes/monkeys. Therefore the believing mind actively looks for 'evidence' that will confirm this. But this leads to all kinds of ridiculous consequences.
To illustrate.

Again, we aren't descended from apes/monkeys. Name one scientist who says that. And while your at it please name one characteristic of humans that is not ape-like.

I could say the same of creationists. Arrive to the conclusion that creation is the only possible way species came about and find evidence to back that up. Your ability to show personal bias is irrelevant, what matters is the data.

Quote:

Imagine the belief is that creatures other than apes/monkeys are our closest evolutionary relatives. According to which belief was adopted (which particular creature) similar birth deformities would be similarly irrationally interpreted as some kind of supporting 'evidence'.

Yawn, I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to this. If we were descended from anything but apes we'd look more like that animal.

Quote:

Belief - humans closest relatives are hares
Interpretation of birth defect - babies born with a hare-lip are evidence that we are descended from hares

That's just stupid enough for me to totally ignore it. Next!

Quote:

B - humans closest relatives are spiders
I - Siamese twins with a total of 8 limbs are evidence that we are descended from spiders

Far rarer than tail atavisms.

Quote:

B - leopards
I - babies with lots of moles on their skin are evidence that we used to be leopards

Moles and spots on fur are not the same. This is a non-sequitur.

I don't even have the stomach to finish the rest of this list of stupidity.

[calebprime]

@plumjam

Thanks for a forthright and prompt response.

I don't particularly have a dog in this hunt, more like JAQing.

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by Kthulhut Fhtagn

Plumjam, look for the nearest palm you can find. Then please insert your face into said palm.



So Plummy boy are you prepared to make the claim that apes do not possess a coccyx? Because I can cite numerous sources that say they do. [1] [2]

Well, I read this far, and gave up.. but at least you gave me a laugh.
I didn't say apes don't have coccyxxxxxes. I said they don't have tails. My reponse was to Paxo regarding tails, not coccyccxxeckxxes.
If you're incapable of discerning the difference I invite you to test it out by going to your local park and attempting to swing through the trees with your coccyx.
If you're going to put some effort into replying please don't do yourself the disservice of trying to twist what I actually said into your cookie-cutter prepared response.

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by calebprime

@plumjam

Thanks for a forthright and prompt response.

I don't particularly have a dog in this hunt, more like JAQing.

Thanks Calebprime, very decent of you.