1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    19 May '08 22:30
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13927-five-things-humans-no-longer-need.html

    If creationists dare read this all the way through, maybe they will have to rethink their stance. How can they explain away unneeded organs?
    I am not talking about the appendix, which now has been pretty well proven to have a use after all (repopulates the guts with beneificial bacteria if they get killed off for whatever reason).
  2. Australia
    Joined
    16 Jan '04
    Moves
    7837
    20 May '08 02:11
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13927-five-things-humans-no-longer-need.html

    If creationists dare read this all the way through, maybe they will have to rethink their stance. How can they explain away unneeded organs?
    I am not talking about the appendix, which now has been pretty well proven to have a use after all (repopulates the guts with beneificial bacteria if they get killed off for whatever reason).
    I read that article a few days back, very interesting how some previous vestigial organs now have assigned functions. For that very reason we should probably be very careful in labelling vestigiality to anything, even the smallest part can secrete a hormone etc Also I have seen mixed definitions of the term:

    For example, sometimes vestigial organ means no function, others it means no longer being used as it was originally. This creates a large gap in its meaning.

    Do creationist need to explain vestigial organs? It depends upon the type of creationist they are I suppose. Some happily accept the evolutionary force acting upon life with a creation pre-cursor.

    Love the NS :0)
  3. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    20 May '08 04:35
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13927-five-things-humans-no-longer-need.html

    If creationists dare read this all the way through, maybe they will have to rethink their stance. How can they explain away unneeded organs?
    I am not talking about the appendix, which now has been pretty well proven to have a use after all (repopulates the guts with beneificial bacteria if they get killed off for whatever reason).
    Who cares what they think? If they cannot agree amongst themselves, i.e. their 'theory' is not consistent, why take them seriously at all?

    Why bring the creationists in here in the Science Forum at the first place? This should be discussed in the Spiritual Forum, and not here, because it is far away from Science anyway.

    Don't feed the trolls. Don't make them feel that their ideas is worth discussing at all.
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    20 May '08 10:09
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Who cares what they think? If they cannot agree amongst themselves, i.e. their 'theory' is not consistent, why take them seriously at all?

    Why bring the creationists in here in the Science Forum at the first place? This should be discussed in the Spiritual Forum, and not here, because it is far away from Science anyway.

    Don't feed the trolls. Don't make them feel that their ideas is worth discussing at all.
    True, and I doubt if any of them will respond anyway. I guess it's a moot subject. If it doesn't agree with their delusion, they just ignore it, I guess.
  5. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    20 May '08 11:38
    This link shows the methods of creationists, taking up one little detail and extrapolate it ad absurdum, coming to the conclusion that gives credits to their delution. They call it science (and present it at Science Forum) of the sole reason that they can quantify some of their 'stories'.

    This link is a'proof' that the moon is made of green cheese:
    http://www.planetfusion.co.uk/~pignut/cheese.html
  6. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    20 May '08 14:36
    Originally posted by timebombted
    I read that article a few days back, very interesting how some previous vestigial organs now have assigned functions. For that very reason we should probably be very careful in labelling vestigiality to anything, even the smallest part can secrete a hormone etc Also I have seen mixed definitions of the term:

    For example, sometimes vestigial organ mean ...[text shortened]... ly accept the evolutionary force acting upon life with a creation pre-cursor.

    Love the NS :0)
    Let's talk about the rear leg bones of a) snakes and b) whales then. Being specific helps sometimes.
  7. Australia
    Joined
    16 Jan '04
    Moves
    7837
    20 May '08 22:06
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Let's talk about the rear leg bones of a) snakes and b) whales then. Being specific helps sometimes.
    I agree, remnants of legs or wings are some of the clearest examples of vestigial traits based on current knowledge.
  8. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    21 May '08 04:00
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13927-five-things-humans-no-longer-need.html

    If creationists dare read this all the way through, maybe they will have to rethink their stance. How can they explain away unneeded organs?
    I am not talking about the appendix, which now has been pretty well proven to have a use after all (repopulates the guts with beneificial bacteria if they get killed off for whatever reason).
    The same way they eventually get out of every argument: the Unknown Purposes Defense.

    God has his reasons.
Back to Top