I tire of hardcore creationists poo pooing evolution. There are thousands of examples of vestigial limbs and organs throughout nature.
In human anatomy, the vermiform appendix is a great example. This 'wormlike' blind ended tube connected to the cecum near the junction of the small intestine and the large intestine serves no apparent useful purpose. In fact, some people are born without it all together. Some think that the appendix hold a minor role in supporting the immune system, but, a more likely explanation is that it is an evolutionary digestic tract hold over from when our diets consisted a significant quantity of roots, grasses and berries.
Another classic example is the small bones located in the muscles of many whale body walls that are vestigial bones of hips and hind limbs.
Can y'all pull your heads out of the sand long enough to explain to me why these are not examples of evolution in action?
Originally posted by Hand of Hecate I tire of hardcore creationists poo pooing evolution. There are thousands of examples of vestigial limbs and organs throughout nature.
In human anatomy, the vermiform appendix is a great example. This 'wormlike' blind ended tube connected to the cecum near the junction of the small intestine and the large intestine serves no apparent useful pur t of the sand long enough to explain to me why these are not examples of evolution in action?
Well as far as not using your appendix, speak for yourself. I use mine for a variety of acitivities thank you very much!! You know, the old addage if ya don't use it you loose it applies here I think. 😛
Edit: Not all creationists "poo-poo" evolution including myself.
Originally posted by Hand of Hecate I tire of hardcore creationists poo pooing evolution. There are thousands of examples of vestigial limbs and organs throughout nature.
In human anatomy, the vermiform appendix is a great example. This 'wormlike' blind ended tube connected to the cecum near the junction of the small intestine and the large intestine serves no apparent useful pur t of the sand long enough to explain to me why these are not examples of evolution in action?
Expected Creationist response: Who says that these vesitgials have no purpose?
Originally posted by Goatboysrevenge Humans use only an estimated 10% of their brain. If god created us in his own image, does he only use 10% of his??
Speak for yourself, the rest of my brain is being used to store various pornographic and hedonistic images.
Originally posted by Hand of Hecate I tire of hardcore creationists poo pooing evolution. There are thousands of examples of vestigial limbs and organs throughout nature.
In human anatomy, the vermiform appendix is a great example. This 'wormlike' blind ended tube connected to the cecum near the junction of the small intestine and the large intestine serves no apparent useful pur ...[text shortened]... t of the sand long enough to explain to me why these are not examples of evolution in action?
Some think that the appendix hold a minor role in supporting the immune system, but, a more likely explanation is that it is an evolutionary digestic tract hold over from when our diets consisted a significant quantity of roots, grasses and berries.
Is this a fact or your own conclusion. What evidences support this claim? When were humans eating roots, grasses, and berries?
Originally posted by ahosyney [b]Some think that the appendix hold a minor role in supporting the immune system, but, a more likely explanation is that it is an evolutionary digestic tract hold over from when our diets consisted a significant quantity of roots, grasses and berries.
Is this a fact or your own conclusion. What evidences support this claim? When were humans eating roots, grasses, and berries?[/b]
Wait, you're criticizing the article for offering a potential use (albeit an extant one) for the organ? The point of the OP was for a creationist to explain why an Intelligent Designer would have put these seemingly useless items in our bodies, especially when some of them are prone to causing problems.
Originally posted by telerion Wait, you're criticizing the article for offering a potential use (albeit an extant one) for the organ? The point of the OP was for a creationist to explain why an Intelligent Designer would have put these seemingly useless items in our bodies, especially when some of them are prone to causing problems.
Do you have any ideas?
I'm talking about this:
a more likely explanation is that it is an evolutionary digestic tract hold over from when our diets consisted a significant quantity of roots, grasses and berries
What makes this explaination the more likely one? Matching your believes is not enough reason to make the more likely explaination!
Don't you agree?
--------------------------
Talking about the intelligent designer , can an intelligent designer intentionally design something with problems he knows?
Originally posted by ahosyney [b]Some think that the appendix hold a minor role in supporting the immune system, but, a more likely explanation is that it is an evolutionary digestic tract hold over from when our diets consisted a significant quantity of roots, grasses and berries.
Is this a fact or your own conclusion. What evidences support this claim? When were humans eating roots, grasses, and berries?[/b]
This was Darwin's hypothesis I believe.
Darwin, Charles (1871). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. John Murray: London.
Here's a site that goes into detail and has a number of references:
Originally posted by ahosyney I'm talking about this:
[b]a more likely explanation is that it is an evolutionary digestic tract hold over from when our diets consisted a significant quantity of roots, grasses and berries
What makes this explaination the more likely one? Matching your believes is not enough reason to make the more likely explaination!
Don't you agree?
----- ...[text shortened]... designer , can an intelligent designer intentionally design something with problems he knows?[/b]
Of course I agree, but I think your question distracts from the thread. The central point of the OP is to challenge creationists to give a reasonable explaination for why we have vestigials, not to defend an evolutionary hypothesis about the original purpose of that particular organ.
Originally posted by telerion Of course I agree, but I think your question distracts from the thread. The central point of the OP is to challenge creationists to give a reasonable explaination for why we have vestigials, not to defend an evolutionary hypothesis about the original purpose of that particular organ.
I should have left out the hypothesis regarding the original purpose of the organ. My intent was not to confuse the issue, but, to be objective and fair in my argument.
ahosyney is simply dodging the issue by focusing on a minor point.
Creationism Vs The Vermiform Appendix
09 Sep '07 18:32
Back to Top