Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Vestiges
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 75 (8882)
04-24-2002 5:20 PM


I had copied this segment out of Joe Meerts post that apparently has been corrupted in this forum, this is the segment:
--Even though Vestiges have nothing against any (for)creationist argument, I do think a critique is highly needed here.
"Why did God give wings to the Penguin and the ostrich?"
--I'm sure any organismic biologist will tell you how useful a penguin's 'wings' are while doing what they do best, swim. An ostrich's rings are very useful in the sence that they would simply loose balance while going 60 km/h.
"Why did god give whales the vestiges of a leg or humans a tailbone?"
--If I am not mistaken, a whales 'legs' are very useful in mating, and a humans 'tail-bone' (coccyx) is likewize very useful. If I may insert an image from an anatomy text-book, I am quite sure the forum participants here are have the maturity to handle it unlike others I have spoken to on this vestige:

--Percy, I would be most appreciative if you would incert this into your image archive, it is quite small in file size (about 25k). If this isn't possible, I can understand, bandwidth is a bit of an obsticle at times.
--And If I may duplicate a descriptional table on the facing page, http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/evcforum/coccyx.htm
------------------

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 04-24-2002 9:29 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 2 of 75 (8895)
04-24-2002 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
04-24-2002 5:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Why did god give whales the vestiges of a leg or humans a tailbone?"
--If I am not mistaken, a whales 'legs' are very useful in mating, and a humans 'tail-bone' (coccyx) is likewize very useful. If I may insert an image from an anatomy text-book, I am quite sure the forum participants here are have the maturity to handle it unlike others I have spoken to on this vestige:

Whales forelimbs (flipper/fins) may be useful, but the hind ones aren't. In sperm whales, the vestigial hind limbs aren't even expressed in all individuals. The ones that do express vestigial hind limbs do so inconsistently, ie they have different numbers of bones present. These are true vestigial traits. Absolutely functionless, most of the population doesn't even have them.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 04-24-2002 5:20 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Philip, posted 04-26-2002 3:53 AM mark24 has not replied
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 04-26-2002 5:28 PM mark24 has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 3 of 75 (8993)
04-26-2002 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by mark24
04-24-2002 9:29 PM


Before the site crash, one member, I believe Quetzel, may have noted numerous 'vestigiloid' (vestigial-like) creatures/life-forms. Most appeared arbitrary enough, even quite ‘sarcastic’: i.e., the beetle which makes ‘homosexual jabs’. ‘mole’s eyes collecting bacteria infection, etc. The web, too, is full of such examples. But it might be noted:
1) ‘Vestigiloid’ appearing aspects of life-forms are cited to support Biblical ID of a God-‘cursed’ creation (if you will) awaiting ‘restoration’. (E.g., A serpent ‘crawls’ on its ‘belly’ and may have ‘stumps’ reminiscent of feet; one day they may become ‘excellent’ feet again in a ‘restored’ eco-structure.)
2) Doubtless, nothing in the human body (as a podiatric physician with a masters in biomedical science) I would ever call vestigial, but perhaps vestigiloid. The COCCYX is nearly perfectly integrated with the sacrum and ileum and in closed kinetic chain with both lower and upper anatomies (and their histologies), its slight alteration throws everything off into pathology: i.e., injuring the neuromuscular system, the lower extremity vascular channels, the upper and lower biomechanical complexities, and such, so that its placement is not changeable ... It’s design is perhaps not perfect, but it is as close to perfection as can be orthopedically construed or constructed. The human coccyx, I believe, is a ‘gross’ IC from this orthopedic perspective.
3) Human anatomy is the most studied life-form. I challenge anyone to find something vestigial in the human body norm. Doubtless, however, we may find vestigiloid appearing structures only, like ‘smelly feet’ (which do have a function).
HYPOTHESIS: Because vestigiality is so necessarily a byproduct of mutational evolution: No vestigiality in humans would = No viable mutational evolution model.
DATA/METHODS: At least centuries of data on human medicine/physiology/pathology.
EXPERIMENT/TEST: At least centuries of such.
RESULTS: No vestigiality yet discovered amidst kazillions of human molecules, cells, tissues, organs, gross anatomical structures, pathways, feedback-loops, neuro-systems, vascular systems, muscular systems, dermatological systems, hormonal systems, rheumatological systems, embryological systems, etc., etc., etc. No vestigial structures discovered within: Eyes, ears, nose, throat, head, neck, throat, lungs, back, chest, arms, hands, fingers, gynecological systems, urinary systems
(I see Zillions of fine-tuned ICs storming into my consciousness, HELP ME COME TO GRIPS Joe Meert, Quetzel, Percy, Shraf, to regain my zealous religious faith in ‘DNA-mutationalism’ and ‘pre-adaptationalism’)
Time would fail to demonstrate their conspicuous absence in the integument, the lower extremity and its complexities, the hormonal systems, digestive systems, renal and hepatic systems, etc., etc., etc.
CONCLUSION: No vestigiality in humans = No viable mutational evolution model.
Interestingly: (Mutational) evolution is absent to scant in virtually all medical texts, including those of gross anatomy, biochemistry, and physiology. Is Shraf correct to say: Application sciences like medicine utilize results of PhD sciences only. If so, I know not one beneficial use that medicine has attributed to (mutational) evolution and its studies. Because, the ‘art of medicine’ draws its knowledge base from both research and application scientists, primarily the ladder, via in vivo human experimentation. These medical scientists never use vestigial terms in law-suits to promote the standard of their care. They know it (mutational evolutionism) is preposterous, a veritable taboo before their patients, judges, and their own consciences, despite their agnostic/atheistic creeds.
[This message has been edited by Philip, 04-26-2002]
[This message has been edited by Philip, 04-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 04-24-2002 9:29 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by gene90, posted 04-26-2002 9:38 AM Philip has not replied
 Message 5 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 04-26-2002 9:49 AM Philip has not replied
 Message 6 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-26-2002 10:34 AM Philip has not replied
 Message 7 by gene90, posted 04-26-2002 12:28 PM Philip has replied
 Message 51 by Peter, posted 05-03-2002 5:44 AM Philip has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 4 of 75 (8999)
04-26-2002 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Philip
04-26-2002 3:53 AM


[QUOTE][b]No vestigiality yet discovered amidst kazillions of human molecules[/QUOTE]
[/b]
"Kazillions" ?
What good were my wisdom teeth?
Then you moved onto *molecules* in the human body, claiming that we use all of them. This could be prove to be interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Philip, posted 04-26-2002 3:53 AM Philip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 04-26-2002 5:32 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 75 (9000)
04-26-2002 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Philip
04-26-2002 3:53 AM


Ah, there you are Philip. 'Twas me with that post, though you misremember those examples. I lost both my access here for a few days, and my reply to yours, in the recent problems. I'll try to reconstruct my first post, since it's relevant to this thread in general. Your reply to mine didn't cut it, I'm afraid.
I'll set out my take on 'vestigials' again, then we'll see if your stuff makes any sense.
See ya soon,
DT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Philip, posted 04-26-2002 3:53 AM Philip has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 6 of 75 (9001)
04-26-2002 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Philip
04-26-2002 3:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
Doubtless, nothing in the human body (as a podiatric physician with a masters in biomedical science) I would ever call vestigial, but perhaps vestigiloid.
quote:
Human anatomy is the most studied life-form. I challenge anyone to find something vestigial in the human body norm.
Here are two from the general populace, goose bumps and the plantaris muscle. Goosebumps are a mechanism in mammels to raise fur in increase air trapping for warmth. Well, most people that I know can be covered in goose bumps and it will not help one bit to keep them warm. As for the plantaris muscle, in monkeys it causes all the digits to in the foot to flex at once, and allows gripping by the feet. In humans it is atrophied, may be absent, does not reach the toes(it disappears into the Achilles tendon). I will not even go into male nipples and wisdom teeth, not to mention the mechanics of the lower back.
quote:
No vestigiality yet discovered amidst kazillions of human molecules, cells,
Ever hear of a pseudogene. Ever hear of scurvy (caused by an inactive pseudo gene in the ascorbic acid synthetic pathway). Sorry but at the molecular level, especially in molecular biology, there is a lot of vestigial "stuff".
quote:
CONCLUSION: No vestigiality in humans = No viable mutational evolution model.
Real conclusion, vestigial organs and molecular characteristics do exist. Model for evolution accurate.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Philip, posted 04-26-2002 3:53 AM Philip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by TrueCreation, posted 04-26-2002 5:39 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 7 of 75 (9004)
04-26-2002 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Philip
04-26-2002 3:53 AM


[QUOTE][b]If so, I know not one beneficial use that medicine has attributed to (mutational) evolution and its studies. Because, the ‘art of medicine’ draws its knowledge base from both research and application scientists, primarily the ladder, via in vivo human experimentation.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Then why the experimentation on rhesus monkeys if most medical progress is from in vivo studies on humans?
I'm surprised at your statement because you claim credentials in medicine. Are you not familiar with microbial ecology? Antibiotic resistance? Human endogenous retroviral elements and their relationship to oncogenes? Mutations and their relationships to the epidemiology of malaria? The relationship between the defective CD4 protein and HIV? The mutation-driven variation of the H and N proteins on the surface coat of influenza virii and the choice of flu vaccines to produce the following year? What about the phrase "emerging disease" ?
You weren't aware of these?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Philip, posted 04-26-2002 3:53 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Philip, posted 04-26-2002 7:50 PM gene90 has replied

  
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 75 (9005)
04-26-2002 12:43 PM


I would like to know what would count as a vestigial feature to Philip and co. Philip, would you be so kind as to define ‘vestigial’ as you mean it?
Meanwhile, Dictionary.com has:
2. Biology. Occurring or persisting as a rudimentary or degenerate structure.
So ‘formerly functional, but now degenerate’.
The trouble is that, in the context of creationism, this is circular -- it assumes evolution, by saying "look, this used to be a tail!" etc. This is why I urge ‘evolutionists’ to avoid the term, though this may require some circumlocution
. We should not be open to claims of circularity (‘fossils date rocks and rocks date fossils’, anyone?
). But in the E/C context we have to find a way of talking about these things without assuming evolution.
"Degenerate" assumes it used to be more substantial in the past. But creationists say that this is how it always has been. Furthermore, they say, these things aren’t useless features, hence they are part of the designer’s intentions. The coccyx, for instance, by having muscle attachments, is not vestigial, it has a use. They like to produce long lists of what these things do, and think they’ve defeated the evolution argument.
Okay, let’s take the creation model at face value and see if it fits. These things were in fact designed to fulfil a function. Many of them do, though some certainly don’t seem to.
The problem with the creation model is to do with the morphology of the features, not their function. These things are what philosopher Nicholas Humphrey in a different context calls 'overdesigned', having 'too much design of the wrong kind'. If you relate structure to function, then a mosquito proboscis, say, is fine, and utilitarian. A coccyx, however, as well as serving as a muscle attachment point, has extra morphological features which are irrelevant to its functioning purely as a muscle-fixer, and which only make sense if it used to be something else too.
It doesn’t matter that the human coccyx has muscles attached. That could be done with any appropriately shaped bone; a simple protrusion from the pelvis would be simplest. What matters is that it is in fact made of little vertebra-shaped bones, at the base of the spine and apparently a continuation of it, that start separate and then fuse into a single piece during development. If a single bone is required, there are plenty of examples in the human body of these, and they start as single bones. The claim that it’s designed does not require it to have these features. It is overdesigned. The morphology of the structure makes most sense under evolution, whereby it did use to be something more substantial and/or functional.
Vertebrae that extend beyond the pelvis are found in most other mammals too. In guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) for instance, there is a somewhat bigger ‘coccyx’, but it does not extend outside the animal’s body. Usually these vertebrae are bigger and there’s more of them... and when a coccyx is like that, it’s called a tail.
We can apply the principle of seeing if the design makes sense purely in terms of function, or if the design seems as evolution claims, constrained by history, to other features. In the missing page from the other thread, Philip mentioned the appendix. Now, creationists, when they can explain it at all, say it helps out with the immune system. Okay... but it is not a specialised organ: the lymphatic nodules called Peyer’s patches are found throughout the gut, not especially in the appendix, and the only time it is full of lymphocytes is when it becomes infected. But okay...
What we have with the appendix is a pocket in the wall at the top of the large intestine. How does the presence of the Peyer’s patches require the appendix to be a vermiform pocket? It is too small to make much surface area difference (the usual reason for folding surfaces), and even so, simply lengthening the gut by -- hey, what’s the surface area of an appendix? -- what, half an inch? Would do the trick just as well. Too much design of the wrong kind.
Also, if it is part of the immune system, the one thing it does do with any regularity is rather strange. It is common (7% of the US population, for instance) for it to become distended and blocked. Bacteria can then invade the gut wall, leading to life-threatening perforation. If it were designed, it is underdesigned to withstand this obvious problem.
The claim of its use doesn’t fit its design... and its design causes a (foreseeable by an omniscient creator) serious and common problem. The appendix is therefore more easily explained as an evolutionary relic.
In my lost post, I also listed some other overdesigned features:
  • The non-functioning eyes of cave-dwelling creatures which live in total darkness: hundreds of species, from fish (eg Astyanax mexicanus) to insects (eg the Hawaiian cave planthopper Oliarus polyphemus), spiders (eg Neoleptoneta myopica), salamanders (eg Typhlomolge rathbuni) and crayfish (eg Cambarus setosus), and of burrowing animals, such as marsupial moles (order Notoryctemorphia) (no lens or pupil, reduced optic nerve), amphisbaenians and naked mole rats (Heterocephalus glaber).
  • The human post-auricular muscle, which in other mammals moves the ears to point towards sounds. The ability of some people to wiggle their ears being one of God’s lesser-appreciated gifts to us, of course.
  • Aquatic creatures such as sea turtles, which have come onto land to lay their eggs.
  • The pelvis remnants of pythons...
  • ... and the pelvis and hind limb bone remnants of whales. Same reasoning as with the coccyx: they don’t have to be like bits of pelvis and limb.
  • The foetal teeth of cows, anteaters and baleen whales, which are made, only to be reabsorbed.
  • The hind leg spur of the echidna. It is designed like a small, non-functional version of the poisonous one found in... venomous reptiles? Large carnivores? Arachnids? Nope, the platypus, which is thought to be its nearest relative.
  • Flatworms of the species Convoluta roscoffensis are green because their translucent tissues are packed with Platymonas algae. The algae live, grow and die inside the bodies of the worms. Their photosynthetic products are used as food by the worms, and the algae recycle the worms’ uric acid waste as food for themselves. The worms’ mouths are superfluous and do not function after the larvae hatch: worm plus algae plus sunlight is a self-contained unit. For what divine-design purpose do the flatworms have mouths, as other flatworms have?
  • Flowers on plants such as dandelions, which are self-pollinating, and so don’t need to attract pollinating insects.
  • Wings on flightless beetles. Numerous beetle species are flightless, such as darkling beetles (Eleodes species), the Kauai flightless stag beetle ([i]Apterocyclus honoluluensis[I]), and many weevils. Darkling beetles, for instance, are ground-dwelling and feed on decaying vegetation such as dead leaves and rotting wood. Females lay their eggs in soil, the larvae hatch, mature and pupate in soil, finally to emerge as adult beetles. Like most beetles, they have wings... but these are sealed beneath fused wing covers (elytra), and so the beetles are flightless. Sure, they have a use: for darklings, the fused elytra help conserve water; for others they are a better protection for the abdomen. Wings are obviously not needed for flight for ground-dwelling beetles. The question is, why is the shell on their backs made of wing covers, and why are there (often greatly reduced) wings beneath them?
  • Slug larval development: all gastropod larvae twist their bodies 90 to 180 degrees, so that the mantle, kidney opening and anus are sticking out over their heads. Slugs (subclass Pulmonata) and sea slugs (subclass Opisthobranchia), however, then do an untwist and straighten their bodies out again.
  • Pseudogenes, satellite DNA, the human Alu sequences, etc etc...
  • Pseudocopulation in parthenogenic whiptail lizards Cnemidopohorus.
  • Goose bumps (cutis anserina). Since humans (especially women) generally have little body hair, it is pointless having the same system of muscles (the arrectores pilorum) and sympathetic nerves which in most mammals raises the hairs in response cold or fear. Come to that, if our skin is meant to be mostly bare, why do we have the tiny hairs (and separate muscles and nerves for them) that we do?
  • The lungs of snakes, such as blindsnakes and colubroids — one normal, one atrophied. Why waste material with the small one? More surface area could be available if the space the atrophied one’s non-gaseous-exchange tubing takes up were given over to a larger volumed single main lung — and this is what is found in other snakes.
  • Despite no bird possessing these features, they have the genes for making a leg with full fibula and separate tarsals:
    (see here)...
  • ... and for making teeth (see here).
    ... And so on and on. Others have already pinched some of my other favourites, and these are just some more obviously ‘vestigial’ characteristics. Don’t get me started on plain stupid designs... oh alright, just the one. The recurrent laryngeal nerve. It’s the nerve that activates the voicebox. It starts as a branch of the vagus in the neck. It has to connect from one side of the neck to the other. Yet what it does is pass down the neck into the chest, loop under the aorta by the heart, then come back up to the larynx. Which means that in giraffes, whales etc at least fifteen feet of extra nerve cabling are required. Using more materials than necessary is not good design.
    Manufacturing researcher and consultant Terry Hill, in his 1986/2000 book Manufacturing Strategy, notes that any third-rate engineer can design complexity; the hallmark of truly intelligent design is not complexity, but rather simplicity, or more specifically, it is the ability to take a complex process or product spec and create the least complicated design that will meet all project parameters. The homosexual stabbing rape that’s the reproduction method in Xylocaris maculipennis bedbugs implies that, at the very least, God the designer has an odd sense of humour.
    I guess that’s enough for now. I’ll tackle your god’s sarcasm shortly.
    Cheers, Darwin’s Terrier

  • Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 04-26-2002 5:45 PM Darwin's Terrier has not replied
     Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 04-26-2002 6:07 PM Darwin's Terrier has not replied
     Message 16 by Philip, posted 04-26-2002 8:03 PM Darwin's Terrier has replied

      
    TrueCreation
    Inactive Member


    Message 9 of 75 (9014)
    04-26-2002 5:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 2 by mark24
    04-24-2002 9:29 PM


    "Whales forelimbs (flipper/fins) may be useful, but the hind ones aren't. In sperm whales, the vestigial hind limbs aren't even expressed in all individuals. The ones that do express vestigial hind limbs do so inconsistently, ie they have different numbers of bones present. These are true vestigial traits. Absolutely functionless, most of the population doesn't even have them."
    --This may be true, though after looking at some Skeletal Whale Anatomy references, I can't seem to find where this trait is expressed at all.
    --A main point I would in-still attain is that the human tail-bone (coccyx) is not a vestigal structure, and of course may very well not be directly evident of an evolutionary morphological characteristical left-over.
    ------------------
    [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-26-2002]

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2 by mark24, posted 04-24-2002 9:29 PM mark24 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by mark24, posted 04-26-2002 7:08 PM TrueCreation has replied

      
    TrueCreation
    Inactive Member


    Message 10 of 75 (9015)
    04-26-2002 5:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 4 by gene90
    04-26-2002 9:38 AM


    "What good were my wisdom teeth?"
    --Just as good as the rest of your teeth as long as you have the mouth for them.
    ------------------

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by gene90, posted 04-26-2002 9:38 AM gene90 has not replied

      
    TrueCreation
    Inactive Member


    Message 11 of 75 (9018)
    04-26-2002 5:39 PM
    Reply to: Message 6 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
    04-26-2002 10:34 AM


    "I will not even go into male nipples and wisdom teeth, not to mention the mechanics of the lower back."
    --Not sure about the mechanics of the lower back, though see my post on wisdom teeth, and male nipples are characeristics producing sensations, and isn't this characeristic's genetic locus in a chromosome shared by male and female?
    ------------------

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-26-2002 10:34 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 21 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-27-2002 12:13 AM TrueCreation has replied

      
    TrueCreation
    Inactive Member


    Message 12 of 75 (9019)
    04-26-2002 5:45 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by Darwin's Terrier
    04-26-2002 12:43 PM


    "The trouble is that, in the context of creationism, this is circular -- it assumes evolution, by saying "look, this used to be a tail!" etc. This is why I urge ‘evolutionists’ to avoid the term, though this may require some circumlocution . We should not be open to claims of circularity (‘fossils date rocks and rocks date fossils’, anyone? ). But in the E/C context we have to find a way of talking about these things without assuming evolution."
    --I think that holds any biological Imbecility, will agree that some form of evolution is taking place, well evident if you take a look at any bacerial population replication over time. This is a bit of a far cry from whether this has happend all throughout Earth history in the uniformitarian scenario. A bit analogous to the discussion of 'New Information'.
    --So in settling this, I believe the rest of your argument is greatly flawed unless you feel the need to reiterate in this light.
    ------------------
    [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-26-2002]

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 04-26-2002 12:43 PM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

      
    TrueCreation
    Inactive Member


    Message 13 of 75 (9020)
    04-26-2002 6:07 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by Darwin's Terrier
    04-26-2002 12:43 PM


    --Though so that the participants here are not greatly missled, I should comment on this segment.
    "A coccyx, however, as well as serving as a muscle attachment point, has extra morphological features which are irrelevant to its functioning purely as a muscle-fixer, and which only make sense if it used to be something else too."
    --No, because the muscle attachments that it has each have functions and support various areas of the pelvic area, others preform a function rather than providing skeletal support.
    "It doesn’t matter that the human coccyx has muscles attached. That could be done with any appropriately shaped bone; a simple protrusion from the pelvis would be simplest."
    --Yes it also would have been a reatively major problem if you fell on yourself, the coccyx in its segmented bone format allows for a much higher amount of pressure and flexability than a single bone would have done. If it were not like this the problematic scenario of breaking it right off and thus the ability to use muscle attachments would not have been fun.
    "What matters is that it is in fact made of little vertebra-shaped bones, at the base of the spine and apparently a continuation of it, that start separate and then fuse into a single piece during development. If a single bone is required, there are plenty of examples in the human body of these, and they start as single bones. The claim that it’s designed does not require it to have these features. It is overdesigned. The morphology of the structure makes most sense under evolution, whereby it did use to be something more substantial and/or functional."
    --This is simply wrong, the simplicity in your argument in that it making more sense under evolution is nothing less than opinionated unless you were to expand on this. Assuming this expansion is your above argument, I think it is evident that it does not make the most sense under evolution, only by interperetation and a pre-inference on the past.
    ------------------

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 04-26-2002 12:43 PM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

      
    mark24
    Member (Idle past 5195 days)
    Posts: 3857
    From: UK
    Joined: 12-01-2001


    Message 14 of 75 (9027)
    04-26-2002 7:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 9 by TrueCreation
    04-26-2002 5:28 PM


    TC,
    I got my information from Science & Earth History. 1999. Strahler. p442-3. It even has some pictures showing the different expressions of hind limbs in sperm whales. There are six diagrams showing bones abutting the pelvis (?), the number of bones in the individuals studied are, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, & 10. Showing that 1/ Bones abut the pelvis in the same place you would expect limbs, but the expression of the "structure" varies, & 2/ These bones are not present in most individuals. This is probably why they aren't in your picture.
    I tried to find similar on a website to reference it, but I'm a bit short on time.
    Mark
    ------------------
    Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 04-26-2002 5:28 PM TrueCreation has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 17 by TrueCreation, posted 04-26-2002 9:55 PM mark24 has replied

      
    Philip
    Member (Idle past 4722 days)
    Posts: 656
    From: Albertville, AL, USA
    Joined: 03-10-2002


    Message 15 of 75 (9028)
    04-26-2002 7:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by gene90
    04-26-2002 12:28 PM


    [QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
    Then why the experimentation on rhesus monkeys if most medical progress is from in vivo studies on humans?
    [/B][/QUOTE]
    I said most studies (not all) are by the physicians.
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
    I'm surprised at your statement because you claim credentials in medicine. Are you not familiar with microbial ecology? Antibiotic resistance? Human endogenous retroviral elements and their relationship to oncogenes? Mutations and their relationships to the epidemiology of malaria? The relationship between the defective CD4 protein and HIV? The mutation-driven variation of the H and N proteins on the surface coat of influenza virii and the choice of flu vaccines to produce the following year? What about the phrase "emerging disease" ?
    You weren't aware of these?
    [/B][/QUOTE]
    Are your talking MUTATIONS or plasmids, plasmids are pre-programmed in the genes and are NOT mutations. Show me the mutations !

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by gene90, posted 04-26-2002 12:28 PM gene90 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 20 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-27-2002 12:03 AM Philip has replied
     Message 30 by gene90, posted 04-28-2002 3:20 PM Philip has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024