Okay, once again I bring up the problem of using God to explain everything.
If you can say God exists, and He made things the way they are to look like evolution occurred, that can't be disproven. For all intents and purposes, I could just as easily say a giant turtle balances the world on his back. You can't prove otherwise.
It is pertinent that we stick on the track of things that are FACT. Creationists can look for facts to disprove evolution. However if you say God explains everything, well that isn't very Koscher. Perhaps he does, but evidence must ensue after such a statement.
Well actually I CAN prove that the world isn't balanced on the back of a turtle.
What you can't prove is that your supposed billion year old fossils are actually a billion years old.
You cannot prove that a billion different random processes cause two humans to evolve at the same time in the same place that they could come together and mate to produce offspring that would survive.
Since we are staying with the Evolution Vs. Creation debate and not delving into the thread we left (is there a God) let's stay here and play. Give me something to disprove and I won't just use "God explains everything".
The burden of proof is on you. You can't just say "God exists." Nothing said on this thread should ever be assumed to be true. There should be evidence to support everything.
And no, you can't prove the world is or isn't resting on the shell of a turtle. We haven't even been able to find the edge of the universe, much less something outside the universe (like a turtle).
You said World, I thought you meant "earth" so I assumed you knew that gravity among celestial bodies was holding the earth in place, not a turtle named "gravity" mind you.
Why is the burden of proof on me? I don't believe that evolution is true. Convince me.
As far as I can tell, the proselytizing goes both ways.
I keep being amazed how Creationists tend to point at weak spots in darwinist theorems and <i>then proceed to claim that this theories fallacies prove their own theory right.</i> Here's the deal, folks: Creationism considers itself a science. Thus, it has to hold up against the measures of science. Thus, it's not enough to disprove another theory, you'll have to base your own thesis on factual data. There's a multitude of alternative non-darwinist evolutionary theories. If Darwinism turns out to be wrong, it can still be one of them.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Oct 8 2003, 12:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Oct 8 2003, 12:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->base your own thesis on factual data<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As does every other theory. Show me some factual data concerning evolution then.
Mind you I said factual. Oh, and any FORM of evolution will do, not just Darwinism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> keep being amazed how Creationists tend to point at weak spots in darwinist theorems and then proceed to claim that this theories fallacies prove their own theory right. Here's the deal, folks: Creationism considers itself a science. Thus, it has to hold up against the measures of science. Thus, it's not enough to disprove another theory, you'll have to base your own thesis on factual data. There's a multitude of alternative non-darwinist evolutionary theories. If Darwinism turns out to be wrong, it can still be one of them.
<!--QuoteBegin--Donnel+Oct 8 2003, 05:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Donnel @ Oct 8 2003, 05:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Oct 8 2003, 12:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Oct 8 2003, 12:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->base your own thesis on factual data<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As does every other theory. Show me some factual data concerning evolution then.
Mind you I said factual. Oh, and any FORM of evolution will do, not just Darwinism. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In case you only want that, take a look at Aegris posts about bacteria changing their genetical makeup from two pages ago. This, like many similiar observations, proves that contemporary species change to adapt themselves to their environment. Voilá - evolution.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Those same indigenous people who were conquored and seen as savages tell in their own tales about the trickery and misery inflicted upon them by the "white man" (put your own conquoring peoples in this place).
How much of what the "loser" has to say is biased against their captors? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dur. Of course the indigenous people will have bias. That's the freaking point: you get both sides of the arguement and find the middle groud. The goal is to try and eliminate the extremist views on both sides. However you need both opinions to find the "average" as it were. If you can find enough sources, generally through cross-referancing the research you can find what really happened.
History cannot be exact in some areas. We cannot say for example "If the Americans hadn't developed the atomic bomb and used it on Japan, the USSR would have invaded western Europe". We can theorise that this might have happened, based on evidence from the period, but we can never be sure if it may have happaned. What we can say is "The United States, in the year 1945, dropped two atomic bombs on Japan". That is what history is mainly concerned with: facts. We theorise as little as possible. Theorising is only used when the evidance we have runs out, but it is never based on nothing. There must always be a peice of underlying factual information to back up everything in history.
Nemesis is right. Creationists have no evidence. They like to think their "evidence" is showing evolution is false, when there is still a long jump between disproving evolution and proving God exists and that he created the world basically as is.
So the burden of proof is still on the creationists to enlighten us as to why we should believe their theory. You have no facts to support God exists, much less, that he created the world as it is now (minus a few thousand years).
What proof does evolution have? Useless organs and bones found in animals. Why would God create these things in the animals? I heard an argument for this, and it goes something like this: God didn't put the useless organs and bones there. That is part of natural selection which is a naturally occuring process. It is the byproduct of the past thousand years or so, but nothing more.
My response to that is, how dense do you have to be to not see a pattern emerge from this? We only see a window of time in which "natural selection" has occurred, but creationists would like to believe it suddenly stopped there, and that is where God created the universe. Using Acham's Razor, is it more likely God created the universe to make people think evolution took place, or that this has been going on all along?
Granted, i'm not saying God doesn't exist. Evolution says NO WHERE that God does not exist. Creationists took that implied meaning on their own. Creationists read into it like "the bible doesn't support evolution, so evolution goes against God." There was a very controversial theory much like this around Corpernicus's time about the center of the universe. In the end, the church collapsed and admitted they were wrong and Corpernicus's model was correct. I believe the church thought the bible supported the earth being the center of the universe at one point in time too. The bible gives fables and stories. They are metaphors for the truth. I mean come on, do you believe in Noah and the Ark and every single animal which ever existed?
Look, my whole point when this thread started was that there is no way for me to prove to you that God exists. I can relate to you my experiences, the things I have seen, the way that God speaks to me through his Word, through other people, through the natural world, but I cannot prove to you God exists. Without that basis, I cannot prove that he created anything, therefore I cannot prove that Creation is true.
On the other hand, I don't need to. Evolution is incorrect from my standpoint for a couple of reasons. (and by evolution I mean the Origon of species, not the adapting of a virus to fit it's surroundings, because Natural Selection IS a process which occurs as are mutations, but all the mutations in the world would not create a functional human).
1. I believe that there was a literal creator. This leaves no room for an evolutionistic standpoint in the origon of life. 2. There are methods and so called facts regarding evolution that I have found to be erronious (dating methods come to mind) but again, alot of this has to do with my existing bias and less to do with documentable science.
Now, knowing that I can in no way convince you of Creationism's validity because I can in no way convince you of my experiences regarding the existence of God, why do we subject ourselves to this kind of debate?
Let's just go play NS (or in my case do some work today) and agree to disagree. Frankly, I don't want you to be a Creationist, and if you really believed in Natural Selection, you wouldn't want me to be an evolutionist because apparently I can't prove anything and would only weaken your base of support. I guess you'd better hope I get selected for extinction.
<!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Oct 8 2003, 12:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 8 2003, 12:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> do you believe in Noah and the Ark and every single animal which ever existed <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> As a matter of fact I do. I think it was very feasible and could link an article that describes it, but as a whole the people in this forum tend to deride anything that comes from Answers in Genesis even though the articles tend to be very full of factual scientific data.
Why do I believe it? Because the Bible tells me so (see my previous post as to why this is OK)
Oh and sorry for the double post, Hawkeye edited after I hit reply.
See, I congratulate you for your strong faith. I'm happy for you that you can believe the story of Noah, but unless you can supply parts of the Ark, it is faith and not science. Creationism considers itself science, it <i>can not</i> go around stating that "you will never be convinced of the basic implications, yet, I'm absolutely right." If a thesis can't be held up against rationally and factually agreeably data, it removes itself from the scientfic picture, and thus also the discussion about evolutionism and the origin of species. So either, we can now start discussing the reasons why the idea of an origin of species out of natural selection and how this theory holds up against <i>scientfic argumentation</i>, or I can lock the topic for having gone O-T.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Oct 8 2003, 06:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Oct 8 2003, 06:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So either, we can now start discussing the reasons why the idea of an origin of species out of natural selection and how this theory holds up against <i>scientfic argumentation</i>, or I can lock the topic for having gone O-T. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> i'm waiting for the evidence
Well I'm not getting more deeply involved in this discussion because I don't have the same level of biological knowledge that Aegeri has. Suffice to say that the Creationist side of the arguement has yet to provide one shed of evidance for their side of the debate. I would say that Aegeri has already provided an absolute ton of evidance and proof, but that doesn't seem to be enough for some of you. I will however leave further debating up to Aegeri; he has the knowledge and education, I do not.
By your own "removal from the scientific picture" standards, Evolutionary concepts should not be there either, because it all starts with speculation. There is no one who can give 100% conclusive proof that the Origin of Species happened like evolutionists say it did. That being the case, how is it a science either and not merely a theory?
And if you make an exception for evolution being a scientific theory, then there has to be room for Creationism at the table.
Well, OK, I'm sure that Aegri will hate me for being as laymanish as I'm going to be, but anyway...
First, we'll both have to accept that there can be no true evidences of the happenings on this planet before the dawn of man - no matter what side you are on, the absence of any kind of recorded data will force you to base your theory on a basis of hints, that is possibly incomplete data. This sounds like a big confession and seems to discredit a scientific theory, but we should always keep in mind that <i>every</i> kind of science is based on a foundation of incomplete data - although often an astonishingly big amount of it.
So, if we both agree on this preface, there can be a one word prove for the origin of species: "Dinosaur."
We'll both have to agree that the fossils of the bigger dinosaurs, as well as a large number of other now extinct species, are too strange to be in fact the fossils of contemporary animals or close derivates - such as, say, a process of natural selection spanning 25.000 years could produce. Yet, our experience with younger fossils points at those skeletons being the remants of long-extinct animals. Now consider that few mammal fossils could be found in the sediment layers the dinosaur fossils were found in, and that those which were found show nothing but remote similiarity to our todays animals. We know that the dinosaurs grew extinct (simply as they aren't around anymore). We also know from contemporary biological observations that ecologic nichés are seldomly left vacant. The dinosaurs extinction left one of the biggest ecologic nichés ever. We know - thanks to contemporary observation - that mammals, especially a certain mammal called 'human', are the predominant species on the todays Earth. Logic, as well as the fossils found between the extinction of the dinosaurs and todays world, dictates the following: Mammals filled the ecologic niches previously occupied by the now extinct lizards. Seeing that the mammals of that time share some common traits with, but are still largely different from todays mammals, they must have developed during this time according to some sort of influence, let's call it, say, 'natural selection'. This development did however not end with modifications to existing mammalian species. Comparing the fossils with todays specimen, we've got to admit that both are different species. Thus, we see a process of natural selection as origin of contemporary species. Note that this chain of logic does not rely on carbon dating methods or anything to that extent, but simply scientfic obsevations made in our times.
I'll admit that it's sketchy and requires further elaboration, but I assume it's good enough as discussion hook, plus, I'm getting sleepy.
[edit] <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By your own "removal from the scientific picture" standards, Evolutionary concepts should not be there either, because it all starts with speculation. There is no one who can give 100% conclusive proof that the Origin of Species happened like evolutionists say it did. That being the case, how is it a science either and not merely a theory?
And if you make an exception for evolution being a scientific theory, then there has to be room for Creationism at the table. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You used the right word: 'Theory'. A scientfic theory is qualified by a number of characteristics, most notably the fact that it makes a number of assumptions it's based upon that can be factually proved wrong. Prove the assumption of a process of natural selection wrong, and the idea of evolution crumbles. This theory can thus be rationally discussed using those assumptions as basis for a discussion. Creationism grounds itself on divine intervention, which can not be factually proved wrong (nor right). It's thus strictly speaking not a scientific theory.[/edit]
Creationism is more of a belief than a theory. A theory derives from emperical evidence and creationism has no such evidence. Creationism has no prove for or against it. So it makes it quite easy for creationists to fling rocks and sticks at evolution theory until evolutionists turn around and start to question the origins of creationism theory, which then creationists would run and hide in a hole somewhere until the coast is clear under the notion that their theory cannot be disproved.
Back to the example I gave earlier, I could believe a tortoise holds up the world on its back, and nobody could say anything to prove or disprove that theory. Evolution explains the world we live in. It explains the phenomenon and evidence we've seen. Creationism does not explain anything since no emperical evidence supports it. If we're going to have a scientific discussion, perhaps you creationists should take a look at what you believe and take a scientific approach about it.
Donnell, I want to make it known to you that I deeply value your non-flaming way of disagreeing. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Most people take things personally, but on the contrary, you've kept your cool . I admire that. You make arguing a pleasure.
<!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Oct 8 2003, 08:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 8 2003, 08:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Back to the example I gave earlier, I could believe a tortoise holds up the world on its back, and nobody could say anything to prove or disprove that theory. Evolution explains the world we live in. It explains the phenomenon and evidence we've seen. Creationism does not explain anything since no emperical evidence supports it. If we're going to have a scientific discussion, perhaps you creationists should take a look at what you believe and take a scientific approach about it.. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Go into space, look at the earth. There is no turtle. Even an invisible one would have an impact on the earth - such as a massive wall we cannot pass through
The earth hangs suspended in space. There is no turtle
If you want to say something like that, say "Beyond the universe is french speaking strawberry jam"
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Prove the assumption of a process of natural selection wrong<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This I can't do, because Natural Selection does happen.
It is a natural process that happens in this world. Here's the problem though. Natural Selection doesn't work without another intervention: Mutation. Show me an example of a positive mutation that caused the emergence of a species.
By a "positive" mutation, I don't mean a mutation that caused a subset to survive like the beetles on the island off of Australia. Those beetles lost information in their genetic code (that for growing wings) which made them better able to survive on a windy island that would have normally had them blown out to sea. The ones with no wings survived there where they would have been hunted down by beetle eaters elsewhere. While this mutation allowed them to survive, it was still a harmful mutation (one which caused a genetic loss). There is not a single example of a mutation that caused a species to gain a trait.
This simply goes against all reason. The world is not becoming more and more coherent, we know from the 3rd law of thermodynamics that order is moving into chaos. That left to it's own devices, all things deteriorate given enough time.
So given that things are trending toward less complex (and not more complex) why is it okay to assume that the opposite was true at one point. That out of nowhere a fish develops lungs that enable it to breath on land, appendages that enable it to move on land, gather food, survive and breed to produce offspring with the same traits (all of these things are obviously beneficial mutations, the gaining of genetic code that it did not have before). If all things are trending toward chaos, where did this sudden beneficial mutation come from? (not just one beneficial mutation mind you, but probably more like quite a few that would be necessary for the lifeform to survive, all happening simultaneously).
Now as I have already said, I can't prove to you God exists and therefore I can't prove that there was a creator, but frankly I don't need to because either you are right or I am right and you will find out one day anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 8 2003, 07:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 8 2003, 07:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Oct 8 2003, 08:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 8 2003, 08:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Back to the example I gave earlier, I could believe a tortoise holds up the world on its back, and nobody could say anything to prove or disprove that theory. Evolution explains the world we live in. It explains the phenomenon and evidence we've seen. Creationism does not explain anything since no emperical evidence supports it. If we're going to have a scientific discussion, perhaps you creationists should take a look at what you believe and take a scientific approach about it.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Go into space, look at the earth. There is no turtle. Even an invisible one would have an impact on the earth - such as a massive wall we cannot pass through
The earth hangs suspended in space. There is no turtle
If you want to say something like that, say "Beyond the universe is french speaking strawberry jam" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, look carefully. In fact I said the world on its back, not the earth.
Besides, that's trivial. I could have just as well said something else which cannot be proved (at least not yet). The point is the same.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is a natural process that happens in this world. Here's the problem though. Natural Selection doesn't work without another intervention: Mutation. Show me an example of a positive mutation that caused the emergence of a species.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You put two misconceptions into that one paragraph: First, you assume the existence of something like a scale on which to judge mutations (some positive, some negative). Nature doesn't work like that. Let's take the example of your beetles. By not growing wings anymore, they lost the ability to fly (negative), but also lost a body part whichs use, growth, and care takes a lot of energy, thus reducing their need for nutrients (positive, as it increases their chances for survival). As for 'constructive mutations', mutations that create new bodyparts, you are of course right that there's no single mutation that ever made an animal sprout wings. But that brings us to your second misconception: That mutations are a seldom sight and thus need to change a species 'in one go'. In reality, it is estimated that up to 50% of all specimens of any species carry mutations. Well possible that we are both mutants in a tiny way. Now assume that one of the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-(you catch my drift)-fathers of a beetle had a tiny mutation that made its backs muscles grow a little stronger than usual. It wouldn't have become a disadvantage, so the beetle reproduced. A few more generations down the road, one of the offsprings of our beetles gets a mutation that lets a few of the membranes below its shell grow a little bigger than usual. Another few generations, and another few mutations combined both. <i>That's</i> how constructive mutation works. Nature has literally all the time in the world, and within a sufficuiently long time, even the smallest random occurances can gain significance.
Here's some evidence for evolution. Vestigal structures throughout nature. These structures no longer server any purpose, and are just remnants from the species' <b>ancestors</b>.
1. Hip bones in whales 2. Tail bones, wisdom teeth, canine teeth, ear muscles, vomeronasal organ, second set of eyelids, male nipples in humans 3. Legs/hips and underdeveloped second lungs in snakes 4. Wings on ostriches 5. Molar teeth in vampire bats 6. 5-fingered hand-like appendages in dolphins 7. Cave-dwelling fish with eye sockets but no eyes 8. Over 200 beetle species with wings that are incapable of flight 9. Wolf teeth in horses 10. Insects that lose their feet early in development 11. Moles with eyes that are covered in fur and hair 12. Crabs that have foot stalks for eyes yet have no eyes 13. Wings on the Apteryx, a bird incapable of flight 14. Nails on the flippers of Manatees 15. Webbed feet on upland geese and the frigate bird, which are non-aquatic
If one wants to see forced natural selection in action, all you need to look at is the history of man breeding other animals domestically. We have essentially shown how to produce a new species. Dogs, cats, birds, rabbits... we have selectively chosen pairs to breed together to create a desired end result. These creatures did not exist in the past. One could argue that the chihuahua and the great dane are two distinct species now. To define a new species, you must show that the two are either A) no longer capable of breeding together or B) unwilling to breed together. If we left these creatures to their own devices, I'm sure the great dane will not breed with the little chihuahua, even if it's technically possible for man to force them to.
Our selective breeding and inbreeding of the canine species over hundreds and hundreds of years has resulted in some variants that have tremendous problems right from birth. Many breeds have an incredibly high likelihood of going blind. Pitbulls have been bred to fight and kill. And they do. Pekingese dogs have difficulty breathing, eye problems, heart problems, and difficulty in giving birth to puppies. English bulldogs have eye problems, skin problems, spine problems, breathing problems, and birthing problems. All of these problems were introduced by man because of our forced evolution of the species. Take a look at any breed's list of likely problems and you'll quickly see how we've totally mucked up that species to suit our selfish whims.
Did your god give us the right to create new species like this? Or are all dog breeders evil people?
Just curious, do any of you have any documentation on the evolution of the dual circulatory system? I heard it mentioned as a possible attack on evolution earlyer, and I haven't heard anything said on it since.
<!--QuoteBegin--Donnel+Oct 8 2003, 01:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Donnel @ Oct 8 2003, 01:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is a natural process that happens in this world. Here's the problem though. Natural Selection doesn't work without another intervention: Mutation. Show me an example of a positive mutation that caused the emergence of a species. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Positive mutation: opposable thumb. Prior to the line of primates with opposable thumbs, you had only mammals with 5 digits that were incabable of grasping objects like modern-day primates can. This did not happen as a loss of anything; this was a <b>positive</b> mutation. The mutation was beneficial to that creature, in the environment in which it was living. It thrived, and produced many offspring. Some of the offspring inherited the trait, others did not. The offspring that did were more successful than those that did not. Eventually, a new species evolved such that all offspring had opposable thumbs. So it is with all primates.
Mutations happen all the time. The pitcher for the Cubs, Antonio Alfonseca, has 6 digits on each hand and foot. Is this more beneficial to him? Possibly. Will some of his children inherit this trait? Possibly. Will there be a new species as a result of this mutation? Unlikely. But it does not change the fact that this mutation could indeed be considered <b>positive</b>. Why? Because 6 fingers surely is better than only 5. Some people are double-jointed. Is this more beneficial to them than not? Maybe. If humans were not as dominant in the world as we are today, perhaps double-jointed people would stand a more likely chance of survival, and non double-jointed people would slowly die off, leading to all humans being double-jointed. This would be a <b>positive</b> mutation. The human skull has enlarged to allow a larger brain. Having stronger ankle and foot bones allowed us to move about on two appendages instead of four... freeing our hands to do such tasks as throwing hand-made spears at prey. All positive mutations throughout our ancestral history.
Here's an interesting article: <a href='http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html' target='_blank'>Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution</a>. Many of the author's points are found right here in this thread. <i>"Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false."</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(some positive, some negative). Nature doesn't work like that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes it does, but hold on...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Let's take the example of your beetles. By not growing wings anymore, they lost the ability to fly (negative), but also lost a body part whichs use, growth, and care takes a lot of energy, thus reducing their need for nutrients (positive, as it increases their chances for survival).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why was the need for nutrients even a factor? It wasn't in these beetles (not a new species anyway, just a subset of another). What made them survive was not that they needed less nutrients, or they could get them easier, it was simply since they couldn't fly, they didnt. Since they didn't fly, they didn't get blown out to sea and drown.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for 'constructive mutations', mutations that create new bodyparts, you are of course right that there's no single mutation that ever made an animal sprout wings. But that brings us to your second misconception: That mutations are a seldom sight and thus need to change a species 'in one go'. In reality, it is estimated that up to 50% of all specimens of any species carry mutations. Well possible that we are both mutants in a tiny way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
okay, let's follow this train of thought.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now assume that one of the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-(you catch my drift)-fathers of a beetle had a tiny mutation that made its backs muscles grow a little stronger than usual. It wouldn't have become a disadvantage, so the beetle reproduced. A few more generations down the road, one of the offsprings of our beetles gets a mutation that lets a few of the membranes below its shell grow a little bigger than usual. Another few generations, and another few mutations combined both. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is all fine and good with mutations that would not cause a hindrance, but what if one of those baby step mutations caused something that could not survive? The whole process would stop there, because the baby step organism could not breed and pass on his genetic information. What you would end up with is a lot of dead fish on land who couldn't move away from predators. Or a lot of dead mammals/reptiles who though still cold blooded now have a bunch of fur that overheats them.
Just a few (admittedly poor) examples, but I've been fixing computers all day and my imagination is a little low <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Did your god give us the right to create new species like this?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Short answer... yes.
As far as your "vestigal organs" goes, like any unknown thing, it's easy to classify it as useless until a use is found. But we are learning that some of those Vestigal organs in animals have uses after all.
For example, (getting a little graphic, so I hope I don't get banned) those hip bones in whales are actually different in male and female (a species vestigal organ wouldn't be) and in fact it has been noted that the male's hipbone helps with penile erection while the female's helps with vaginal contraction. Pretty important use from the Natural Selection standpoint, I mean, no breeding = no whales, right?
For another... who ever said that having wings was a prerequisite of flight? Ostriches, emus and other flightless birds tend to demonstrate the use of their wings quite well I think. Anything from steadying themselves while running, to intimidating off attackers, to protecting their young, to warmth and protection from the elements all seem like pretty good uses of a "useless" appendage. Just because they can't fly, doesn't make them useless...
A simple google search shows that the diet of a typical bat includes alot of bugs. Bugs that though they squish easily enough for us, might be chewed by the bat before swallowing. Chewing teeth would be rather important for that wouldn't they?
Tail bones, wisdom teeth, canine teetch, ear muscles, (have to look up the vomeronasal one, that eludes me), (don't think I have two sets of eyelids) and the male nipple thing is kinda funny when you think about it, all these things don't show vestigal organs....
I still have 1 of my wisdom teeth, it will never be taken out, and I use it to chew. Canine teeth... well, I like to eat meet, so I have a use for mine. Tail Bones... have you ever broken yours? Do you know how hard it is to walk with it broken? Imagine the posture problems you would have without it. Ear muscles is something I'm not gonna touch. Simply because you don't lift something with a muscle, doesn't mean it's not there for a reason. Sometimes the muscles that move our tongues and lips seem wasted.. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And the male nipple thing... we'd just look... funny!
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> (Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to respond to this as well)
For you to list the opposable thumb as a positive mutation would assume that I already believed evolution and would believe it as such. See my belief says that the Primate and the Human were both CREATED with opposable thumbs. Your examples don't prove that positive mutations happened and that we as humans are the way we are today because of those positive mutations.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Mutations happen all the time. The pitcher for the Cubs, Antonio Alfonseca, has 6 digits on each hand and foot. Is this more beneficial to him? Possibly. Will some of his children inherit this trait? Possibly. Will there be a new species as a result of this mutation? Unlikely. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are mixing ideas here. The point is not that mutations don't happen, nor is the point that by promoting one mutation would that one take over as the dominant trait of the species. Positive mutations don't happen like evolutionists would require that they do. They do not add a trait that is not already included. The beetles listed above, didn't "gain" a lessened need for nutrients, at the genetic level, all they did was lose information. The point is that as many positive mutations that would have to have taken place to produce humans today would have taken too many years and generations for the age of the earth as it is today. Now, I suppose the only recourse is to show me that the age of the earth is really alot older then I think it is, and by all means, let's have it. I am going home soon, so I don't know if I will respond today, but I will be happy to do so tomorrow.
Oh and I meant to put this in the earlier post
Normal trait: The enemy is now attacking Negative change to that trait: The enemy is not attacking Nuetral change to that trait: Tha enemy is now attacking
Mutations happen, yes. Do positive mutations happen that add a trait not currently in the DNA? No?
The player for the cubs has six fingers because he already has the genetic code for five. He does not have functional gills however nor is he cold blooded.
<!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Oct 8 2003, 08:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Oct 8 2003, 08:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Here's some evidence for evolution. Vestigal structures throughout nature. These structures no longer server any purpose, and are just remnants from the species' <b>ancestors</b>.
1. Hip bones in whales 2. Tail bones, wisdom teeth, canine teeth, ear muscles, vomeronasal organ, second set of eyelids, male nipples in humans 3. Legs/hips and underdeveloped second lungs in snakes 4. Wings on ostriches 5. Molar teeth in vampire bats 6. 5-fingered hand-like appendages in dolphins 7. Cave-dwelling fish with eye sockets but no eyes 8. Over 200 beetle species with wings that are incapable of flight 9. Wolf teeth in horses 10. Insects that lose their feet early in development 11. Moles with eyes that are covered in fur and hair 12. Crabs that have foot stalks for eyes yet have no eyes 13. Wings on the Apteryx, a bird incapable of flight 14. Nails on the flippers of Manatees 15. Webbed feet on upland geese and the frigate bird, which are non-aquatic
If one wants to see forced natural selection in action, all you need to look at is the history of man breeding other animals domestically. We have essentially shown how to produce a new species. Dogs, cats, birds, rabbits... we have selectively chosen pairs to breed together to create a desired end result. These creatures did not exist in the past. One could argue that the chihuahua and the great dane are two distinct species now. To define a new species, you must show that the two are either A) no longer capable of breeding together or B) unwilling to breed together. If we left these creatures to their own devices, I'm sure the great dane will not breed with the little chihuahua, even if it's technically possible for man to force them to.
Our selective breeding and inbreeding of the canine species over hundreds and hundreds of years has resulted in some variants that have tremendous problems right from birth. Many breeds have an incredibly high likelihood of going blind. Pitbulls have been bred to fight and kill. And they do. Pekingese dogs have difficulty breathing, eye problems, heart problems, and difficulty in giving birth to puppies. English bulldogs have eye problems, skin problems, spine problems, breathing problems, and birthing problems. All of these problems were introduced by man because of our forced evolution of the species. Take a look at any breed's list of likely problems and you'll quickly see how we've totally mucked up that species to suit our selfish whims.
Did your god give us the right to create new species like this? Or are all dog breeders evil people? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The legs on snakes can be explain because when the serpent tempted adam and eve, he was cursed and made to crawl on his belly. Yes, at the dawn of tiem, snakes had legs.
Please dont try to tell me that that it just a response to evoluton, because the creation story was around ages before evolution was thought of.
When did humans have a second set of eyelids? Crocodiles do, but those serve a very real purpose
Ostriches have wings because they are birds. duh They help in balance when running. they get used for mating rituals. Whales have hip bones because they are mammals, for the birth canal (that goes through the hips)
You can bet that all of those serve a purpose in some way, if only to confuse us
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As far as your "vestigal organs" goes, like any unknown thing, it's easy to classify it as useless until a use is found. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely. This is a logical deduction about what we know.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But we are learning that some of those Vestigal organs in animals have uses after all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ostriches have wings. Why do they have wings for scaring off predators? They look like birds, don't they? They act like birds, right? Don't you think it's possible these birds were actually descendants from a species that, uh... flew? Or do you think god really wanted to create an awkward-looking being with trivial little wings incapable of flight, instead of giving the animal something a little more useful to... uh... "protect it's young" and give it warmth? I think a nice fur coat would do a better job of keeping the animal warm than a stupid, useless wing with some light feathers. A pair of arms with some nasty claws would be better suited for defense. Heck, even a pair of wings capable of FLIGHT so the silly thing could evade predators would be better than dysfunctional wings. Perhaps your god isn't perfect, and we can just learn to accept these oddities as "god's little R&D lab."
Whales have hip bones because they were once land-based mammals that could walk. Whatever trivial little function they might be used today is in no way, shape, or form an intended or even beneficial trait of the species. They are remnants from the past. You and I have ear muscles because our ancestors... and mammalian species still around today... needed to be able to rotate their ears to listen for prey. We have lost the need for that as we became predator instead of prey, but the muscles are still there. Alas, they are very insufficient for ear rotation. You can wiggle your ears, sure... but WHY? I'm sure your god wants us to wiggle our ears...
There are many species where these vestigal organs are a <b>hindrance</b>. Like our tonsils, our wisdom teeth, and our appendix... all might have some use for someone, somewhere, but by and large in humans they are all prone to major problems nescessitating their removal. These same structures in other animals have more of a use. We can easily deduce that these structures are leftovers from when we were another species altogether. Unfortunately for us, modern medicine has essentially stopped homo sapiens' natural selection process and these organs will continue to be a problem for all future generations.
Your tailbone may hurt when it's broken, since it is loaded with nerves (being right at the end of spinal column) making it very painful to attempt to do much of anything. That in no way makes it a useful component when NOT broken. I'm sure I could rip off your nipples and you wouldn't like it... just because it hurts a lot does not mean your nipples are actually <b>useful</b>. Those people who are born with three nipples would probably tell you the third one is just as useless as the other two. That Mutation did not end up being very useful so it won't survive the process. Maybe your god doesn't want us to look "weird" when naked. I'm sure that's high on his list of things to ensure. But do you really think we'd look weird if we no male ever had nipples? Surely it wouldn't be considered weird if no other males had them, correct? Can you find any other reason for them? The male dayak fruit bat is capable of producing milk for its offspring.
I'm sure your toenails have some kind of fanciful use, other than a constant source of aggravation and annoyance. That little itty-bitty toenail on your smallest toe SURELY must have some amazing use. I'd like to know, so I can start making use of it, too. Koala bears and many other mammals in our family tree actually have a use for the claws on their feet.
Wisdom teeth are a problem for most people. Mine decided to try and show up around 14 years of age. They would have cut into my gums and caused major problems. So I had all 4 removed in one fell swoop. Same with my tonsils before that. Had either structure been allowed to develop as they do in other species <b>related to us</b>, I would have fallen ill to a host of problems. You say you still have one of them... what happened to the other three? Why would we need to remove any of them if they were actually useful? Do you at least concede the idea that these things are very useful in other animals, but not so much in humans?
Without modern medicine, tonsils and wisdom teeth would slowly disappear completely. The reason our wisdom teeth are a problem for many is because our jaws have lost their significance in chewing food, being that we cook and chop it up first, and have slowly started retreating into our skulls. You don't need canine teeth to chew meat. Especially considering you have a knife, a fork, an oven, and a set of molar teeth capable of mashing all those soft, processed foods. Canine teeth in our ancestors were used to rip raw meat off bones prior to our manipulation of the environment.
Vestigal structures like the feet on insects that get discarded very early in the development of the organism have absolutely <b>no use</b>. I'm sure manatees have nails on their flippers so that they may someday paint them and show off to their friends. You may be able to find trivial little functions or uses for a few things considered vestigal. But you cannot explain away ALL vestigal organs and structures in ALL species across this planet. Evolution, however, <b>can</b>. Perhaps you might try, in one fell swoop, by just declaring "god created them and who are we to judge what their use is?" Well, that'd be a far too easy cop-out of the discussion so hopefully no one invokes it.
In my opinion, the debate about Creationism vs Evolution always boils down to one simple problem: Creationists do not want to accept the fact that what they were told may end up not being, in fact, the truth. This is an affront to their beliefs, the stories they were told, and everything else involved with the stories in their bibles. Thus it simply <b>cannot be true</b>, in their minds. "It's not in my bible, thus it's not true." Every effort will be made, whether backed by any actual science or not, in an attempt to retain this belief. For without that faith, they cease to find a meaning in their lives, and the meaning of their afterlife once they are dead. Thus they will fight to the bitter, bitter, end... refusing to break that belief no matter what. Because if they no longer have faith, they have lost everything they need to continue functioning in a social environment. Thus belief in god the creator of heaven and Earth is quite literally their lifeline. Destroy the belief and you destroy them. I really think it comes down to that.
The best analogy I can give to the history of scientific reasoning versus theological beliefs... Creationism vs Evolution in this particular topic... is the following. Man once believed that the Earth was flat. Man once believed that the Earth was the center of our solar system, and the Universe. Any contradicting thoughts were considered heresy. As science progressed, and we actually learned some facts, these original beliefs were proven to be incorrect. The Earth isn't flat. The Earth is not the center of the Solar System. Who believes now what they believed 2000 years ago, when Jesus Christ allegedly walked the face of this Earth? Some things... yes... but all things? Absolutely not.
Another example, this time hypothetical. Time travel. Imagine if you could go back in time, say 500 years. Take back a laptop with you, and play some Natural Selection in front of a crowd of people. What do you think they would do to you? What do you think they would suppose you are, and what that laptop is? Can you even imagine what would be going through their minds? You might quickly be burned at the stake, but you might also be deemed a god. You would not be able to explain electrons, electricity, batteries, transistors, plasma screens, hard drives... any of it to those people. Show that same laptop to a class of 3rd graders today, and not <b>one</b> would bat an eyelash. Those 3rd graders may not understand the technology behind laptops, but science <b>does.</b>
With time, we gain knowledge of our world through learning and exploration. Open-minded science is the tool by which this happens. Old dogmas and beliefs are thrown out for new ones. This has happened in the past. Even the most dogmatic of the "true believers" can't argue against that. Religion must learn to adapt or it will perish. And it will. Just you wait and see. Far too many people are dependent on it. Evolution applies to religion, too <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
P.S. Here's an interesting book: <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802713386/qid=1065648159/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-8479890-1282548?v=glance&s=books' target='_blank'>Skeptics and True Believers: The Exhilarating Connection Between Science and Religion</a> by Chet Raymo. It has a decidedly scientific bias, however, so Creationists you might be disappointed in the author's opinions.
Comments
If you can say God exists, and He made things the way they are to look like evolution occurred, that can't be disproven.
For all intents and purposes, I could just as easily say a giant turtle balances the world on his back. You can't prove otherwise.
It is pertinent that we stick on the track of things that are FACT. Creationists can look for facts to disprove evolution. However if you say God explains everything, well that isn't very Koscher. Perhaps he does, but evidence must ensue after such a statement.
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
What you can't prove is that your supposed billion year old fossils are actually a billion years old.
You cannot prove that a billion different random processes cause two humans to evolve at the same time in the same place that they could come together and mate to produce offspring that would survive.
Since we are staying with the Evolution Vs. Creation debate and not delving into the thread we left (is there a God) let's stay here and play. Give me something to disprove and I won't just use "God explains everything".
And no, you can't prove the world is or isn't resting on the shell of a turtle. We haven't even been able to find the edge of the universe, much less something outside the universe (like a turtle).
Why is the burden of proof on me? I don't believe that evolution is true. Convince me.
As far as I can tell, the proselytizing goes both ways.
I have yet to see sufficient proof to convince me of evolution.
well?
still reading this?
Go and prove it
Here's the deal, folks: Creationism considers itself a science. Thus, it has to hold up against the measures of science. Thus, it's not enough to disprove another theory, you'll have to base your own thesis on factual data. There's a multitude of alternative non-darwinist evolutionary theories. If Darwinism turns out to be wrong, it can still be one of them.
As does every other theory. Show me some factual data concerning evolution then.
Mind you I said factual. Oh, and any FORM of evolution will do, not just Darwinism.
Here's the deal, folks: Creationism considers itself a science. Thus, it has to hold up against the measures of science. Thus, it's not enough to disprove another theory, you'll have to base your own thesis on factual data. There's a multitude of alternative non-darwinist evolutionary theories. If Darwinism turns out to be wrong, it can still be one of them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes, or it could be creation.
Im not sayng that just because evolution is wrong, creation is right, im just saying that i have yet to see proof that evolution is right.
When evolution gets disproved, we will debate about the next theory.
As does every other theory. Show me some factual data concerning evolution then.
Mind you I said factual. Oh, and any FORM of evolution will do, not just Darwinism. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
In case you only want that, take a look at Aegris posts about bacteria changing their genetical makeup from two pages ago. This, like many similiar observations, proves that contemporary species change to adapt themselves to their environment.
Voilá - evolution.
How much of what the "loser" has to say is biased against their captors?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dur. Of course the indigenous people will have bias. That's the freaking point: you get both sides of the arguement and find the middle groud. The goal is to try and eliminate the extremist views on both sides. However you need both opinions to find the "average" as it were. If you can find enough sources, generally through cross-referancing the research you can find what really happened.
History cannot be exact in some areas. We cannot say for example "If the Americans hadn't developed the atomic bomb and used it on Japan, the USSR would have invaded western Europe". We can theorise that this might have happened, based on evidence from the period, but we can never be sure if it may have happaned. What we can say is "The United States, in the year 1945, dropped two atomic bombs on Japan". That is what history is mainly concerned with: facts. We theorise as little as possible. Theorising is only used when the evidance we have runs out, but it is never based on nothing. There must always be a peice of underlying factual information to back up everything in history.
Nemesis is right. Creationists have no evidence. They like to think their "evidence" is showing evolution is false, when there is still a long jump between disproving evolution and proving God exists and that he created the world basically as is.
So the burden of proof is still on the creationists to enlighten us as to why we should believe their theory. You have no facts to support God exists, much less, that he created the world as it is now (minus a few thousand years).
What proof does evolution have? Useless organs and bones found in animals. Why would God create these things in the animals? I heard an argument for this, and it goes something like this: God didn't put the useless organs and bones there. That is part of natural selection which is a naturally occuring process. It is the byproduct of the past thousand years or so, but nothing more.
My response to that is, how dense do you have to be to not see a pattern emerge from this? We only see a window of time in which "natural selection" has occurred, but creationists would like to believe it suddenly stopped there, and that is where God created the universe. Using Acham's Razor, is it more likely God created the universe to make people think evolution took place, or that this has been going on all along?
Granted, i'm not saying God doesn't exist. Evolution says NO WHERE that God does not exist. Creationists took that implied meaning on their own. Creationists read into it like "the bible doesn't support evolution, so evolution goes against God." There was a very controversial theory much like this around Corpernicus's time about the center of the universe. In the end, the church collapsed and admitted they were wrong and Corpernicus's model was correct. I believe the church thought the bible supported the earth being the center of the universe at one point in time too. The bible gives fables and stories. They are metaphors for the truth. I mean come on, do you believe in Noah and the Ark and every single animal which ever existed?
On the other hand, I don't need to. Evolution is incorrect from my standpoint for a couple of reasons. (and by evolution I mean the Origon of species, not the adapting of a virus to fit it's surroundings, because Natural Selection IS a process which occurs as are mutations, but all the mutations in the world would not create a functional human).
1. I believe that there was a literal creator. This leaves no room for an evolutionistic standpoint in the origon of life.
2. There are methods and so called facts regarding evolution that I have found to be erronious (dating methods come to mind) but again, alot of this has to do with my existing bias and less to do with documentable science.
Now, knowing that I can in no way convince you of Creationism's validity because I can in no way convince you of my experiences regarding the existence of God, why do we subject ourselves to this kind of debate?
Let's just go play NS (or in my case do some work today) and agree to disagree. Frankly, I don't want you to be a Creationist, and if you really believed in Natural Selection, you wouldn't want me to be an evolutionist because apparently I can't prove anything and would only weaken your base of support. I guess you'd better hope I get selected for extinction.
As a matter of fact I do. I think it was very feasible and could link an article that describes it, but as a whole the people in this forum tend to deride anything that comes from Answers in Genesis even though the articles tend to be very full of factual scientific data.
Why do I believe it? Because the Bible tells me so (see my previous post as to why this is OK)
Oh and sorry for the double post, Hawkeye edited after I hit reply.
If a thesis can't be held up against rationally and factually agreeably data, it removes itself from the scientfic picture, and thus also the discussion about evolutionism and the origin of species.
So either, we can now start discussing the reasons why the idea of an origin of species out of natural selection and how this theory holds up against <i>scientfic argumentation</i>, or I can lock the topic for having gone O-T.
i'm waiting for the evidence
By your own "removal from the scientific picture" standards, Evolutionary concepts should not be there either, because it all starts with speculation. There is no one who can give 100% conclusive proof that the Origin of Species happened like evolutionists say it did. That being the case, how is it a science either and not merely a theory?
And if you make an exception for evolution being a scientific theory, then there has to be room for Creationism at the table.
First, we'll both have to accept that there can be no true evidences of the happenings on this planet before the dawn of man - no matter what side you are on, the absence of any kind of recorded data will force you to base your theory on a basis of hints, that is possibly incomplete data. This sounds like a big confession and seems to discredit a scientific theory, but we should always keep in mind that <i>every</i> kind of science is based on a foundation of incomplete data - although often an astonishingly big amount of it.
So, if we both agree on this preface, there can be a one word prove for the origin of species: "Dinosaur."
We'll both have to agree that the fossils of the bigger dinosaurs, as well as a large number of other now extinct species, are too strange to be in fact the fossils of contemporary animals or close derivates - such as, say, a process of natural selection spanning 25.000 years could produce.
Yet, our experience with younger fossils points at those skeletons being the remants of long-extinct animals. Now consider that few mammal fossils could be found in the sediment layers the dinosaur fossils were found in, and that those which were found show nothing but remote similiarity to our todays animals.
We know that the dinosaurs grew extinct (simply as they aren't around anymore). We also know from contemporary biological observations that ecologic nichés are seldomly left vacant. The dinosaurs extinction left one of the biggest ecologic nichés ever.
We know - thanks to contemporary observation - that mammals, especially a certain mammal called 'human', are the predominant species on the todays Earth.
Logic, as well as the fossils found between the extinction of the dinosaurs and todays world, dictates the following: Mammals filled the ecologic niches previously occupied by the now extinct lizards. Seeing that the mammals of that time share some common traits with, but are still largely different from todays mammals, they must have developed during this time according to some sort of influence, let's call it, say, 'natural selection'. This development did however not end with modifications to existing mammalian species. Comparing the fossils with todays specimen, we've got to admit that both are different species. Thus, we see a process of natural selection as origin of contemporary species.
Note that this chain of logic does not rely on carbon dating methods or anything to that extent, but simply scientfic obsevations made in our times.
I'll admit that it's sketchy and requires further elaboration, but I assume it's good enough as discussion hook, plus, I'm getting sleepy.
[edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By your own "removal from the scientific picture" standards, Evolutionary concepts should not be there either, because it all starts with speculation. There is no one who can give 100% conclusive proof that the Origin of Species happened like evolutionists say it did. That being the case, how is it a science either and not merely a theory?
And if you make an exception for evolution being a scientific theory, then there has to be room for Creationism at the table. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You used the right word: 'Theory'. A scientfic theory is qualified by a number of characteristics, most notably the fact that it makes a number of assumptions it's based upon that can be factually proved wrong. Prove the assumption of a process of natural selection wrong, and the idea of evolution crumbles. This theory can thus be rationally discussed using those assumptions as basis for a discussion.
Creationism grounds itself on divine intervention, which can not be factually proved wrong (nor right). It's thus strictly speaking not a scientific theory.[/edit]
Creationism is more of a belief than a theory. A theory derives from emperical evidence and creationism has no such evidence.
Creationism has no prove for or against it. So it makes it quite easy for creationists to fling rocks and sticks at evolution theory until evolutionists turn around and start to question the origins of creationism theory, which then creationists would run and hide in a hole somewhere until the coast is clear under the notion that their theory cannot be disproved.
Back to the example I gave earlier, I could believe a tortoise holds up the world on its back, and nobody could say anything to prove or disprove that theory. Evolution explains the world we live in. It explains the phenomenon and evidence we've seen. Creationism does not explain anything since no emperical evidence supports it. If we're going to have a scientific discussion, perhaps you creationists should take a look at what you believe and take a scientific approach about it.
Donnell, I want to make it known to you that I deeply value your non-flaming way of disagreeing. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Most people take things personally, but on the contrary, you've kept your cool . I admire that.
You make arguing a pleasure.
Go into space, look at the earth. There is no turtle. Even an invisible one would have an impact on the earth - such as a massive wall we cannot pass through
The earth hangs suspended in space. There is no turtle
If you want to say something like that, say "Beyond the universe is french speaking strawberry jam"
This I can't do, because Natural Selection does happen.
It is a natural process that happens in this world. Here's the problem though. Natural Selection doesn't work without another intervention: Mutation. Show me an example of a positive mutation that caused the emergence of a species.
By a "positive" mutation, I don't mean a mutation that caused a subset to survive like the beetles on the island off of Australia. Those beetles lost information in their genetic code (that for growing wings) which made them better able to survive on a windy island that would have normally had them blown out to sea. The ones with no wings survived there where they would have been hunted down by beetle eaters elsewhere. While this mutation allowed them to survive, it was still a harmful mutation (one which caused a genetic loss). There is not a single example of a mutation that caused a species to gain a trait.
This simply goes against all reason. The world is not becoming more and more coherent, we know from the 3rd law of thermodynamics that order is moving into chaos. That left to it's own devices, all things deteriorate given enough time.
So given that things are trending toward less complex (and not more complex) why is it okay to assume that the opposite was true at one point. That out of nowhere a fish develops lungs that enable it to breath on land, appendages that enable it to move on land, gather food, survive and breed to produce offspring with the same traits (all of these things are obviously beneficial mutations, the gaining of genetic code that it did not have before). If all things are trending toward chaos, where did this sudden beneficial mutation come from? (not just one beneficial mutation mind you, but probably more like quite a few that would be necessary for the lifeform to survive, all happening simultaneously).
Now as I have already said, I can't prove to you God exists and therefore I can't prove that there was a creator, but frankly I don't need to because either you are right or I am right and you will find out one day anyway.
Go into space, look at the earth. There is no turtle. Even an invisible one would have an impact on the earth - such as a massive wall we cannot pass through
The earth hangs suspended in space. There is no turtle
If you want to say something like that, say "Beyond the universe is french speaking strawberry jam" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, look carefully. In fact I said the world on its back, not the earth.
Besides, that's trivial. I could have just as well said something else which cannot be proved (at least not yet).
The point is the same.
You put two misconceptions into that one paragraph: First, you assume the existence of something like a scale on which to judge mutations (some positive, some negative). Nature doesn't work like that.
Let's take the example of your beetles. By not growing wings anymore, they lost the ability to fly (negative), but also lost a body part whichs use, growth, and care takes a lot of energy, thus reducing their need for nutrients (positive, as it increases their chances for survival).
As for 'constructive mutations', mutations that create new bodyparts, you are of course right that there's no single mutation that ever made an animal sprout wings. But that brings us to your second misconception: That mutations are a seldom sight and thus need to change a species 'in one go'. In reality, it is estimated that up to 50% of all specimens of any species carry mutations. Well possible that we are both mutants in a tiny way.
Now assume that one of the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-(you catch my drift)-fathers of a beetle had a tiny mutation that made its backs muscles grow a little stronger than usual. It wouldn't have become a disadvantage, so the beetle reproduced. A few more generations down the road, one of the offsprings of our beetles gets a mutation that lets a few of the membranes below its shell grow a little bigger than usual. Another few generations, and another few mutations combined both. <i>That's</i> how constructive mutation works. Nature has literally all the time in the world, and within a sufficuiently long time, even the smallest random occurances can gain significance.
1. Hip bones in whales
2. Tail bones, wisdom teeth, canine teeth, ear muscles, vomeronasal organ, second set of eyelids, male nipples in humans
3. Legs/hips and underdeveloped second lungs in snakes
4. Wings on ostriches
5. Molar teeth in vampire bats
6. 5-fingered hand-like appendages in dolphins
7. Cave-dwelling fish with eye sockets but no eyes
8. Over 200 beetle species with wings that are incapable of flight
9. Wolf teeth in horses
10. Insects that lose their feet early in development
11. Moles with eyes that are covered in fur and hair
12. Crabs that have foot stalks for eyes yet have no eyes
13. Wings on the Apteryx, a bird incapable of flight
14. Nails on the flippers of Manatees
15. Webbed feet on upland geese and the frigate bird, which are non-aquatic
If one wants to see forced natural selection in action, all you need to look at is the history of man breeding other animals domestically. We have essentially shown how to produce a new species. Dogs, cats, birds, rabbits... we have selectively chosen pairs to breed together to create a desired end result. These creatures did not exist in the past. One could argue that the chihuahua and the great dane are two distinct species now. To define a new species, you must show that the two are either A) no longer capable of breeding together or B) unwilling to breed together. If we left these creatures to their own devices, I'm sure the great dane will not breed with the little chihuahua, even if it's technically possible for man to force them to.
Our selective breeding and inbreeding of the canine species over hundreds and hundreds of years has resulted in some variants that have tremendous problems right from birth. Many breeds have an incredibly high likelihood of going blind. Pitbulls have been bred to fight and kill. And they do. Pekingese dogs have difficulty breathing, eye problems, heart problems, and difficulty in giving birth to puppies. English bulldogs have eye problems, skin problems, spine problems, breathing problems, and birthing problems. All of these problems were introduced by man because of our forced evolution of the species. Take a look at any breed's list of likely problems and you'll quickly see how we've totally mucked up that species to suit our selfish whims.
Did your god give us the right to create new species like this? Or are all dog breeders evil people?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Positive mutation: opposable thumb. Prior to the line of primates with opposable thumbs, you had only mammals with 5 digits that were incabable of grasping objects like modern-day primates can. This did not happen as a loss of anything; this was a <b>positive</b> mutation. The mutation was beneficial to that creature, in the environment in which it was living. It thrived, and produced many offspring. Some of the offspring inherited the trait, others did not. The offspring that did were more successful than those that did not. Eventually, a new species evolved such that all offspring had opposable thumbs. So it is with all primates.
Mutations happen all the time. The pitcher for the Cubs, Antonio Alfonseca, has 6 digits on each hand and foot. Is this more beneficial to him? Possibly. Will some of his children inherit this trait? Possibly. Will there be a new species as a result of this mutation? Unlikely. But it does not change the fact that this mutation could indeed be considered <b>positive</b>. Why? Because 6 fingers surely is better than only 5. Some people are double-jointed. Is this more beneficial to them than not? Maybe. If humans were not as dominant in the world as we are today, perhaps double-jointed people would stand a more likely chance of survival, and non double-jointed people would slowly die off, leading to all humans being double-jointed. This would be a <b>positive</b> mutation. The human skull has enlarged to allow a larger brain. Having stronger ankle and foot bones allowed us to move about on two appendages instead of four... freeing our hands to do such tasks as throwing hand-made spears at prey. All positive mutations throughout our ancestral history.
Here's an interesting article: <a href='http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html' target='_blank'>Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution</a>. Many of the author's points are found right here in this thread. <i>"Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false."</i>
Yes it does, but hold on...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Let's take the example of your beetles. By not growing wings anymore, they lost the ability to fly (negative), but also lost a body part whichs use, growth, and care takes a lot of energy, thus reducing their need for nutrients (positive, as it increases their chances for survival).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why was the need for nutrients even a factor? It wasn't in these beetles (not a new species anyway, just a subset of another). What made them survive was not that they needed less nutrients, or they could get them easier, it was simply since they couldn't fly, they didnt. Since they didn't fly, they didn't get blown out to sea and drown.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for 'constructive mutations', mutations that create new bodyparts, you are of course right that there's no single mutation that ever made an animal sprout wings. But that brings us to your second misconception: That mutations are a seldom sight and thus need to change a species 'in one go'. In reality, it is estimated that up to 50% of all specimens of any species carry mutations. Well possible that we are both mutants in a tiny way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
okay, let's follow this train of thought.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Now assume that one of the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-(you catch my drift)-fathers of a beetle had a tiny mutation that made its backs muscles grow a little stronger than usual. It wouldn't have become a disadvantage, so the beetle reproduced. A few more generations down the road, one of the offsprings of our beetles gets a mutation that lets a few of the membranes below its shell grow a little bigger than usual. Another few generations, and another few mutations combined both. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is all fine and good with mutations that would not cause a hindrance, but what if one of those baby step mutations caused something that could not survive? The whole process would stop there, because the baby step organism could not breed and pass on his genetic information. What you would end up with is a lot of dead fish on land who couldn't move away from predators. Or a lot of dead mammals/reptiles who though still cold blooded now have a bunch of fur that overheats them.
Just a few (admittedly poor) examples, but I've been fixing computers all day and my imagination is a little low <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Did your god give us the right to create new species like this?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Short answer... yes.
As far as your "vestigal organs" goes, like any unknown thing, it's easy to classify it as useless until a use is found. But we are learning that some of those Vestigal organs in animals have uses after all.
For example, (getting a little graphic, so I hope I don't get banned) those hip bones in whales are actually different in male and female (a species vestigal organ wouldn't be) and in fact it has been noted that the male's hipbone helps with penile erection while the female's helps with vaginal contraction. Pretty important use from the Natural Selection standpoint, I mean, no breeding = no whales, right?
For another... who ever said that having wings was a prerequisite of flight? Ostriches, emus and other flightless birds tend to demonstrate the use of their wings quite well I think. Anything from steadying themselves while running, to intimidating off attackers, to protecting their young, to warmth and protection from the elements all seem like pretty good uses of a "useless" appendage. Just because they can't fly, doesn't make them useless...
A simple google search shows that the diet of a typical bat includes alot of bugs. Bugs that though they squish easily enough for us, might be chewed by the bat before swallowing. Chewing teeth would be rather important for that wouldn't they?
Tail bones, wisdom teeth, canine teetch, ear muscles, (have to look up the vomeronasal one, that eludes me), (don't think I have two sets of eyelids) and the male nipple thing is kinda funny when you think about it, all these things don't show vestigal organs....
I still have 1 of my wisdom teeth, it will never be taken out, and I use it to chew. Canine teeth... well, I like to eat meet, so I have a use for mine. Tail Bones... have you ever broken yours? Do you know how hard it is to walk with it broken? Imagine the posture problems you would have without it. Ear muscles is something I'm not gonna touch. Simply because you don't lift something with a muscle, doesn't mean it's not there for a reason. Sometimes the muscles that move our tongues and lips seem wasted.. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And the male nipple thing... we'd just look... funny!
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to respond to this as well)
For you to list the opposable thumb as a positive mutation would assume that I already believed evolution and would believe it as such. See my belief says that the Primate and the Human were both CREATED with opposable thumbs. Your examples don't prove that positive mutations happened and that we as humans are the way we are today because of those positive mutations.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Mutations happen all the time. The pitcher for the Cubs, Antonio Alfonseca, has 6 digits on each hand and foot. Is this more beneficial to him? Possibly. Will some of his children inherit this trait? Possibly. Will there be a new species as a result of this mutation? Unlikely. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are mixing ideas here. The point is not that mutations don't happen, nor is the point that by promoting one mutation would that one take over as the dominant trait of the species. Positive mutations don't happen like evolutionists would require that they do. They do not add a trait that is not already included. The beetles listed above, didn't "gain" a lessened need for nutrients, at the genetic level, all they did was lose information. The point is that as many positive mutations that would have to have taken place to produce humans today would have taken too many years and generations for the age of the earth as it is today. Now, I suppose the only recourse is to show me that the age of the earth is really alot older then I think it is, and by all means, let's have it. I am going home soon, so I don't know if I will respond today, but I will be happy to do so tomorrow.
Oh and I meant to put this in the earlier post
Normal trait: The enemy is now attacking
Negative change to that trait: The enemy is not attacking
Nuetral change to that trait: Tha enemy is now attacking
Mutations happen, yes. Do positive mutations happen that add a trait not currently in the DNA? No?
The player for the cubs has six fingers because he already has the genetic code for five. He does not have functional gills however nor is he cold blooded.
1. Hip bones in whales
2. Tail bones, wisdom teeth, canine teeth, ear muscles, vomeronasal organ, second set of eyelids, male nipples in humans
3. Legs/hips and underdeveloped second lungs in snakes
4. Wings on ostriches
5. Molar teeth in vampire bats
6. 5-fingered hand-like appendages in dolphins
7. Cave-dwelling fish with eye sockets but no eyes
8. Over 200 beetle species with wings that are incapable of flight
9. Wolf teeth in horses
10. Insects that lose their feet early in development
11. Moles with eyes that are covered in fur and hair
12. Crabs that have foot stalks for eyes yet have no eyes
13. Wings on the Apteryx, a bird incapable of flight
14. Nails on the flippers of Manatees
15. Webbed feet on upland geese and the frigate bird, which are non-aquatic
If one wants to see forced natural selection in action, all you need to look at is the history of man breeding other animals domestically. We have essentially shown how to produce a new species. Dogs, cats, birds, rabbits... we have selectively chosen pairs to breed together to create a desired end result. These creatures did not exist in the past. One could argue that the chihuahua and the great dane are two distinct species now. To define a new species, you must show that the two are either A) no longer capable of breeding together or B) unwilling to breed together. If we left these creatures to their own devices, I'm sure the great dane will not breed with the little chihuahua, even if it's technically possible for man to force them to.
Our selective breeding and inbreeding of the canine species over hundreds and hundreds of years has resulted in some variants that have tremendous problems right from birth. Many breeds have an incredibly high likelihood of going blind. Pitbulls have been bred to fight and kill. And they do. Pekingese dogs have difficulty breathing, eye problems, heart problems, and difficulty in giving birth to puppies. English bulldogs have eye problems, skin problems, spine problems, breathing problems, and birthing problems. All of these problems were introduced by man because of our forced evolution of the species. Take a look at any breed's list of likely problems and you'll quickly see how we've totally mucked up that species to suit our selfish whims.
Did your god give us the right to create new species like this? Or are all dog breeders evil people? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The legs on snakes can be explain because when the serpent tempted adam and eve, he was cursed and made to crawl on his belly.
Yes, at the dawn of tiem, snakes had legs.
Please dont try to tell me that that it just a response to evoluton, because the creation story was around ages before evolution was thought of.
When did humans have a second set of eyelids? Crocodiles do, but those serve a very real purpose
Ostriches have wings because they are birds. duh They help in balance when running. they get used for mating rituals.
Whales have hip bones because they are mammals, for the birth canal (that goes through the hips)
You can bet that all of those serve a purpose in some way, if only to confuse us
Absolutely. This is a logical deduction about what we know.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But we are learning that some of those Vestigal organs in animals have uses after all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ostriches have wings. Why do they have wings for scaring off predators? They look like birds, don't they? They act like birds, right? Don't you think it's possible these birds were actually descendants from a species that, uh... flew? Or do you think god really wanted to create an awkward-looking being with trivial little wings incapable of flight, instead of giving the animal something a little more useful to... uh... "protect it's young" and give it warmth? I think a nice fur coat would do a better job of keeping the animal warm than a stupid, useless wing with some light feathers. A pair of arms with some nasty claws would be better suited for defense. Heck, even a pair of wings capable of FLIGHT so the silly thing could evade predators would be better than dysfunctional wings. Perhaps your god isn't perfect, and we can just learn to accept these oddities as "god's little R&D lab."
Whales have hip bones because they were once land-based mammals that could walk. Whatever trivial little function they might be used today is in no way, shape, or form an intended or even beneficial trait of the species. They are remnants from the past. You and I have ear muscles because our ancestors... and mammalian species still around today... needed to be able to rotate their ears to listen for prey. We have lost the need for that as we became predator instead of prey, but the muscles are still there. Alas, they are very insufficient for ear rotation. You can wiggle your ears, sure... but WHY? I'm sure your god wants us to wiggle our ears...
There are many species where these vestigal organs are a <b>hindrance</b>. Like our tonsils, our wisdom teeth, and our appendix... all might have some use for someone, somewhere, but by and large in humans they are all prone to major problems nescessitating their removal. These same structures in other animals have more of a use. We can easily deduce that these structures are leftovers from when we were another species altogether. Unfortunately for us, modern medicine has essentially stopped homo sapiens' natural selection process and these organs will continue to be a problem for all future generations.
Your tailbone may hurt when it's broken, since it is loaded with nerves (being right at the end of spinal column) making it very painful to attempt to do much of anything. That in no way makes it a useful component when NOT broken. I'm sure I could rip off your nipples and you wouldn't like it... just because it hurts a lot does not mean your nipples are actually <b>useful</b>. Those people who are born with three nipples would probably tell you the third one is just as useless as the other two. That Mutation did not end up being very useful so it won't survive the process. Maybe your god doesn't want us to look "weird" when naked. I'm sure that's high on his list of things to ensure. But do you really think we'd look weird if we no male ever had nipples? Surely it wouldn't be considered weird if no other males had them, correct? Can you find any other reason for them? The male dayak fruit bat is capable of producing milk for its offspring.
I'm sure your toenails have some kind of fanciful use, other than a constant source of aggravation and annoyance. That little itty-bitty toenail on your smallest toe SURELY must have some amazing use. I'd like to know, so I can start making use of it, too. Koala bears and many other mammals in our family tree actually have a use for the claws on their feet.
Wisdom teeth are a problem for most people. Mine decided to try and show up around 14 years of age. They would have cut into my gums and caused major problems. So I had all 4 removed in one fell swoop. Same with my tonsils before that. Had either structure been allowed to develop as they do in other species <b>related to us</b>, I would have fallen ill to a host of problems. You say you still have one of them... what happened to the other three? Why would we need to remove any of them if they were actually useful? Do you at least concede the idea that these things are very useful in other animals, but not so much in humans?
Without modern medicine, tonsils and wisdom teeth would slowly disappear completely. The reason our wisdom teeth are a problem for many is because our jaws have lost their significance in chewing food, being that we cook and chop it up first, and have slowly started retreating into our skulls. You don't need canine teeth to chew meat. Especially considering you have a knife, a fork, an oven, and a set of molar teeth capable of mashing all those soft, processed foods. Canine teeth in our ancestors were used to rip raw meat off bones prior to our manipulation of the environment.
Vestigal structures like the feet on insects that get discarded very early in the development of the organism have absolutely <b>no use</b>. I'm sure manatees have nails on their flippers so that they may someday paint them and show off to their friends. You may be able to find trivial little functions or uses for a few things considered vestigal. But you cannot explain away ALL vestigal organs and structures in ALL species across this planet. Evolution, however, <b>can</b>. Perhaps you might try, in one fell swoop, by just declaring "god created them and who are we to judge what their use is?" Well, that'd be a far too easy cop-out of the discussion so hopefully no one invokes it.
In my opinion, the debate about Creationism vs Evolution always boils down to one simple problem: Creationists do not want to accept the fact that what they were told may end up not being, in fact, the truth. This is an affront to their beliefs, the stories they were told, and everything else involved with the stories in their bibles. Thus it simply <b>cannot be true</b>, in their minds. "It's not in my bible, thus it's not true." Every effort will be made, whether backed by any actual science or not, in an attempt to retain this belief. For without that faith, they cease to find a meaning in their lives, and the meaning of their afterlife once they are dead. Thus they will fight to the bitter, bitter, end... refusing to break that belief no matter what. Because if they no longer have faith, they have lost everything they need to continue functioning in a social environment. Thus belief in god the creator of heaven and Earth is quite literally their lifeline. Destroy the belief and you destroy them. I really think it comes down to that.
The best analogy I can give to the history of scientific reasoning versus theological beliefs... Creationism vs Evolution in this particular topic... is the following. Man once believed that the Earth was flat. Man once believed that the Earth was the center of our solar system, and the Universe. Any contradicting thoughts were considered heresy. As science progressed, and we actually learned some facts, these original beliefs were proven to be incorrect. The Earth isn't flat. The Earth is not the center of the Solar System. Who believes now what they believed 2000 years ago, when Jesus Christ allegedly walked the face of this Earth? Some things... yes... but all things? Absolutely not.
Another example, this time hypothetical. Time travel. Imagine if you could go back in time, say 500 years. Take back a laptop with you, and play some Natural Selection in front of a crowd of people. What do you think they would do to you? What do you think they would suppose you are, and what that laptop is? Can you even imagine what would be going through their minds? You might quickly be burned at the stake, but you might also be deemed a god. You would not be able to explain electrons, electricity, batteries, transistors, plasma screens, hard drives... any of it to those people. Show that same laptop to a class of 3rd graders today, and not <b>one</b> would bat an eyelash. Those 3rd graders may not understand the technology behind laptops, but science <b>does.</b>
With time, we gain knowledge of our world through learning and exploration. Open-minded science is the tool by which this happens. Old dogmas and beliefs are thrown out for new ones. This has happened in the past. Even the most dogmatic of the "true believers" can't argue against that. Religion must learn to adapt or it will perish. And it will. Just you wait and see. Far too many people are dependent on it. Evolution applies to religion, too <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
P.S. Here's an interesting book: <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802713386/qid=1065648159/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-8479890-1282548?v=glance&s=books' target='_blank'>Skeptics and True Believers: The Exhilarating Connection Between Science and Religion</a> by Chet Raymo. It has a decidedly scientific bias, however, so Creationists you might be disappointed in the author's opinions.