|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Vestigal Features: Why? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7040 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
I am kind of curious... what is the creationist belief for why male mammals have nipples. In evolution, it's obvious - since both males and females of sexually dimorphic species are drawn from the same basic plan which diverges during early gestation, there is selective pressure not to waste energy developing a useless feature, but no selective pressure would cause the body to deliberately rid of them. However, I would expect that a designer would have the foresight to simply set the split point between genders earlier - surely he is capable of doing something like that.
Why have vestigal features? Likewise, why have the border between the sexes be so weak (such that in-betweens only take fairly minor mutations to occur, etc), if he is so concerned about specific roles for men and women? ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Rei,
I think you need to read Darwin's Black Box again, as I do quasi-religiously every summer. Evidence of poor design, redundant design, or the absence of design are not sufficient cause to abandon a design perspective. You're assuming that the Designer (whether God, other deities, cartoonists, extraterrestrials, or what have you) intended the design to be optimal, and your basis for that assumption is invalid. It would be just as valid (or moreso, since Behe said so) to assume that the Designer intended the design to be poor, redundant, or to have the appearance of having evolved. This is what makes Design such a powerful hypothesis. Useful? Works for me. Remember, only IDC proponents are qualified to make judgments concerning how a Designer would design. And even we can't decide how a Designer wouldn't design. But when we do, we'll let you know. Maybe. ------------------I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Rei writes:
quote: Have you never had your theologically-approved sexual partner play with them in a theologically-approved manner? Who says they're vestigial? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
off topic, just a speculation, if you ask Behe about vestigial organs, I bet he'd say it was expected... Wasn't his creation scenario like this: God created the ur-cell with every feature that would show up later in all kinds of creatures? If Behe's scenario is true then we should expect all kinds of vestigial organs and parts.
Imagine finding a vestigial photosynthetic system in our retinal cells...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
quote:One of the major problems with this, ahem, hypothesis is that Behe's front-loaded 4-billion-year-old cell certainly couldn't have been a eukaryote cell. Clare Stevens (who calls Behe's scenario 'ludicrous') is quick to ask: "If Behe's cell contained designs for all subsequent biochemistry,how come we Eukaryotes can't do all those clever things bacteria can do like 'fixing' Nitrogen or living off sulphur or crude oil? Perhaps the designer made a different cell for the bacteria or have we just failed to 'turn on' these systems?" {added by edit:}As you said, if this cell is not only the common ancestor of all life on earth, but already contained genes for all biological functions, wouldn't we expect to find vestiges in our genome of abilities (such as photosynthesis) that we no longer use? ------------------The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead. -Brad McFall [This message has been edited by MrHambre, 10-18-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lpetrich Inactive Member |
MrHambre:
quote:Thus, there could be nothing that could falsify the "Intelligent Design" hypothesis, because it can easily incorporate something like Philip Gosse's Omphalos hypothesis of created appearance. quote:Says who?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
"Evidence of poor design, redundant design, or the absence of design are not sufficient cause to abandon a design perspective."
Poor design ,no. Redundant design,no though questionable. But the absence of design is by definition the REASON to abandon a design perspective. You gotta start proof reading the meaning of these sentences. [This message has been edited by sidelined, 10-24-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
neil88 Inactive Member |
Not only vestigial organs, but do creationists know that some human babies are born with fully functioning tails ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Not only vestigial organs, but do creationists know that some human babies are born with fully functioning tails ? Really? You got a credible source for that? (Preferably a web-site) I know some humans have been born with tails of a sort, but I've not heard of fully functioning ones before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
neil88 Inactive Member |
Try this site. There are others if you search for them.
Health Topics | University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics I saw one site which had an X ray of a human tail with bones and muscle groups visible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
neil88 Inactive Member |
And this site - has an X ray photo and discussion.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Cool. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spencer Inactive Member |
Also, what is the purpose of the appendix? Why would God give us something completly useless?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gary Inactive Member |
Although I believe in evolution, I read somewhere that the appendix makes a minor contribution to the immune system. Thats not evidence for Creationism in my opinion, and its not so important that the appendix can't be removed, but apparently a lot of white blood cells gather in that part of the body.
Also, there are a lot of introns in our DNA which don't code for anything, making them useless to us. There are even broken genes, such as the one that would allow us to synthesize our own Vitamin C, but its broken in all primates, including humans. I see no reason for those genes to exist. EDIT: The reason I don't think the appendix having a function is evidence for Creationism is because other animals have use for it. Many herbivorous animals have a much more developed appendix than we do, and they use it to digest plant matter that would be indigestible without an appendix. [This message has been edited by Gary, 03-18-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
You are correct. There are cells imbedded in the appendix that have an immune function. But there is no reason why these cells need to be imbedded in a narrow blind sac that is liable to infection. In fact, immune cells are embedded in the entire intestine.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024