Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Vestigal Features: Why?
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 1 of 18 (61309)
10-17-2003 2:04 AM


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."

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by MrHambre, posted 10-17-2003 8:11 AM Rei has not replied
 Message 3 by Rrhain, posted 10-17-2003 8:25 AM Rei has not replied
 Message 8 by neil88, posted 03-15-2004 10:17 AM Rei has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 2 of 18 (61336)
10-17-2003 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rei
10-17-2003 2:04 AM


A Reply from a Not So Intelligent Intelligent Design Creationist.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rei, posted 10-17-2003 2:04 AM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-18-2003 3:29 AM MrHambre has replied
 Message 6 by lpetrich, posted 10-24-2003 3:06 AM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 7 by sidelined, posted 10-24-2003 9:49 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 3 of 18 (61338)
10-17-2003 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rei
10-17-2003 2:04 AM


Rei writes:
quote:
what is the creationist belief for why male mammals have nipples.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rei, posted 10-17-2003 2:04 AM Rei has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 18 (61460)
10-18-2003 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by MrHambre
10-17-2003 8:11 AM


Re: A Reply from a Not So Intelligent Intelligent Design Creationist.
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by MrHambre, posted 10-17-2003 8:11 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by MrHambre, posted 10-18-2003 10:14 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 5 of 18 (61484)
10-18-2003 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Andya Primanda
10-18-2003 3:29 AM


quote:
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?
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-18-2003 3:29 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 18 (62514)
10-24-2003 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by MrHambre
10-17-2003 8:11 AM


Re: A Reply from a Not So Intelligent Intelligent Design Creationist.
MrHambre:
quote:
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.
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:
Remember, only IDC proponents are qualified to make judgments concerning how a Designer would design. ...
Says who?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by MrHambre, posted 10-17-2003 8:11 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 7 of 18 (62560)
10-24-2003 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by MrHambre
10-17-2003 8:11 AM


Re: A Reply from a Not So Intelligent Intelligent Design Creationist.
"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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by MrHambre, posted 10-17-2003 8:11 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
neil88
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 18 (92550)
03-15-2004 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rei
10-17-2003 2:04 AM


Humans with tails
Not only vestigial organs, but do creationists know that some human babies are born with fully functioning tails ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rei, posted 10-17-2003 2:04 AM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 03-15-2004 10:27 AM neil88 has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 9 of 18 (92551)
03-15-2004 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by neil88
03-15-2004 10:17 AM


Re: Humans with tails
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by neil88, posted 03-15-2004 10:17 AM neil88 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by neil88, posted 03-15-2004 11:18 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
neil88
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 18 (92570)
03-15-2004 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Jack
03-15-2004 10:27 AM


Re: Humans with tails
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 03-15-2004 10:27 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by neil88, posted 03-15-2004 11:37 AM neil88 has not replied

  
neil88
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 18 (92575)
03-15-2004 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by neil88
03-15-2004 11:18 AM


Re: Humans with tails
And this site - has an X ray photo and discussion.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by neil88, posted 03-15-2004 11:18 AM neil88 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Dr Jack, posted 03-15-2004 11:42 AM neil88 has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 12 of 18 (92576)
03-15-2004 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by neil88
03-15-2004 11:37 AM


Re: Humans with tails
Cool. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by neil88, posted 03-15-2004 11:37 AM neil88 has not replied

  
Spencer
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 18 (92633)
03-15-2004 6:34 PM


Also, what is the purpose of the appendix? Why would God give us something completly useless?

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Gary, posted 03-18-2004 6:01 PM Spencer has not replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 18 (93205)
03-18-2004 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Spencer
03-15-2004 6:34 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Spencer, posted 03-15-2004 6:34 PM Spencer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Chiroptera, posted 03-18-2004 6:14 PM Gary has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 18 (93214)
03-18-2004 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Gary
03-18-2004 6:01 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Gary, posted 03-18-2004 6:01 PM Gary has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Gary, posted 03-18-2004 6:39 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024