Vestiges for Peter B.

If there are no such things as vestiges, as you confidently proclaim in another thread, please provide the evidence that the following structures are not vestigial:femurs in whalesauricularis muscles in humansextensor coccygis in humansI have the feeling that either the Peter Borger that posts here is not the Peter Borger with actual scientific publications, or that he is but he is just another creationist with a degree.

Dear SLPxRegarding the coccyx in my own thread (!) (I am honoured):This is what I found on the internet:"The notion that it pulls the coccyx back into position after childbirth is unsupported."I say:
This does not mean that it does NOT have this function. Maybe it needs furher scrutiny. Anyway, the backbone has to end somewhere. It happens to be the coccyx.And:
"The musculature supporting the coccyx, along with every other pelvic bone, relaxes as a pregnancy approaches term. Post-partum (after birth), all muscles gradually return to their normal state, returning the pelvic bones to their normal positions."I say:
"Women who have had their coccyx fixated due to previous fracture have more problems giving birth to their baby, and this suggests a function in delivery. Any midwife can tell you this."And:
"Additionally, stating that 'movement of the coccyx during childbirth expands the birth-canal' is misleading. Yes, it does. The movement, however, is entirely passive - the result of the baby's head passing thru the birth canal."I say:
"But, if the coccyx wasn't there the baby had a hard time to pass the birth canal since it has to make a 90 degrees turn".In conclusion, I is doubtful whether the coccyx has no function.(ref: www-personal.umich.edu/~jsolum/yec/archive/coccyx1.htm)Maybe I will look up comments on the auricularis muscles too.
I will keep you informed.Best wishes
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-09-2002]

What about hair on humans.It serves no function, if it is absent it makes no difference
to survivability (and if it did stone-age man would
not have required hides).Bald people suffer no more or less than those with hair (apart
from some socio-centric ridicule).Chin hair on men is particularly useless, otherwise those of us who
shave would suffer in some way.

To what great use have you been putting your nipples to recently

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
To what great use have you been putting your nipples to recently

---

To be fair nipples do have a function for females, and I have seen
documentaries where men use theirs as dummies (I think it was
in the phillipines).

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:
If there are no such things as vestiges, as you confidently proclaim in another thread, please provide the evidence that the following structures are not vestigial:

​

femurs in whales

​

auricularis muscles in humans

​

extensor coccygis in humans

​

I have the feeling that either the Peter Borger that posts here is not the Peter Borger with actual scientific publications, or that he is but he is just another creationist with a degree.

---

A degree bought at a diaploma mill you mean.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
To what great use have you been putting your nipples to recently

---

The reason why men have nipples is because the natural form of life is female, not male. If you look at the 23rd chromosome pair in men you will see that the Y is actually a broken X. We have many other "female" features as well. In fact during the early stages of a pregnancy we're all female as well. So, the bible account if it were to be accurate would be Eve then Adam.At the time this was written it was believed that all a woman did was carry a man's "seed" for him. That she didn't have any genetic say in "his" offspring.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
To what great use have you been putting your nipples to recently

---

​

The reason why men have nipples is because the natural form of life is female, not male. If you look at the 23rd chromosome pair in men you will see that the Y is actually a broken X. We have many other "female" features as well. In fact during the early stages of a pregnancy we're all female as well. So, the bible account if it were to be accurate would be Eve then Adam.

​

At the time this was written it was believed that all a woman did was carry a man's "seed" for him. That she didn't have any genetic say in "his" offspring.

---

I thought most ancient cultures were matriarchal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
To what great use have you been putting your nipples to recently

---

​

The reason why men have nipples is because the natural form of life is female, not male. If you look at the 23rd chromosome pair in men you will see that the Y is actually a broken X. We have many other "female" features as well. In fact during the early stages of a pregnancy we're all female as well. So, the bible account if it were to be accurate would be Eve then Adam.

​

At the time this was written it was believed that all a woman did was carry a man's "seed" for him. That she didn't have any genetic say in "his" offspring.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx

​

Regarding the coccyx in my own thread (!) (I am honoured):

​

This is what I found on the internet:

​

"The notion that it pulls the coccyx back into position after childbirth is unsupported."

​

I say:
This does not mean that it does NOT have this function. Maybe it needs furher scrutiny. Anyway, the backbone has to end somewhere. It happens to be the coccyx.

---

Yes, it does, doesn't it?Of course, a cautious reader would have noticed that I did not even mention the coccyx. I believe that this tactic is called a red herring?

quote:

---

*SNIP prattle on coccyx 'function' as being IRRELEVANT to this thread*

​

In conclusion, I is doubtful whether the coccyx has no function.

​

(ref: www-personal.umich.edu/~jsolum/yec/archive/coccyx1.htm)

---

Of course it has a function - many, in fact. What that has to say about it being vestigial or not I have no idea.Of course, again, I did not even mention the coccyx.

quote:

---

Maybe I will look up comments on the auricularis muscles too.
I will keep you informed.

​

Best wishes
Peter

---

Please do. Or better yet, you can start informing me of something worthwhile and at least ON TOPIC.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
To what great use have you been putting your nipples to recently

---

I'll send you the photo's, what's your E-mail adress?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
To what great use have you been putting your nipples to recently

---

​

I'll send you the photo's, what's your E-mail adress?

​

Mark

​

---

LOL!!!

Originally posted by Peter:I thought most ancient cultures were matriarchal.They were, but we're speaking of bibical times which are much more recent and male centred.Remember, Wicca had existed for over 23,000 years prior to the invention of Christianity.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B]Originally posted by Peter:I thought most ancient cultures were matriarchal.They were, but we're speaking of bibical times which are much more recent and male centred.[/quote][/b]There really isn't any evidence that prehistoric cultures were matriarchal. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. Either way the evidence isn't there.It seems to me that you would have pretty much what we see today in non-industrialized societies and what we see in other primates-- a whole bunch of different social structures. To say, 'pre-historic culture was matriarchal' is a huge oversimplification and a very bad gamble as well.

quote:

---

Remember, Wicca had existed for over 23,000 years prior to the invention of Christianity.

---

Wicca didn't exist at all until it was invented in the '70s.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 09-10-2002]

Originally posted by John:There really isn't any evidence that prehistoric cultures were matriarchal. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. Either way the evidence isn't there.Many of the early deities were female. I can understand why you wouldn't want to think that this were possible. You come from a chauvinistic culture.http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/smako/def-cult.htmIt seems to me that you would have pretty much what we see today in non-industrialized societies and what we see in other primates-- a whole bunch of different social structures. To say, 'pre-historic culture was matriarchal' is a huge oversimplification and a very bad gamble as well.Even in the animal kingdom females are mostly in charge. I.E. Insects, many of the big cats, Elephants, etc...Wicca didn't exist at all until it was invented in the '70s. You're thinking of modern Wicca which (bad pun) has very little to do with it's anicent counterpart because they had to basically start from scratch because of centuries of persecution by the Church which caused the lost of many of the old practices, rituals, and rites. This is why it isn't considered to be the oldest living religion. Hinduism is the oldest living religion now.If Wicca only existed since the 1970's then why did the Church murder so many innocent people who they thought were practicing witchcraft over the centuries starting when they first invaded Europe?Before the Christian infestation of Europe it had been consider a compliment to be called a witch. This is where we also get the word wit from as well.I just visited your home page and it explains why you are saying this.The main graphic there speaks volumes of what you think of women. Women are not demonic temptresses.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-10-2002]