What will you believe if science recreates the beginings of life?

[Missourian]

I don't know the answers. I only know what I do know because I've read about them.

Like I said, I think we are in the same scientific boat.

And I've got a question of my own. Why have I got a coccyx?

Well, when a man loves a woman very much, he uses his coccyx...wait a minute, this is supposed to be a family friendly board.


Seriously, you'd have a hard time sitting without one.

You would also have a rough time keeping you spinal fluid inside your spinal column without it. (among other things)


Vestigial Organs - Creation vs Evolution, Science, Bible, Mike Riddle

 

[Diuretic]

Like I said, I think we are in the same scientific boat.

Yes but why am I bailing so furiously?

Well, when a man loves a woman very much, he uses his coccyx...wait a minute, this is supposed to be a family friendly board.

Percy Sledge never had that verse in his song

Seriously, you'd have a hard time sitting without one.

You would also have a rough time keeping you spinal fluid inside your spinal column without it. (among other things)


Vestigial Organs - Creation vs Evolution, Science, Bible, Mike Riddle

And there are many reasons I'm glad I have a coccyx, not the least being I can stand up and pee.

Hang on, that came out wrong.

Now, why do I have a vestigial tail? If it's vestigial then doesn't it mean it's no longer useful? And doesn't that imply that it was once useful? Now I know I was only very young when I was born but I reckon if I'd had a tail and someone docked me I would have been told about it. In fact I think I'd still be hearing about it

 

[Missourian]

And there are many reasons I'm glad I have a coccyx, not the least being I can stand up and pee.

Hang on, that came out wrong.

Now, why do I have a vestigial tail? If it's vestigial then doesn't it mean it's no longer useful? And doesn't that imply that it was once useful? Now I know I was only very young when I was born but I reckon if I'd had a tail and someone docked me I would have been told about it. In fact I think I'd still be hearing about it

I think the coccyx is what is referred to as the "vestigial tail" and I believe we agreed it is quite useful.

It seems evolutionist contend it is a vestigial tail because it starts out as 4 bones that fuse into one, but that is not uncommon. I just read that a baby has 270 bones while an adult only has 206.

Human Skeleton


It also "resembles the structure of the beginning of a tail" whatever that means. Since a tail begins at the end of the spine I would suppose it would look like the end of a spine, if you know what I mean.

I would have to find an example of any animal whose spine ends without a coccyx or a tail.

 

[Skeptik]

Sometimes, it would be really handy to have a tail, especially a prehensile one that we could use as a kind of third hand. Imagine getting out of a car, for example, with your hands full of packages, then seeing your keys fallen on the floor. As it is, you either have to take a chance and leave the keys there, or put all of the packages down. If you had a tail, you could pick the keys up and lock the door with your tail.

Maybe one day humans will evolve a handy tail. Of course, women will spend hours grooming it, but, then, there's no remedy for that, now is there?

 

[Anguille]

Yes but why am I bailing so furiously?



Percy Sledge never had that verse in his song



And there are many reasons I'm glad I have a coccyx, not the least being I can stand up and pee.

Hang on, that came out wrong.

Now, why do I have a vestigial tail? If it's vestigial then doesn't it mean it's no longer useful? And doesn't that imply that it was once useful? Now I know I was only very young when I was born but I reckon if I'd had a tail and someone docked me I would have been told about it. In fact I think I'd still be hearing about it

Ever wonder why male mammals have nipples?

 

[KittenKoder]

Ever wonder why male mammals have nipples?

Um ... now that is kinda stupid. It's because the male and female bodies are identical to a certain point of development ... and even after the first major change nothing else changes until the mammal hits puberty in which case the hormones actually cause the changes. Males have mammary glands as well, they just don't fill with fat (and milk when pregnant). The testes are actually almost the same as ovaries, and when in the womb they ARE ovaries. It has little to do with evolution.

 

[KittenKoder]

The thing about evolution that many people like to ignore is that it's very complex and a huge subject. Normally I can't stand people who 'specialize' because they are morons, but in this case evolutionary science does require specialization. There are so many factors and so many possibilities (many more that we don't even know about) that it requires almost a lifetime of study just to understand the basics, without computers we would still be stumbling on the topic like we were when Darwin first published it as theory. Denying evolution though is the same as denying the existence of air. Debating the specific tracts however is possible because again, there is just too much and we have barely scratch the surface of the science. There are many species that we know of which have failed evolutionary tracts which ended with extinction (the most logical explanation of dinosaur extinction actually contains this fact). The one that said something about plants, they cam first, it was them that converted the atmosphere required by more complex land life, also plant life was the first to exist in the water because it's a simpler life form and more adaptive.

 

[Care4all]

Pardon me if this has been mentioned already, but does evolution include monkeys becoming man, or has that been ruled in or out by Science?

 

[Diuretic]

Ever wonder why male mammals have nipples?

Good point, pretty well redundant I would think. I don't know why it's so though.

 

[Diuretic]

Um ... now that is kinda stupid. It's because the male and female bodies are identical to a certain point of development ... and even after the first major change nothing else changes until the mammal hits puberty in which case the hormones actually cause the changes. Males have mammary glands as well, they just don't fill with fat (and milk when pregnant). The testes are actually almost the same as ovaries, and when in the womb they ARE ovaries. It has little to do with evolution.

Okay, I have a better idea of it now. Vive la différence - minime!

 

[Diuretic]

Pardon me if this has been mentioned already, but does evolution include monkeys becoming man, or has that been ruled in or out by Science?

I think the common ancestor idea rules doesn't it? That we branched off early in the piece and eventually became the rulers of the world and our near relatives, the other primates, became rulers of little bits of the world?

I read something about how genetically we're very close to the other primates but we, as I said, branched off.

 

[KittenKoder]

Pardon me if this has been mentioned already, but does evolution include monkeys becoming man, or has that been ruled in or out by Science?

That is the theory part of it. There is still no evidence one way or the other, just guesses based on DNA and general biological functions. That is also the only part many people think about when they think about evolution, forgetting of course there is more to it.

Humans from apes (more correctly monkey) is still debatable because of the fact that all evidence we have contradicts itself in many instances. The human tract is proving to be too complex right now and with all the falsified evidence that people keep submitting to prove their 'idea' one way or the other the scientific community is having a difficult time sorting it all out. Right now for all we know humanity evolved from dinosaurs (though unlikely still possible) and never intersected with the monkey tract.

 

[KittenKoder]

I think the common ancestor idea rules doesn't it? That we branched off early in the piece and eventually became the rulers of the world and our near relatives, the other primates, became rulers of little bits of the world?

I read something about how genetically we're very close to the other primates but we, as I said, branched off.

One of the strange things is that it actually supports the Adam and Eve story more than any myth. But shhhh ... don't tell fundies that.

 

[Diuretic]

One of the strange things is that it actually supports the Adam and Eve story more than any myth. But shhhh ... don't tell fundies that.

And given if the Adam and Eve story was - as is so often said - not to be taken literally well, who knows? Perhaps at the time it was a pretty good metaphorical explanation of possible human development?

I also think I remember reading other human creation stories that may be similar. But I suppose as soon as early humans became capable of spirituality (which would be a matter of cortical development I think) then humans would have been seeking explanations and given we all had and have the same basic physiological equipment - brain - then we'd probably be coming up with similar ideas even though we, as a species, were highly dispersed.

 

[KittenKoder]

And given if the Adam and Eve story was - as is so often said - not to be taken literally well, who knows? Perhaps at the time it was a pretty good metaphorical explanation of possible human development?

I also think I remember reading other human creation stories that may be similar. But I suppose as soon as early humans became capable of spirituality (which would be a matter of cortical development I think) then humans would have been seeking explanations and given we all had and have the same basic physiological equipment - brain - then we'd probably be coming up with similar ideas even though we, as a species, were highly dispersed.

Dispersion is one of the reasons evolution has little to go on for humanity. Until we know exactly where in the world humanity started we will not be able to find the 'missing links' as they are often called. There is also the possibility that those with the most drastic genetic difference may have evolved from another breed of the same species as well, which would complicate things a lot.

 

[Diuretic]

I should keep up with things I know, but there's so much information available now that I just get overload. What happened to the Lucy hypothesis? If that's still valid then we apparently got started in the Rift Valley in Kenya and just wandered around most of the planet until we basically owned it.

 

[KittenKoder]

I should keep up with things I know, but there's so much information available now that I just get overload. What happened to the Lucy hypothesis? If that's still valid then we apparently got started in the Rift Valley in Kenya and just wandered around most of the planet until we basically owned it.

The problem with the Lucy hyp. is that it still poses little evidence. First carbon dating is still easily fooled so that is an inaccurate method of dating at all (refer to the Noah's Ark Hoax). As for the location being a determination of actual age, this is pretty much inherently flawed due to earthquakes, the fact that something that old would have been during continental drift, and other factors that make it unreliable. It's possible, and thus the reason we may have evolved from dinosaurs, but so far the jury can still be out.

 

[Diuretic]

Main thing is we keep looking

 

[KittenKoder]

Main thing is we keep looking

Thus is the biggest problem I have with organized religion, most want people to stop looking.

 

[Missourian]

Main thing is we keep looking

I agree.