|
Title: Design and Vestigial structures Post by: Reasoned Faith on November 15, 2007, 07:02:17 PM Split from Specification and Design
I'm almost hesitant to post this, because this is a really good thread and I don't want to derail the conversation I'm learning so much from (I'm fairly ignorant when it comes to the nitty gritty of genetics, biology in general was always the hardest field for me by far). My question is about design. If there were an intelligent force behind the design of living creatures, what is the explanation, if any for vestigial structures? Why would an intelligent design include function-less parts. Explanations are partially a function of the item in question. In general I note that the Design premise predicts that there should be few vestigial structures. Any structure that is vestigial should be something that was disabled by the well established propensity of evolutionary processes to break functional systems. Evolutionary theory predicts there should be an abundance of vestigial structures. in the 1880's the list of human vestigial structures numbered over 160, and Evolutionists at the time predicted the list would grow. By 1910 it was down to about 100. Now there are fewer than 7 that are listed as vestigial where function is not established. It has recently been confirmed that the human appendix does have useful function as an incubator for useful and needed bacteria just as the larger extensions are required for grazing animals who consume large quantities of cellulose. Title: Re: Design and Vestigial structures Post by: daedalus 2.0 on November 15, 2007, 07:42:39 PM Creationism doesn't "predict" vestigia, it apologizes for it. You would never have heard a Creationist claiming it before they were discovered, and now RF is trying to redefine vestgial structures to make them sound as they are not: the typical Creationist plot of creating Strawmen and hoping to reel in the ignorant.
Quote Vestigial Organs and Structures Vestigial organs and structures (also called vestigia, rudiments, or remnants) are reduced body parts or organs, often without visible function in the derived bearers, that were fully developed and functioning in earlier members of that phylogenetic lineage. These structures, sometimes described as atrophied or degenerate, are usually small in comparison with their relative size in ancestral generations or in closely related species. ... vestigial structures may have acquired new, less obvious functions that differ from the original ones. Hence, a vestigium should not generally be considered without function, or only with respect to its ancestral, adult roles. (Encyclopedia of Evolution 2002, pp 1131-1133) Gee, no wonder RF can claim its only 7 (its at least 10, btw, but facts don't concern him), because he is just redefining them out of exsistence. What is it about you RF that you must define your god into existence and redefine the challenges to your creation out? Quote Even the etymology of "vestigial" signals that it does not mean "without function." "Vestige" and "vestigial" derive from the Latin word vestigium, which means "footprint, trace, mark, or track" and does not carry the meaning of "functionless, useless." It is significant that biologists chose the term "vestigial" over derivitaves of irritus, inutilis, inanis, or reiculus, which all carry the meaning of "functionless, useless." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/scadding.htmlCreationists should learn science before they try to destroy it. Before they tear down Reason in favor of Faith. Quote Claim CB361.1: Even if a vestigial organ has no use today, we can be sure it had a function in the past. God does not make junk, but things deteriorated after sin entered the world. Calling an organ useless reflects evolutionary thinking. Source: Morris, John D. 2005. Does the gallbladder have a necessary function? Back to Genesis 194d (Feb.). Response: This claim is dogmatic assertion. It is based purely on personal religious belief; it cannot be tested against evidence. It is scientifically useless. The idea that death and decay entered the world only after the original creation implies that many presently functional organs were originally useless. For example, defenses would have had no function when there were no threats to defend against. Calling an organ useless reflects its having no detectable use, nothing more. Morris's view of deteriorating life is also evolutionary thinking, just with a very different mechanism of evolution. Vestigial does not mean useless. (RF has made this argument in the past, btw.) Title: Re: Design and Vestigial structures Post by: Reasoned Faith on November 16, 2007, 04:46:14 AM This is why you can't truat Creationists, they lie and cheat. Creationism doesn't "predict" vestigia, it apologizes for it. You would never have heard a Creationist claiming it before they were discovered, and now RF is trying to redefine vestgial structures to make them sound as they are not: the typical Creationist plot of creating Strawmen and hoping to reel in the ignorant. Thanks for making my case better than I can that ID is not creationism. Creationism would not predict vestigial components but the ID premise does predict that they should be few as opposed to many. Title: Re: Design and Vestigial structures Post by: daedalus 2.0 on November 16, 2007, 10:14:17 AM ID IS Creationism, perhaps you missed the memo?
Title: Re: Design and Vestigial structures Post by: tejtej on November 17, 2007, 04:55:49 AM Evolutionary theory predicts there should be an abundance of vestigial structures. ? Title: Re: Design and Vestigial structures Post by: Reasoned Faith on November 17, 2007, 10:27:49 AM Evolutionary theory predicts there should be an abundance of vestigial structures. ? It must be falling out of favor since the prediction isn't panning out. Title: Re: Design and Vestigial structures Post by: daedalus 2.0 on November 17, 2007, 10:40:30 AM ::) :laugh:
Powered by SMF 1.1.5 |
SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com |