Evolution is a farce: Evidence

a reply to: Sremmos80 Hey take it easy, he's a newbie, we all start out like this, the best part is that he's on the right track, just fine tuning is all

a reply to: TechUnique

you believe anyone who doesn't agree with you, or points out flaws in your arguments, is making "offensive comments"

you might find things go better if you're not so disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and don't cop out and run away when you come up against arguments that run contrary to your personal beliefs...either you are out to have genuine conversations and debates, or you are not.

originally posted by: pikestaff
Evolution, what puzzles me is that we have liver, gall bladder, appendix, all the other squishy items inside, if we did not have them to start with, which I presume we did not need them, why 'evolve' them?

what puzzles me is that some people still believe that we have vestigial organs when science*ahem* ahem* proved they were not vestigial after *ahem* ahem* science proved they were

No wonder you are confused, some people who believe in vestigial organs should study vestigial organs

If we didnt have them, didnt meed them why evolve them?

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: pikestaff
Evolution, what puzzles me is that we have liver, gall bladder, appendix, all the other squishy items inside, if we did not have them to start with, which I presume we did not need them, why 'evolve' them?

what puzzles me is that some people still believe that we have vestigial organs when science*ahem* ahem* proved they were not vestigial after *ahem* ahem* science proved they were

No wonder you are confused, some people who believe in vestigial organs should study vestigial organs

If we didnt have them, didnt meed them why evolve them?

I think you have it the other way round perhaps? It is not we evolved to have these (now relativley useless) organs. That we used to long before we would be considered 'Human' and thusly we are still in our own Evolution timeline on the way for them to dissapear altogether. Alot of these organs are in reduced size compared to other speices that still have a purpose.

a reply to: borntowatch

The word "why" in relation to evolution shouldn't be used. Organisms don't evolve things for a reason. Organisms evolve things and if they are beneficial, they use them beneficially. It's that simple. There is no plan for evolution.

a reply to: borntowatch

Really? So that coccyx is supporting a tail under your trousers then? And those wisdom teeth, you still have yours? It must be really interesting to have a functioning vemeronasal organ being able to smell so much more than other humans and your fully developed ear muscles giving you access to a wider range of frequencies like other non-ape primates. Male nipples te extremely useful too. The plica semilunaris is a small fold of tissue on the inside corner of the eye. It is the vestigial remnant of the nictitating membrane.

Should I go in about all the muscles in the human body that are considered vestigial and explain why?

Goosebumps are a vestigial behavioral response from when we were completely covered in hair, palmar grasp reflex in infants, non coding DNA, color blindness I could do this all day.

I'm guessing you are basing your response on anachronistic thoughts relating to the appendix? If I'm wrong, please let me know which vestigial organs and traits are no longer considered such.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Just imagine if they actually found evidence against evolution. That would be a good conversation.

To be honest, I don't know if a YECer would know what that looks like. Since they think that even a little bit of contradictory evidence refutes the entire theory. But that isn't the case, small bits of contradictory evidence means that the theory just needs to be tweaked (like was the case when punctuated equilibrium came about).

In fact, I'd say that you would need a LOT of contradictory evidence to refute the entire theory. That evidence would also have to refute many aspects of the theory, not just one.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: borntowatch

Really? So that coccyx is supporting a tail under your trousers then? And those wisdom teeth, you still have yours? It must be really interesting to have a functioning vemeronasal organ being able to smell so much more than other humans and your fully developed ear muscles giving you access to a wider range of frequencies like other non-ape primates. Male nipples te extremely useful too. The plica semilunaris is a small fold of tissue on the inside corner of the eye. It is the vestigial remnant of the nictitating membrane.

Should I go in about all the muscles in the human body that are considered vestigial and explain why?

Goosebumps are a vestigial behavioral response from when we were completely covered in hair, palmar grasp reflex in infants, non coding DNA, color blindness I could do this all day.

I'm guessing you are basing your response on anachronistic thoughts relating to the appendix? If I'm wrong, please let me know which vestigial organs and traits are no longer considered such.

And you are welcome to those archaic beliefs, outdated science.
Though I suggest you study a little more about vestigials and their purposes before wading in way over your head.

I wrote a thread about this only a few months ago, you are welcome.

originally posted by: Maltese5Rhino

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: pikestaff
Evolution, what puzzles me is that we have liver, gall bladder, appendix, all the other squishy items inside, if we did not have them to start with, which I presume we did not need them, why 'evolve' them?

what puzzles me is that some people still believe that we have vestigial organs when science*ahem* ahem* proved they were not vestigial after *ahem* ahem* science proved they were

No wonder you are confused, some people who believe in vestigial organs should study vestigial organs

If we didnt have them, didnt meed them why evolve them?

I think you have it the other way round perhaps? It is not we evolved to have these (now relativley useless) organs. That we used to long before we would be considered 'Human' and thusly we are still in our own Evolution timeline on the way for them to dissapear altogether. Alot of these organs are in reduced size compared to other speices that still have a purpose.

Perhaps you could show me evidence, scientific evidence.
A perhaps is just an assumption, I have no interest arguing facts with people who dont know the facts and would sooner deny them than studying the scientific evidence.
Nothing I could say would make any one believe that vestigial organs have a purpose, so I will say nothing.
You can deny ignorance and study the subject for yourself, not that I would imagine that happening.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: TechUnique

I have to question if you are actually wanting to discuss anything here, or if you were just wanting to make an outrageous claim before punting it over to YouTube to clean up? Because 2 hours of YouTube videos is a hell of a hurdle to put between the reader, and a conversation.

So, without any explanation of what the videos are representing I will assume that the premise here is that evolution is a bunch of hooey because someone believes that humans coexisted with dinosaurs? If so....it is wrong.

FWIW, I believe humans coexisted with some dinosaurs in our ancient past. I also can see genetic drift and ascertain the fundamentals of evolution are correct.

....you think the 'fundamentals' are correct.....but dinosaurs existed during our time??

I'm not sure how you think your able to berate the OP, as the idea of dinos existing during our time pretty much destroys the theory of evolution....

a reply to: borntowatch

Yes, I remember your thread. And you're welcome to misinterpret data in your attempts to deny the validity of MES all day long. It doesn't make you correct though. It just makes you eager to quote mine and cherry pick things that suit your arguments.

Yes it is a farce. I for example was downloaded into a human body to anchor the frequency. How about you?

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
Yes it is a farce. I for example was downloaded into a human body to anchor the frequency. How about you?

hahahaha...i assume you were being funny, because it worked.

I just thought this belonged here.

The Most Wrong Anyone Ever Was

a reply to: Prezbo369

Depends on what you classify as a dinosaur. Some of the smaller dinos evolved into birds. The crocodile and the alligator are pretty much remnants of the dinosaur age, not having changed much evolution-wise between then and now. So I could see how someone could make that argument while evolution is still true. But it kind of stretches the idea of what is and isn't a dinosaur.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: TechUnique

I have to question if you are actually wanting to discuss anything here, or if you were just wanting to make an outrageous claim before punting it over to YouTube to clean up? Because 2 hours of YouTube videos is a hell of a hurdle to put between the reader, and a conversation.

So, without any explanation of what the videos are representing I will assume that the premise here is that evolution is a bunch of hooey because someone believes that humans coexisted with dinosaurs? If so....it is wrong.

FWIW, I believe humans coexisted with some dinosaurs in our ancient past. I also can see genetic drift and ascertain the fundamentals of evolution are correct.

....you think the 'fundamentals' are correct.....but dinosaurs existed during our time??

I'm not sure how you think your able to berate the OP, as the idea of dinos existing during our time pretty much destroys the theory of evolution....

I berate the OP for using 2 hours of video as a hurdle to discussion. It is customary courtesy to provide some summaries of the videos that are presented. What we got was the OP's prologue to videos whose content, for the most part, remains a mystery.

RE: dinosaurs coexisting with humans....what do you think birds are? Evolution isn't a sudden delineation of "exists" and then "doesn't exist". Especially the event that is thought to cause the "extinction of the dinosaurs".

Except, as mentioned...the dinosaurs (as an entire group of species) did not go extinct. Many did, yes. Many did not. And many are etched in the ancient memories of man as Terror Birds. Which are basically just velociraptors with feathers.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Prezbo369

Depends on what you classify as a dinosaur. Some of the smaller dinos evolved into birds. The crocodile and the alligator are pretty much remnants of the dinosaur age, not having changed much evolution-wise between then and now. So I could see how someone could make that argument while evolution is still true. But it kind of stretches the idea of what is and isn't a dinosaur.

dont forget the turtles! especially the little guys with moss beards. adorable.

originally posted by: borntowatch
[
Perhaps you could show me evidence, scientific evidence.
A perhaps is just an assumption, I have no interest arguing facts with people who dont know the facts and would sooner deny them than studying the scientific evidence.
Nothing I could say would make any one believe that vestigial organs have a purpose, so I will say nothing.
You can deny ignorance and study the subject for yourself, not that I would imagine that happening.

The actual term 'vestigial organs' was something I had not yet heard of till you posted it. I understood the meaning just not the actual word. At which point I did go into looking a bit further.

You mentioned that vestigial organs have a purpose? Well they do, nothing to argue with you there. There are many that still have uses, but in fairness they arent the best suited current purpose for what is evidently thier main purpose.

Like Wisdom teeth for example.

Wisdom teeth are vestigial third molars that human ancestors used to help in grinding down plant tissue. The common postulation is that the skulls of human ancestors had larger jaws with more teeth, which were possibly used to help chew down foliage to compensate for a lack of ability to efficiently digest the cellulose that makes up a plant cell wall. As human diets changed, smaller jaws were naturally selected, yet the third molars, or "wisdom teeth," still commonly develop in human mouths.[19] Currently, wisdom teeth have become useless and even harmful to the extent where surgical procedures are often performed to remove them.

Human vestigiality

They are still teeth at the end of the day so will do any 'chewing' job just fine. But I still have my wisdom teeth and if I have a steak, I cant seem to chew it as well as with my Molars further infront. In my mind that makes perfect sense when the wisdom teeth do not seperate from each other far enough during chewing for meat to fit bitween and be chewed.

Then I see herbavors such as Cows, Horses and camels etc. I noticed they chew by grinding food at the far back of thier jaws. I tried this method for my own amusement with a salad..... you would be suprized how damn easy it is to chew vegitation with your wisdom teeth. Though we dont eat like that. Who does?

Now, ofcourse you want scientific evidence. Now tbh there is way too much out there to pin point specifics. The wiki link I posted above, had a pletherer of refrences. Yes this is Wiki after all and not what many would class as 'Scientific Evidence' but it is based from works of all around with varying degrees that many have spent whole careers specifically on vestigial organs.

But I will like to add this comment. In reading and making this reply, I have found more cases than not. stating that all vestigial Organs have purposes. I am leaning towards that myself as IMO if they were 100% not needed or used then they would have vanished before.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If birds are dinosaurs, rather than the common ancestors of dinosaurs then I guess we're all rodents?

I mean we're what rodents eventually evolved into right?

And it's not like birds are reptiles is it?

Or are we calling all reptiles dinosaurs now?

And lets not forget what you actually said:

I believe humans coexisted with some dinosaurs in our ancient past

So you were not talking about birds or crocs were you?

You were talking about Dinosaurs in the traditional sense....so don't attempt to make what you said sound any less silly.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh yea! I hear one even painted the Mona Lisa.