It's a little hard to pay attention when I'm having orgasms from the music, but thanks, man. This explains vestigial structures very good. You should be proud.
As for the legs on snakes and extra fins on fish, it's possible, without invoking evolution.
Atavisms don't point only to evolution, it could also point to ancestral DNA, but back to the created "kinds", not necessarily from land animals (for dolphins).
"Atavisms don't point only to evolution, it could also point to ancestral DNA, but back to the created "kinds""
Then where's the published, peer reviewed hypothesis supporting your suggestion? Does it involve genetics and the mapping of the genomes of these animals?
Many of these atavisms have been linked to genes that were once turned off but are turned on again. The ones that haven't soon will be.
If I pointed you to a paper specifically on the subject (which I can't find), would you even read it.... if it was published in the peer reviewed scientific journals from:
The Institute for Creation Research
The Answers Research Journal
-or-
The Creation Research Society?
Probably not, because you don't consider them reputable, even though they have every single qualification that makes someone a scientist.
"if it was published in the peer reviewed scientific journals from: The Institute for Creation Research The Answers Research Journal -or- The Creation Research Society?"
That depends on your definition of peer-reviewed. Are these papers reviewed by creationist peers or does "peers" include scientists from secular disciplines as well. It matters because ALL empirical observations are relevent.
"The point of the video that I created was to show that vestigiality all depends on the assumption of evolution."
No it wasn't. The point to your video was to say that your examples given aren't vestigial.
The video you created posed an incomplete definition of vestigiality and then proceeded to build your case upon it. When the correct definition of vestigiality is injected to your video, your arguments fall apart at the seams. As one can plainly see in my reply video.
"If you notice, I pointed out that the assumption of evolution labels things as vestigial. The removal of this assumption leaves no reason to assume that anything is vestigial."
The removal of evolutionary explanation is to remove the only explanation which jibes with all other known evidences. What would you be left to explain these emergent phenomenon with? Giver a try. Explain it otherwise...
I wish I could point you to a paper that supports this, but you and I both know that you don't accept that anything published by the institute for creation research, the answers research journal, or the creation research society.
Why? Because they're peer reviewed by scientists who believe in a literal creation, and you don't agree with them.
Genes that have been turned on or off don't verify anything, other than the ability for genes to be turned on or off.
Quentitro, if you have a point to make about the subjects in the video, then proceed. I accidentely removed your comment but since It was only a futile attempt at insult, I don't really feel bad one bit.
Perhaps you would like to join the discussion? Or are you afraid you'd get your ass handed to you on a plate?
I hat when they use straw men. Moreover, even with that straw men definition there is a musical in the foot that fits it. I forgot the name of it but it is the musical that allows the great toe to grasp. The musical is still there in the foot, but it does not do anything.
It's a little hard to pay attention when I'm having orgasms from the music, but thanks, man. This explains vestigial structures very good. You should be proud.
Ludde365 2 years ago
As for the legs on snakes and extra fins on fish, it's possible, without invoking evolution.
Atavisms don't point only to evolution, it could also point to ancestral DNA, but back to the created "kinds", not necessarily from land animals (for dolphins).
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"Atavisms don't point only to evolution, it could also point to ancestral DNA, but back to the created "kinds""
Then where's the published, peer reviewed hypothesis supporting your suggestion? Does it involve genetics and the mapping of the genomes of these animals?
Many of these atavisms have been linked to genes that were once turned off but are turned on again. The ones that haven't soon will be.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
If I pointed you to a paper specifically on the subject (which I can't find), would you even read it.... if it was published in the peer reviewed scientific journals from:
The Institute for Creation Research
The Answers Research Journal
-or-
The Creation Research Society?
Probably not, because you don't consider them reputable, even though they have every single qualification that makes someone a scientist.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"if it was published in the peer reviewed scientific journals from: The Institute for Creation Research The Answers Research Journal -or- The Creation Research Society?"
That depends on your definition of peer-reviewed. Are these papers reviewed by creationist peers or does "peers" include scientists from secular disciplines as well. It matters because ALL empirical observations are relevent.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"Atavisms don't point only to evolution, it could also point to ancestral DNA, but back to the created "kinds""
Tell me Elijah, What would chicken ancestors be doing with teeth? What would human ancestors be doing with tails or coarse hair covered bodies?
Evolutionary theory explains these traits with GREAT accuracy and is even backed up with genetic analysis.
I'm still waiting for those peer reviewed sources proving RAPID evolution within the past 4,000 years. Til then, it's all faith.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
The point of the video that I created was to show that vestigiality all depends on the assumption of evolution.
Without the evolutionary presuppositions, there would be no reason to label anything vestigial.
As for the hairy guy, that's nothing more than an extremely rare case of hypertrichosis, nothing to do with evolution.
Is Sirenomelus evidence that we were once mermaids? No.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"The point of the video that I created was to show that vestigiality all depends on the assumption of evolution."
No it wasn't. The point to your video was to say that your examples given aren't vestigial.
The video you created posed an incomplete definition of vestigiality and then proceeded to build your case upon it. When the correct definition of vestigiality is injected to your video, your arguments fall apart at the seams. As one can plainly see in my reply video.
Try again!
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
The argument doesn't fall apart at all.
If you notice, I pointed out that the assumption of evolution labels things as vestigial.
The removal of this assumption leaves no reason to assume that anything is vestigial.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
The argument doesn't fall apart at all.
"If you notice, I pointed out that the assumption of evolution labels things as vestigial. The removal of this assumption leaves no reason to assume that anything is vestigial."
The removal of evolutionary explanation is to remove the only explanation which jibes with all other known evidences. What would you be left to explain these emergent phenomenon with? Giver a try. Explain it otherwise...
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"The removal of evolutionary explanation is to remove the only explanation which jibes with all other known evidences."
Or is the evidence being made to fit with the evolutionary theory?
xSUP1R1ORx 2 years ago
"Or is the evidence being made to fit with the evolutionary theory?"
It either fits or it doesn't. Regardless, you got it all backwards. Evolutionary theory is tailored to fit the evidences, not the other way around.
twothlesswonder 2 years ago
I wish I could point you to a paper that supports this, but you and I both know that you don't accept that anything published by the institute for creation research, the answers research journal, or the creation research society.
Why? Because they're peer reviewed by scientists who believe in a literal creation, and you don't agree with them.
Genes that have been turned on or off don't verify anything, other than the ability for genes to be turned on or off.
Anything besides that is speculation
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"I wish I could point you to a paper that supports this"
Try.
"Genes that have been turned on or off don't verify anything, other than the ability for genes to be turned on or off.
Anything besides that is speculation"
It's new information, YE. If you claim that new information can arise within a genome, then you've already conceded. Face it.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Another good one, Twothless!
Keep it up!
ThatOneQuestion 3 years ago
Thanks TOQ!
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Just so nobody is confused here:
Quentitro, if you have a point to make about the subjects in the video, then proceed. I accidentely removed your comment but since It was only a futile attempt at insult, I don't really feel bad one bit.
Perhaps you would like to join the discussion? Or are you afraid you'd get your ass handed to you on a plate?
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Argh, saying it isn't vestigial doesn't make it not vestigial. Great job, twothlesswonder, debunking this clown.
Johannes9126 3 years ago
I hat when they use straw men. Moreover, even with that straw men definition there is a musical in the foot that fits it. I forgot the name of it but it is the musical that allows the great toe to grasp. The musical is still there in the foot, but it does not do anything.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago