You misunderstood, we do not "use" not "they dont have a function"
If something has a function then are bodies do use them unless there removed. Not all so called vestigials are critical but either are your hands or feet. You can still live with one lung.
^ The here is the question becomes a question of scope and power of the designer...why would it give us wisdom teeth or cross our breathing and feeding tubes. That is an extremely profound ( and arguably unanswerable question, this is not good for something that is supposed to be a scientific theory) Using occam's razor, we can conclude that the most simple answer is that we were not designed, and that we have these things in common with previous lifeforms because we have a common ancestor.
@gsusreloded cont..... study the Cambrian radiation event who say it happened all at once and that Darwin's tree of life is upside down, and American scientist go there to learn from what the Chinese have discovered. Have you ever entertained the reason why we are made up of the same kinds of proteins and DNA is because we all have to live on the same planet, get our energy from the sun and eat the same foods. If we were all cellularly different there would be no eco system.
Why would you think that we have parts that we are not needed. This argument was used by Robert Wiedersheim in 1893 when he listed almost 100 body parts he considered vestigial including the spleen, pituitary gland,appendix,Plantaris muscle,thymus, tonsils etc.........
@benthemiester ^You misunderstood, we do not "use" not "they dont have a function". Wisdom teeth are a great example of our humble beginnings as a lower primate. They have no function (They are functional as teeth, but they usually cause migraines and the displacement of the rest of your teeth, or a jaw deformation) or impede the function of other teeth, but they still grow in. Things that are designed don't have things like this...
@gsusreloded "Wisdom teeth are a great example of our humble etc. They have no function" I can attest to the fact that they do. I still have mine and aside from having had a little teething pain that lasted a very short while they still work. In fact there is evidence that removing wisdom teeth can cause migraines. "Wisdom Teeth Removal Can Lead to New Daily Persistent Headache" There are many things that are designed and are nor perfect including cars, planes etc. This a fallacy & straw man.
cont....We have since found uses for all of these. This argument was based on ignorance not knowledge. Another example was the former poster child for the neo Darwinian synthesis which was once referred to as "junk DNA" We now know that this so called mindless scribble as Kenneth Miller once put it, is has been found to be very important in gene regulation and embryonic development (epigenetics). The argument of the eye being poorly designed was debunked a few years ago
cont....... and I can cite sources. The trachea argument is just the right size to allow the right amount of air pressure in the lungs. If you don't stuff your face and chew properly you wont have problems chocking. The vast majority of people do not choke on there food. Thanks to ENCODE we now know that the actual and total difference in DNA between chimps and humans is actually around 70% and I can also cite verifiable sources if you like.
@benthemiester Even if all of that were true...you're still light years away from proving intelligent design...and even if intelligent design was true...you're still light years away from proving Christianity. And the argument still stands, why even take the change if you have unlimited powers and resource from which to design a life from? Why take the chance that some of them will die from just trying to ingest food? It only makes sense if this designer HAD to use parts from
cont... earlier organisms. And that suggests a limitation, which is something that monotheistic gods aren't supposed to have. In addition if the designer is responsible for the blueprint of all life, then why did he make us appear to have parts from precursor organisms? How could you blame anyone for coming to the conclusion that we evolved? lol (Beside the mountains of scientific evidence)
@gsusreloded cont....standard & cohesive cross species phylogenetic tree. These are called the assumptions of the neo Darwinian synthesis. Eukaryote life does not appear gradually but appears within a geologically blink of an eye and in orders of several magnitudes. Some put this sudden global sudden appearance of trillions and trillions of multi cellular life forms and already highly complex and with no known ancestry in as little as 3 million years. There are some Chinese who
@gsusreloded cont....The human body is exquisitely put together and is capable of extremely remarkable things. If your having trouble breathing and eating then you should see a doctor. An argument of ignorance is not evidence of non design. According to population genetics and mitochondrial DNA, our common ancestor was a human colloquially named Eve. No one has to date been able to put forth a
@gsusreloded "Even if all of that were true...you're still light years away from proving intelligent design" I disagree, & there is no such thing as proof in the historical sciences. All we have is evidence, & ID theorist are now getting this evidence published in peer review science journals and university press and have a small but growing minority now including members of the National Academy of Science as well as scientist & scholars from around the globe including agnostics and atheist.
The whole point of the analogy was to simplify a complex concept. I do not agree that it was oversimplified- I believe the simplicity serves to bring out the inherent absurdity of Darwinian theory. I think you should also be aware that this analogy was not developed by me- it was developed by Ph.D. geneticist John Sanford, who wrote the book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, which you would be well-advised to read.
It's very telling when Darwinists such as yourself use the "the universe is counter-intuitive, so it's not okay to use your own common sense about evolution" line of argumentation. If we can't use our own reasoning to evaluate science, then science has become a religious cult. We are being asked to believe something that we inherently know is false for motivations that actually fall far outside of science. I actually do not find the universe to be counter-intuitive.
@Kanbei85 Well he gave an example to support his claim. Intuition only works with a reduced intellect space. Like how we though the earth was flat or steel boat could not float. Imaginary numbers for instance. Those can be used to describe exactly how waves propagate or how plutonium can generate energy. All of it is counter-intuitive and demand to study the subject to understand it. In fact you CANNOT use your intuition in science. Or you will find yourself right back in the dark age
@Kanbei85 And that's where you're hugely mistaken. The reductio ad absurdum IS what makes it absurd in the first place. Given the proper understanding and honest intention to look behind that will present to you that the opposite is true.
That is one of the greatest flaws in truth finding with almost any complex scientific, empirical evidence. Oversimplification and misconstruction DOES change the facts and I can't believe that you can possibly uphold that opinion.
My, my, my! I must say for an ID apologist, he does a better job than most in terms of "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." I find him rather earnest, very intense and strangely likeable. Does that make me a bad person?
@gsusreloded i believe you still didnt evolved enough....do you ahve at least elementary school??because if you think you are biologist and you are ,,just as good as biologists go,, LOL..then your evolution going backward...:))))) :)))
I actually don't think his analogy is that bad, but the problem is that he has drawn the wrong conclusion from it. He was somehow able to explain mutation and natural selection while still believing that the spaceship would be an "accident".
You misunderstood, we do not "use" not "they dont have a function"
If something has a function then are bodies do use them unless there removed. Not all so called vestigials are critical but either are your hands or feet. You can still live with one lung.
benthemiester 5 months ago
^ The here is the question becomes a question of scope and power of the designer...why would it give us wisdom teeth or cross our breathing and feeding tubes. That is an extremely profound ( and arguably unanswerable question, this is not good for something that is supposed to be a scientific theory) Using occam's razor, we can conclude that the most simple answer is that we were not designed, and that we have these things in common with previous lifeforms because we have a common ancestor.
gsusreloded 5 months ago
@gsusreloded cont..... study the Cambrian radiation event who say it happened all at once and that Darwin's tree of life is upside down, and American scientist go there to learn from what the Chinese have discovered. Have you ever entertained the reason why we are made up of the same kinds of proteins and DNA is because we all have to live on the same planet, get our energy from the sun and eat the same foods. If we were all cellularly different there would be no eco system.
benthemiester 5 months ago
Why would you think that we have parts that we are not needed. This argument was used by Robert Wiedersheim in 1893 when he listed almost 100 body parts he considered vestigial including the spleen, pituitary gland,appendix,Plantaris muscle,thymus, tonsils etc.........
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester ^You misunderstood, we do not "use" not "they dont have a function". Wisdom teeth are a great example of our humble beginnings as a lower primate. They have no function (They are functional as teeth, but they usually cause migraines and the displacement of the rest of your teeth, or a jaw deformation) or impede the function of other teeth, but they still grow in. Things that are designed don't have things like this...
gsusreloded 5 months ago
@gsusreloded "Wisdom teeth are a great example of our humble etc. They have no function" I can attest to the fact that they do. I still have mine and aside from having had a little teething pain that lasted a very short while they still work. In fact there is evidence that removing wisdom teeth can cause migraines. "Wisdom Teeth Removal Can Lead to New Daily Persistent Headache" There are many things that are designed and are nor perfect including cars, planes etc. This a fallacy & straw man.
benthemiester 5 months ago
cont....We have since found uses for all of these. This argument was based on ignorance not knowledge. Another example was the former poster child for the neo Darwinian synthesis which was once referred to as "junk DNA" We now know that this so called mindless scribble as Kenneth Miller once put it, is has been found to be very important in gene regulation and embryonic development (epigenetics). The argument of the eye being poorly designed was debunked a few years ago
benthemiester 5 months ago
cont....... and I can cite sources. The trachea argument is just the right size to allow the right amount of air pressure in the lungs. If you don't stuff your face and chew properly you wont have problems chocking. The vast majority of people do not choke on there food. Thanks to ENCODE we now know that the actual and total difference in DNA between chimps and humans is actually around 70% and I can also cite verifiable sources if you like.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester Even if all of that were true...you're still light years away from proving intelligent design...and even if intelligent design was true...you're still light years away from proving Christianity. And the argument still stands, why even take the change if you have unlimited powers and resource from which to design a life from? Why take the chance that some of them will die from just trying to ingest food? It only makes sense if this designer HAD to use parts from
gsusreloded 5 months ago
cont... earlier organisms. And that suggests a limitation, which is something that monotheistic gods aren't supposed to have. In addition if the designer is responsible for the blueprint of all life, then why did he make us appear to have parts from precursor organisms? How could you blame anyone for coming to the conclusion that we evolved? lol (Beside the mountains of scientific evidence)
gsusreloded 5 months ago
@gsusreloded cont....standard & cohesive cross species phylogenetic tree. These are called the assumptions of the neo Darwinian synthesis. Eukaryote life does not appear gradually but appears within a geologically blink of an eye and in orders of several magnitudes. Some put this sudden global sudden appearance of trillions and trillions of multi cellular life forms and already highly complex and with no known ancestry in as little as 3 million years. There are some Chinese who
benthemiester 5 months ago
@gsusreloded cont....The human body is exquisitely put together and is capable of extremely remarkable things. If your having trouble breathing and eating then you should see a doctor. An argument of ignorance is not evidence of non design. According to population genetics and mitochondrial DNA, our common ancestor was a human colloquially named Eve. No one has to date been able to put forth a
benthemiester 5 months ago
@gsusreloded "why would it give us wisdom teeth or cross our breathing and feeding tubes. That is an extremely profound"
I already responded to wisdom teeth question. This is basically an argument of (I wouldn't have done it this way so therefore its bad design)
benthemiester 5 months ago
@gsusreloded "Even if all of that were true...you're still light years away from proving intelligent design" I disagree, & there is no such thing as proof in the historical sciences. All we have is evidence, & ID theorist are now getting this evidence published in peer review science journals and university press and have a small but growing minority now including members of the National Academy of Science as well as scientist & scholars from around the globe including agnostics and atheist.
benthemiester 5 months ago
Excellent response, sir. : )
EvoGenVideos 6 months ago
Kanbei is a delusional arse. Subbed :)
SwissTopper 7 months ago
@SwissTopper He also looks like the guy who does the Free Credit Report commercials.
EvoGenVideos 6 months ago
Comment removed
Kanbei85 8 months ago
The whole point of the analogy was to simplify a complex concept. I do not agree that it was oversimplified- I believe the simplicity serves to bring out the inherent absurdity of Darwinian theory. I think you should also be aware that this analogy was not developed by me- it was developed by Ph.D. geneticist John Sanford, who wrote the book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, which you would be well-advised to read.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@gsusreloded
It's very telling when Darwinists such as yourself use the "the universe is counter-intuitive, so it's not okay to use your own common sense about evolution" line of argumentation. If we can't use our own reasoning to evaluate science, then science has become a religious cult. We are being asked to believe something that we inherently know is false for motivations that actually fall far outside of science. I actually do not find the universe to be counter-intuitive.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 Well he gave an example to support his claim. Intuition only works with a reduced intellect space. Like how we though the earth was flat or steel boat could not float. Imaginary numbers for instance. Those can be used to describe exactly how waves propagate or how plutonium can generate energy. All of it is counter-intuitive and demand to study the subject to understand it. In fact you CANNOT use your intuition in science. Or you will find yourself right back in the dark age
assalane 7 months ago
@Kanbei85 And that's where you're hugely mistaken. The reductio ad absurdum IS what makes it absurd in the first place. Given the proper understanding and honest intention to look behind that will present to you that the opposite is true.
That is one of the greatest flaws in truth finding with almost any complex scientific, empirical evidence. Oversimplification and misconstruction DOES change the facts and I can't believe that you can possibly uphold that opinion.
V0r4xiz 7 months ago
Always on point, man!
IllPropaganda 8 months ago
My, my, my! I must say for an ID apologist, he does a better job than most in terms of "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." I find him rather earnest, very intense and strangely likeable. Does that make me a bad person?
sonvolt48 8 months ago
@sonvolt48 No, I actually like the original poster...I thought he did a very good job as far as apologists go :) lol
gsusreloded 8 months ago
@gsusreloded i believe you still didnt evolved enough....do you ahve at least elementary school??because if you think you are biologist and you are ,,just as good as biologists go,, LOL..then your evolution going backward...:))))) :)))
giska1000 7 months ago
I actually don't think his analogy is that bad, but the problem is that he has drawn the wrong conclusion from it. He was somehow able to explain mutation and natural selection while still believing that the spaceship would be an "accident".
luftwaffle 8 months ago