Re: Vestigial Structures by XyoungearthX

It seems that you forgot that vestigial structures includes those found suitabe for other benefits. Take the penguin for example. It's wings were once used for flight. Upon diminishing in size because of the lack of need to fly, they soon found a serendipitous use for them, FINS!

That's vestigiality at it's finest!

Category:

Education

Tags:

• creationism
• vestigial
• atavism

[XyoungearthX]

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).

[twothlesswonder]

"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.

[Ludde365]

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.

[twothlesswonder]

"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.

[xSUP1R1ORx]

"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?

[twothlesswonder]

"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]

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]

"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.

[XyoungearthX]

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]

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]

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.