livescience.com — In Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species and his next publication, The Descent of Man, he referred to several "vestiges" in human anatomy that were left over from the course of evolution. These vestigial organs, Darwin argued, are evidence of evolution and represent a function that was once necessary for survival...
May 28, 2007 View in Crawl 4
dimensioMay 30, 2007
"Word! Darwin's ideas have been thrown into the trash heap of history along with other junk science claims."Please substantiate this claim with evidence."Anyway, either the Bible is accurate and we are created as special and loved beings......Or atheists are correct and we're nothing but molecules which happened to collocate...no meaning, no morality, no destiny, nothing but dust."False dichotomy. It is possible that both views are incorrect. Not all non-atheists accept the Bible's claims as literal truth, or even as truth at all. "Wonderful outlook those atheists. No wonder they're always cranky."Appeal to consequence, which itself is founded upon a fallacious dichotomy. Are you incapable of rational thought?
tipexyMay 30, 2007
toenails, where are the mention of toenails? my little toe's nail is probably 3mm square. not much good for hanging off trees now.
Closed AccountMay 30, 2007
@JimSpaza: You've never read Origin of Species have you? Do you even know how Charles Darwin came to his conclusions? Do you you even know Darwin's religious beliefs? Your inane questions in prior postings show that you don't even understand the basic concepts of evolution which means you are deluded, trying to delude other or just stupid.
bonhoefferMay 30, 2007
"'Word! Darwin's ideas have been thrown into the trash heap of history along with other junk science claims.'Please substantiate this claim with evidence."Darwin knew zilch, nada, didly-squat about the basic elements of biological descent and variation! He didn't have a clue about deoxyribonucleic acid; its sequencing, transcription, transfer, and replication! He would laugh today's "evolutionists" out of the classroom for the hideous morphing of his theory they have achieved to fit it to scientific discoveries of the past 50 years.I can't believe people still appeal to Darwin. That's like calling Jules Verne the father of nuclear submarines.
dimensioMay 30, 2007
"Everything got to be the way it is by evolution. Therefore, the way everything is proves evolution. The problem this poses for evolution is it can't meet Popper's theorem "Science is Falsifiability". "A stunning refutation of evolution as science, with only one minor flaw: no one claims that "everything got to be the way it is by evolution". Except for the fact that the fundamental premise of your argument is complete crap, your reasoning there is solid.Well, there's also the fact that evolution implies specific consequences that should be, and are, observed. It also implies that certain things should not be observed, and thus far these things have not been observed.Actually, it looks like your reasoning was total garbage throughout.
nitsujMay 30, 2007
"Your really missing out on a relationship with a wonderful God. My life has completely changed since I re-dedicated my life to God, changes in my heart, my marriage and my family."You're welcome to your fuzzy delusion."For those who are curious, like I was after living a Uncommited Catholic life, all I did was say a pray asking God if he was real to change my heart. He did.after several months my life changed, meanwhile I didn't remember I prayed about it till about six months later."How wonderful it must be to meander through life attributing everything that happens to you to a mythological being.
0110110May 30, 2007
Nipples are for adornment on my Manly body
bonhoefferMay 31, 2007
Dimensio: Don't be coy; what, other than random mutations and natural selection (evolution) made things the way they are? We're not talking about skyscrapers and trains, here, we're talking about biological organisms. The laws of physics? To the extent they affect descent and variation of the species, they fall under natural selection.And what, pray tell, is a consequence that evolution implies, such that if the consequence does not occur we can say evolution doesn't work. It doesn't imply a Cambrian era explosion of species, which we can observe. It doesn't imply that the most survivable species, based on longevity and progeny, would develop no brain, skeleton, eyes, ears, fins, wings nor legs - but we observe the worms. It does imply a palaeontology record of continuous form changes, which are not available for observation.It used to be said that the discovery of a complex organism which could not achieve functionality by rare, random increments could falsify evolution; but evolutionists will contort logic and science outrageously to avoid admitting such an organism.Anyway, contribute something other than nay-saying to the argument.
mactenMay 31, 2007
JSorrellI can't find the article you refer to "Vestigial organs, reflexes, and behaviors are fascinating" (I assume that's the name of the article) on AiG. Do you have a link?