Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Common Descent or Common Designer


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
58 replies to this topic

#41
Sevenseas

Sevenseas

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,101 posts

No offense but I find it funny how atheists believe that they can put infront of us "evidence" for macroevolution and we would just say "oh! You are right! I guess there is no God after all, silly me!" well, that would be like someone coming up to me saying "here is proof your mother doesn't exist" I would laugh in their face because I KNOW my mother and I KNOW my Heavenly Father! To me there is no difference! They are both KNOWABLE to me! I have a relationship with both.


About two? three? nights ago I decided to watch a program about 'us'..where we came from and all the other nagging questions and this 1 hr synopsis
cartoon style program informed 'us' that everything was some sort of cosmic serendipitous come-by-chance series of unimaginable probabilities occurring
in the proper order to achieve the results we see when we look out the window or stare into the mirror.

The improbable connections made between micro-organisms flung into the molten lava of a still forming earth from the far reaches of the universe,
were duly noted as highly unlikely to happen even once let alone again and again to connect the dots of the 'no life' now 'it has life' teeny weeny
wittle cell mutation as to sound ridiculous even if one had a statue of Darwin in their living room with a candle burning and dried flowers nearby

And yet they believe..........

And yet are incredulous that you and I believe in a Creator....because, even after the wittle well connected cell mutated its own tiny being into
what we see today, we are still left with the question......''well, where did the life starting matter from the far reaches of the universe come from?"

dunno

#42
Fez

Fez

    Royal Member

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,635 posts

No offense but I find it funny how atheists believe that they can put infront of us "evidence" for macroevolution and we would just say "oh! You are right! I guess there is no God after all, silly me!" well, that would be like someone coming up to me saying "here is proof your mother doesn't exist" I would laugh in their face because I KNOW my mother and I KNOW my Heavenly Father! To me there is no difference! They are both KNOWABLE to me! I have a relationship with both.


About two? three? nights ago I decided to watch a program about 'us'..where we came from and all the other nagging questions and this 1 hr synopsis
cartoon style program informed 'us' that everything was some sort of cosmic serendipitous come-by-chance series of unimaginable probabilities occurring
in the proper order to achieve the results we see when we look out the window or stare into the mirror.

The improbable connections made between micro-organisms flung into the molten lava of a still forming earth from the far reaches of the universe,
were duly noted as highly unlikely to happen even once let alone again and again to connect the dots of the 'no life' now 'it has life' teeny weeny
wittle cell mutation as to sound ridiculous even if one had a statue of Darwin in their living room with a candle burning and dried flowers nearby

And yet they believe..........

And yet are incredulous that you and I believe in a Creator....because, even after the wittle well connected cell mutated its own tiny being into
what we see today, we are still left with the question......''well, where did the life starting matter from the far reaches of the universe come from?"

dunno


:sneaking: Note how this little guy looks up and then tip toes away?

It's as if he has seen but does not want to believe..

#43
Sevenseas

Sevenseas

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,101 posts
I'm sorry Fez...I don't understand what you are saying?

#44
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,019 posts
Ever Think Maybe It's The Faith Gene

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3

That Determines Who

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Will Survive

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36

And Who Will Not

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. John 3:19-20

#45
D-9

D-9

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,934 posts

OneLight already asked this to be put in layman's terms once... I'll ask directly please:
D-9,
Ehud,
viole, etc


A. Please identify as simply as possible what the purpose of this discussion is?

B. Please summarize the discussion in simple terms?

God bless,
GE


I know this is a long summary, but the discussion is long, so bear with me. I am mostly summarizing my position, and I will leave most of Ehud's summary to Ehud.

With my discussion with Ehud I think it has come down to two main questions: 1) What is the evidence for evolution or common descent? 2) Why does the scientific community accept evolution so much? And possibly a third category about how we as individuals should determine which is correct, evolution or creation, which is related to why the support for evolution in science.

Most of the points raised are related to question 2, thus all the polls about what scientists believe. In simplified terms, Ehud is saying that evolution is so widely accepted because of atheistic biases in science, and uses the fact that there are more atheists (over 50%) in science. Whereas I'm saying evolution's success cannot be because of an atheist bias as there are too many theists that accept evolution in science and too few theistic scientists rejecting evolution.

As for the evidence for evolution and common descent, I've presented a few lines of thought, but it hasn't gotten much attention so far. One thing that I've tried to hit on over and over again is that in science you have lots of facts, sometimes called observations, and the ultimate goal of science is to interpret these facts in a larger framework or model of reality known as a "theory". When you have two competing theories in science, for example evolution and intelligent design, a standard approach that's been used for hundreds of years in literally every field is to see which theory gives the best explanation of (or makes the most sense of) the facts and observations. So in the case of the human tail, the question becomes "does it support intelligent design or common descent more", or "which theory, evolution or intelligent design, makes the most sense out of the human tail facts"? And I would use this same type of set up for the other evidences I've mentioned.

Since human tails seems to be of interest, and the most talked about on this thread, this is how it has played out so far. Viole mentioned that sometimes humans are born with tails, and Ehud asked for references that such existed. I provided the reference as seen in post #50, which talks about the structure of the human tail which happens to be a complex structure with multiple types of tissue from blood vessels to fat to muscle to bone, and can be moved voluntarily by the person. IOW these tails are true tails and not just random malformations like a tumor or something. In addition we have found the genes responsible for our tails, everyone has them, just in most people the genes are turned off, and these same genes are found in other mammals with tails. Viole and myself are saying this is what we should expect to see if evolution is correct and we do have a common ancestor with apes and monkeys; even if we don't (normally) have a tail we would expect to see a genetic marker in our DNA that says 'genes for tail formation', and that's what we find. So I am saying that human tails, and the other evidences I mentioned, make the most sense in the evolutionary framework and evolution provides the best explanation of the all the facts and observations. Intelligent Design, as best I can tell, does not and cannot explain the human tail in any meaningful way. IOW, if God specially designed us in our current form from non-living matter (dust), why did God give us the genes for a tail and then suppress them with a few people having the genes turned on giving them a useless tail?

This is where the summary must stop as of now because there hasn't been a creationist response to the human tail that addresses the above, at least not yet. So this is where we are in the discussion now, along with the other evidence I have presented at the end of my last post.

#46
Citizenship

Citizenship
  • Members
  • 93 posts

even if we don't (normally) have a tail we would expect to see a genetic marker in our DNA that says 'genes for tail formation', and that's what we find.


No, that is not what we find. Why do people read what evolutionists believe, (or like to believe), and then present them as though they were verifiable facts?

No human on the face of this planet has regulatory genes that are marked "these are genes for making a tail". These are the kind of ideas that evolutionists like to sow into the minds of the unsuspecting, simply because the lack of evidence for evolution makes such things necessary.

You might as well say that people have "genes for making six fingers", or any other similar growth defect.

#47
Ehud

Ehud
  • Members
  • 33 posts

OneLight already asked this to be put in layman's terms once... I'll ask directly please:
D-9,
Ehud,
viole, etc


A. Please identify as simply as possible what the purpose of this discussion is?

B. Please summarize the discussion in simple terms?

God bless,
GE


D-9's summary very accurately relates the progress of the discussion. As he hinted at, the primary intention of this thread is to discuss specific evidence for common descent. There was a detour of sorts as we were briefly side-tracked by a relevant discussion over the influence of one's prior beliefs on interpretting evidence (D-9 expounds on this in his summary). This detour has been closed (see the end of my last post) and we are back on track to begin discussing the first evidence presented...the supposed human tail. Which will be addressed...

The purpose of this discussion is the same now as it was in the opening post...to look at specific evidence for common descent, and it appears to be progressing well to that end. Thanks!

Hold the Fort,
Ehud

P.S. I presented a short summary of this discussion in my last post as well, which you can also refer to.

To summarize the exchange of arguments thus far:

  • Ehud asks for evidence regarding common descent.
  • Viole presents human tails as convincing evidence.
  • Ehud asks the following question which led us off on a bit of a rabbit trail (but hopefully it was relevant)
  • D-9 enters and presents a source for the human tail evidence, and argues for the validity of relying on the majority expert opinion in matters such as this.
  • Ehud argues that the scientific expert opinion is biased by atheism which necessitates a belief in common descent.
  • Viole argues that atheism is highly represented among scientists because of their familiarity with the evidence, not the other way around.
  • D-9 supports viole’s assessment with some additional criticisms and accusations:
    • Ehud’s analysis does not take theistic evolutionists into account.
    • Ehud’s argument misses “some important aspects of science like the peer-reviewed process and the history of scientific thought and practices.”
    • Ehud exhibits a double standard by accepting some of what mainstream science says, but not all of it.
  • D-9 concludes by expressing willingness to examine the evidence, namely the human tail and Hox genes.



#48
Ehud

Ehud
  • Members
  • 33 posts
P.S. I hope everyone took time to look at D-9's citation for his 60% number.

60% comes from a Gallup poll (includes engineers and such, fyi); 55% are atheistic ToE, 40% are theistic ToE, 5% are creationists. 55/95 is roughly 60%, so roughly 60% of ToE scientists are atheistic, with roughly 40% of ToE scientists theistic. http://en.wikipedia....n#United_States


If you haven't clicked the link yourself, this is what you will find...I had to laugh when I saw it.

Posted Image

Why does it matter? I mean, why does it matter that we cite anything? Citing a source for information is time consuming and impracticable for most facts. However, a fact which one is using as a key foundation in an argument must be cited to hold any weight at all. I, for one, am very forgetful and can easily get my numbers and facts mixed up. Creationists and Evolutionists alike often throw out misinformation because they are pulling it from what they recall or have heard from somewhere else (this came up recently in a different thread). By asking for a source, I am not saying that the fact presented is wrong, I am saying I'ld like to look at it for myself. Of course, one could always go through the work to try to dig up the 1997 Gallup poll for themselves, but that is really the responsibility of the person who presents the fact.

My next post late in this week will deal with the human tail "evidence" (...so please don't close down the thread :th_praying:).

Hold the Fort,
Ehud

Edited by Ehud, 10 December 2012 - 08:23 AM.


#49
D-9

D-9

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,934 posts
The statistic obviously wasn't cited properly on wiki, but this isn't exactly a formal academic debate either. Regardless, my argument was never about the exact numbers, rather the clear observations that we can deduce. For example, your own Nature article surveying the elite scientists popped out the number 18-19% accepting God, and all of these people accept evolution. Since we know that religiosity declines with prestige, we know that the numbers you gave are too low for the general population of scientists. Whether we want to say the final numbers of all evolution accepting scientists believing God comes up as 40% (my number) or 30% (rough average of the two) or even 25% is largely irrelevant. The point is that there is a significant minority of scientists that are theists and the overwhelming majority of them accept evolution over ID or creationism, and my argument is that this shouldn't be the case if evolution is accepted because of atheist biases as you claim.

I hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that you are ignoring the substance of my arguments. So to ensure that you cannot obfuscate my argument, and to demonstrate I'm not concerned about specific percentages, for sake of argument I will cave on the my point and accept your Nature article looking at elite scientists to be representative of all scientists, which is about 1/5 of scientists accepting God.

So now we have 1/5 of scientists as theists. These scientists obviously have no problem taking anti-atheist positions, and if an idea only has credibility because of atheistic bias we should see a sharp contrast between the views of theistic scientists and atheistic scientists, do you agree? Now then, why do we not find a sharp contrast between acceptance of evolution between atheist and theist scientists if evolution is accepted because of atheistic bias as you claim?

Your notion of evolution being accepted because of atheism simply doesn't add up no matter how you change the numbers so long as they are semi-grounded in reality.

#50
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,019 posts

P.S. I hope everyone took time to look at D-9's citation for his 60% number.

60% comes from a Gallup poll (includes engineers and such, fyi); 55% are atheistic ToE, 40% are theistic ToE, 5% are creationists. 55/95 is roughly 60%, so roughly 60% of ToE scientists are atheistic, with roughly 40% of ToE scientists theistic. http://en.wikipedia....n#United_States


If you haven't clicked the link yourself, this is what you will find...I had to laugh when I saw it.

Posted Image

Why does it matter? I mean, why does it matter that we cite anything? Citing a source for information is time consuming and impracticable for most facts. However, a fact which one is using as a key foundation in an argument must be cited to hold any weight at all. I, for one, am very forgetful and can easily get my numbers and facts mixed up. Creationists and Evolutionists alike often throw out misinformation because they are pulling it from what they recall or have heard from somewhere else (this came up recently in a different thread). By asking for a source, I am not saying that the fact presented is wrong, I am saying I'ld like to look at it for myself. Of course, one could always go through the work to try to dig up the 1997 Gallup poll for themselves, but that is really the responsibility of the person who presents the fact.

My next post late in this week will deal with the human tail "evidence" (...so please don't close down the thread :th_praying:).

Hold the Fort,
Ehud


Hold The Fort~!

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Isaiah 45:9

Where IS The LORD Jesus Christ?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

Hid Under This Pile Of Evolutionary Mythology Soon To Go Puff?

And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?
Revelation 6:12-17

~

Despite The Faithful Few, This Thread Looks Like A Rag-Tag Team Of Desperate Blind Mice


But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4

Scurried Out From Their Boring A-Thesis Snicker Board Nest

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:2-4

Little Sinkers Without-God Blindly Running A-Muck

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Matthew 7:24-27

With No Knowledge Of The Power Of The LORD,

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. Jeremiah 10:12

Jesus Christ, The Son Of God

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

The Creator

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:16-17

Of All

~

And Yet The Call Goes Out, Welcome Dear Ones


I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Revelation 22:16-17

Believe And Be Blessed Beloved

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36

Love, Joe

#51
D-9

D-9

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,934 posts

Hey D-9:

I've never heard of anyone being born with a real tail. As far as I know, most so-called tails are just abnormal growths that just happen to be near the lower back. They're not part of the spine. If there are any tails that are part of the spine, I would expect them to be examples of abnormal growth where the trunk didn't grow as long as the spine.

According to Wikipedia, "There have been several documented cases of tails containing cartilage or up to five vertebrae." The source for this isn't online, so I have no way of evaluating if this is because of abnormal spine/trunk development or because a gene for a tail has been activated. Although, if five vertebrae is the best example, it doesn't look like very good for the Evolutionist. Monkeys have two to three dozen vertebrae in their tails.

Can you direct me to any example of a human with a real tail? If you can show me a human with a real tail, that would be powerful evidence for Evolution. If you can't, claiming humans are born with tails suggests to me how desperate Evolutionists are to support their theory.


In post #50 I have an x-ray of a six year old girl with a tail that has 3 tail vertebrae, I could see it when I first posted it but for some reason I can no longer view it. Here it is again, but if it still doesn't work you can go to the actual link and you should be able to find it easily. A lot of tails in humans are not true tails, just abnormal growths as you suggest, most likely over half the cases, but there are documented cases of real tails appearing and that is what I'm talking about. It may also be informative to mention that those with true tails can move them at will.

Posted Image http://www.talkorigi...ml#atavisms_ex2

It is an evolutionary throwback, and given our last ancestor with monkeys was over 20 million years ago, we don't expect a perfect monkey tail to pop out upon a slight change in the regulatory genes. Since humans with true tails are born with varying amounts of vertebrae, and we know it is due to regulation of genes, change the regulation patterns and you get more vertebrae with longer tails etc. It might be interesting to note that all humans have tails while in the womb, but they are usually destroyed before birth.

I don't think it's the best evidence of evolution from an academic view, but it's evidence nonetheless, and one that has significant shock value to the general public and has gained the most interest in this thread. We are spending so much time on it because it is popular and of interest to the Worthy community. And it is a pretty neat atavism if I say so myself; in Hinduism they are known to revere humans with tails as incarnations of a monkey god.

#52
D-9

D-9

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,934 posts

Interesting stuff.

Actually, it all boils down to the suppression of an atavic capability. Turn that knob a little more and you can regulate the length and consistency of a human's tail. And this is the point, really. What is the reason to introduce a capability if it is not needed? I am not sure that this can be called design. If I do not want a function, I do not program it and then suppress it; that would be suboptimal.

After all, I don't think we have the potentiality to grow wings or become fluorescent, so the idea of a swiss army knife design that can do everything, but has most of its capabilities suppressed, can be discarded, too, and the only plausible explanation is inheritance from direct evolutionary lineage.

Ciao

- viole


That is a very good point. We don't have the genes for every trait imaginable, so when we do find genes that correspond to traits we see in our (supposed) recent ancestors it makes sense that we have these genes because of evolution. A similar scenario is the genes for teeth in birds, very hard to explain that without evolution IMHO.

#53
Citizenship

Citizenship
  • Members
  • 93 posts

It is an evolutionary throwback ..


No, it is an assumption made by evolutionists, so please don't assert something you cannot prove. If hands and feet can produce extra bones, tissues, skin and so on then so can the coccyx. If "genes for making stuff" were accidently being turned on after 20 million years or so then the entire animal kingdom would be riddled with such cases.

As I said, there are no "genes for making tails". Instead there are plenty of abnormalities that evolutionists can use to pick and choose among in order to provide "evidence of evolution".

Perhaps you think that the Indonesian "tree-man" has "genes for making a tree"?

That would be quite a "throwback"!

Edited by Citizenship, 11 December 2012 - 05:08 PM.


#54
D-9

D-9

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,934 posts
We do see atavisms in other animals. It is said that horses evolved from smaller, multi-hoofed ancestors, but now they only have one toe with a single hoof over it, normally. Sometimes you get a horse with three toes each with a hoof, an atavism. We aren't the only creatures to have these sorts of things happen.

Isn't it a bit odd that direct changes to the regulation of Wnt-3a and Cdx1 genes results in tail formation in humans? Seems like these genes we have can make tails, why would this be the case?

#55
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,019 posts

.... Isn't it a bit odd that direct changes to the regulation of Wnt-3a and Cdx1 genes results in tail formation in humans? Seems like these genes we have can make tails, why would this be the case?


Well, It's No Suprise

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Genesis 3:17

For Sin Corrupts All Of Creation

Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. Romans 8:21-22

Including The Godless Minds Of A Few "Great" Men Of Science

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

And If You Would Ever Desire To See Clearly

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. 2 Corinthians 4:3-5

Just Call Jesus

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call. Joel 2:32

And Believe

#56
Citizenship

Citizenship
  • Members
  • 93 posts

We do see atavisms in other animals. It is said that horses evolved from smaller, multi-hoofed ancestors, but now they only have one toe with a single hoof over it, normally. Sometimes you get a horse with three toes each with a hoof, an atavism. We aren't the only creatures to have these sorts of things happen.


Well a horse is a horse, of course, of course. And a chicken with teeth is a chicken... with teeth. And so on.

I didn't say that abnormalities, (that you call atavisms), don't occur in the animal kingdom. But simply because evolutionists play the "pin the tail on the abnormality that they think supports them and claim it in the name of evolution"-game doesn't mean that I find it particularly convincing. There are all kinds of bizarre deformities in the animal kingdom. Who decides which ones are atavisms and which are not?

Isn't it a bit odd that direct changes to the regulation of Wnt-3a and Cdx1 genes results in tail formation in humans? Seems like these genes we have can make tails, why would this be the case?


Why would that be odd? Genes are used to control such things. Genes get damaged, resulting in abnormalities. You call it "tail formation". I prefer to call it by its correct anatomical name - a "coccyx". A coccyx has genes that control how long the coccyx should grow. These genes can be damaged just like any other gene in our body.

As far as I am concerned, humans have genes for making coccyx's, not tails.

#57
Ehud

Ehud
  • Members
  • 33 posts
~NEWSFLASH~
Based on available evidence, it appears that humans must have evolved from a recent common ancestor which had…would you believe it…SIX FINGERS! An extra finger (finger #6) at birth is reported in about 2 per 1000 children. Most of the time these extra digits are just “small bits of extra skin, but in some cases the bone structure is intact and the extra digits are fully functional.[i]”

Posted Image

So it appears that scientists have found the genes for finger #6 in other organisms and we have them too. Every now and then these genes are no longer suppressed in us humans and we end up with finger #6. ToE provides the best explanation for why we have the genes to make finger #6. Science is all about making observations and coming up with the best explanation of them. We have the observation that humans have the genes for finger #6, and every now and then these genes are not suppressed and you have a human with finger #6 complete with bones and all. Either we inherited the genes for finger #6 from an ancestor that had finger #6, or our Designer decided to give us the genes for finger #6 because...... (fill in the blank).




Well…I hope everyone gets the point. That last paragraph is composed entirely of excerpts from D-9 (all of the text in green) except that all references to the tail have been replaced by finger #6...sounds about as convincing as the tail evidence...the only problem Evolution doesn't say we evolved from an ancestor with six fingers. The truth is, polydactylism (extra fingers and toes) is quite common among babies being born…in fact, I bet everyone reading this thread knows someone who had finger #6 at birth (though you may not realize it, because “finger #6” is usually surgically removed immediately after birth, for aesthetic reasons). There are several types of polydactylism depending on where the extra digit shows up, and it occurs in both hands (extra fingers) and feet (extra toes). However, learning about this common developmental problem is not the point of the post; it is the comparison that is vital. Notice the similarities between two disorders: the human extra finger is usually nothing more than a flap of tissue but occasionally has fully formed bones and is functional; the human “tail“ is usually nothing more than a skin protrusion, with nerves, and muscles and occasionally a vertebra or few. Just like finger #6 is produced by an abnormal continuation of the patterning that produced the normal 5 fingers, those extremely rare “tails” which contain a few vertebrae are simply an abnormal continuation of the patterning which produced the normal backbone. So why is one called an evolutionary throwback and the other a developmental disorder? Well, people get pretty desperate sometimes trying to support their worldviews. I suspect that the reason this weak evidence is commonly used is because of the “wow” factor. Humans with “tails”…this sounds like compelling evidence; Humans with an elongated backbone birth defect …not so much.

This alone is enough to discard the human tail as evidence for Evolution (unless Evolutionists are willing to say that we evolved from a six-finger ancestor). However, in my next post we will actually take a look at the science behind these misrepresented tail-growing genes.

Hold the Fort,
Ehud

P.S. Citizenship beat me to the punch on this one...as he first mentioned polydactylism, but I had this post written and decided to still post it anyways. I apologize for the redundancy, but it is an important point.







[i]http://www.babymed.c...fingers-or-toes

#58
Ehud

Ehud
  • Members
  • 33 posts

Well, I am completely ignorant on the subject, therefore I risk to say some nonsense. Hope D-9 will correct me.

I think that the sixth finger is not driven by a new gene, but by the reactivation of the same. A bit like a loop in a sw subroutine that counts six activations of a gene instead of five.

Therefore, I don't think that your example is relevant, since everybody knows that we have a gene to create at least one finger. But not everyone is aware that we have genes with the potential to create at least on tail ;)

Ciao

- viole


Good...I was hoping you would say this. So suppose the same genes which were used to build the rest of the backbone were used to build this so called "tail" would you discard this evidence? After all, "since everybody knows that we have a gene to create at least one" vertebra...why not a few more.

Ehud

#59
OneLight

OneLight

    Royal Member

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,621 posts
This thread is closed for review. Your conversation lack any edifying to Christ, but seems to be doing just the opposite to me. To be even more honest, I cannot monitor a thread that I have no idea what is being said.

Taking this in review with others in ministry.




Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network