God used Evolution to 'create' man

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

If natural selection is a valid idea, it has failed in your scenario  for   chimps.    Why didn't man keep the prehensile tail chimps have.  That seems  like a useful trait to me.

Chimps don't have prehensile tails.  Their tails, like the tails of humans, are vestigial and enclosed in their bodies.

Take a look .   The human pelvis is the wide one.   The sacrum is the wedge-shaped bone that joins the two hips at the back.   Notice the little string of bones below the sacrum in each of these.   That's all that's left of a tail in chimps and humans.  It's called the coccyx.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Please don't tell me what to do.  If you don't like what I do, you have a solution---ignore me.

Suit yourself, if you want to continue spouting obviously incorrect statement in an attempt to argue, that is really up to you.

I would like to ask you a sincere question, though. Do you have any desire to learn anything in this dialogue? You seem to be perfectly comfortable making false statements, and don't seem interested in the least in any sort of correction.

[one.opinion]

14 minutes ago, Cletus said:

microevolution... its so small you cant even see it. 

we share dna with bananas and with grapes which is evidence of wasted tax dollars. 

Adult male apes have very large jawbones coordinates which supports the ability to eat more bananas

We all know about belly buttons being innies and outies as well as the tails of chimps being  prehensile but lets tackle the one topic of evolution everyone is most interested in... Mandrillus Sphinx or more commonly known as the Mandrill, and even more commonly known as the monkey with the blue buttocks.   

 

edit:  lol.  God made a monkey with a blue hieney!!! 

Are you making any sort of point?

[The Barbarian]

13 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Are you making any sort of point?

I think he's parodying creationists.   Or maybe he's a creationist.  

Poe's law:

Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied. The original statement, by Nathan Poe, read:

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

[Steve_S]

6 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I think he's parodying creationists.   Or maybe he's a creationist.  

Poe's law:

Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied. The original statement, by Nathan Poe, read:

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

This thread has remained quite civil to this point. Things like this threaten that civility. Please remember to debate the subject and not the person going forward.

[The Barbarian]

8 minutes ago, Steve_S said:

This thread has remained quite civil to this point. Things like this threaten that civility. Please remember to debate the subject and not the person going forward.

No harm intended.    It seemed to me that the post was intended to be humorous, and I was responding in that spirit.  If he was sincere, my apologies.

 

 

[Retrobyter]

9 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Chimps don't have prehensile tails.  Their tails, like the tails of humans, are vestigial and enclosed in their bodies.

Take a look .   The human pelvis is the wide one.   The sacrum is the wedge-shaped bone that joins the two hips at the back.   Notice the little string of bones below the sacrum in each of these.   That's all that's left of a tail in chimps and humans.  It's called the coccyx.

Shalom, The Barbarian.

You said, "Chimps don't have prehensile tails.  Their tails, like the tails of humans, are vestigial and enclosed in their bodies." The mere mention of this word used in this context suggests Evolution. "Vestigial" means "forming a very small remnant of something that was once much larger or more noticeable."

In human beings, this is not a "tail" but a "coccyx!" The coccyx is a triangular bone at the end of the spinal column from which radiate the nerves for the lower half of the person! It's a JUNCTURE, a nerve ganglion, not a "tail!"

PLEASE, don't confuse COMMON DESIGN with "common ancestry!" Why should God use multiple designs when He has the few that work?!

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

In human beings, this is not a "tail" but a "coccyx!" The coccyx is a triangular bone at the end of the spinal column from which radiate the nerves for the lower half of the person! It's a JUNCTURE, a nerve ganglion, not a "tail!"

Close, but not quite accurate. The spinal nerves radiate from the spinal cord, not the coccyx. The coccyx is absolutely not a nerve ganglion - bone and nerve tissue are very different.

Although the term vestigial is often implied to mean a structure that has lost a function, evolutionary biologists believe that the term more accurately describes a structure that is in the process of losing function, like human hair.

Here is an interesting article on "vestigial tails" in humans, regardless of how you view them - https://www.healthline.com/health/vestigial-tail

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

PLEASE, don't confuse COMMON DESIGN with "common ancestry!" Why should God use multiple designs when He has the few that work?!

When I look at God's creation, even within the human species, it is quite evident to me that God is VERY interested in variety. I believe this is well-supported by 1 Corinthians 12.

Is it possible that the "vestigial tail" is a product of common design? Of course. But the existence of the embryonic tail and the genetic similarity among those primates that have lost the external tail sure seems to indicate a common loss through evolutionary processes.

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, The Barbarian.

And with you, also.

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

You said, "Chimps don't have prehensile tails.  Their tails, like the tails of humans, are vestigial and enclosed in their bodies." The mere mention of this word used in this context suggests Evolution. "Vestigial" means "forming a very small remnant of something that was once much larger or more noticeable."

Yes, the same genes that form the tail in other mammals, forms the coccyx in humans and apes.    We still have tails, they are just very small and vestigial.

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

In human beings, this is not a "tail" but a "coccyx!" The coccyx is a triangular bone at the end of the spinal column from which radiate the nerves for the lower half of the person! It's a JUNCTURE, a nerve ganglion, not a "tail!"

I see someone has already corrected you.   But the nerves, which in non-ape primates are critical for balance and motion, no longer function for that purpose.  They are now useless.   Indeed, coccygeal agenesis (absent coccyx) is a fairly common condition in humans, and since the coccyx no longer serves a function, there are no symptoms and people with that condition are generally unaware of it, unless an x-ray happens to turn that up:

https://www.coccyx.org/personal/2000/tawnya.htm

Incidentally, "vestigial" does not necessarily mean "useless."   As Darwin pointed out, vestigial organs, although useless for their previous function, may indeed retain functionality by being adopted to new uses.    The appendix is a good example in humans.

None of this makes any sense in terms of "common design", but provides excellent evidence for common descent.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2019 by The Barbarian

[omega2xx]

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

He clearly understands genetics.   And you are wrong.   The dozens of new mutations you have were not present in either of your parents.   

It's called "mutation."    Mutations may simply alter an existing gene or a copy of a gene.   Or they can produce an entirely new gene.   This seems to happen mostly by mutation of non-coding DNA into a functional gene.   Would you like to learn more about that?

No.   For example, chimps and humans are more similar in DNA than either is to any other ape.

 

The different number of chromosomes is due to a fusion of two ape chromosomes into one human chromosome.   Would you like to see how we know that?

 

 

Thanks for confirming that you have no idea what constitutes evidence--Man-made are only opinions of what some person thinks happened.  THEY ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

You are also completely ignorant of what mutations can and can't do.  Would you like to know how we know that?