Top | Newest First | Oldest First
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Sicarium · 46-50, M
Common structures used by the same creator. The analogy would be an architect that uses the same arched windows in all his designs.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Sicarium I'm not suggesting we need to agree with some or other argument (although I'm not actually making one). I'm saying that we need to explain what we observe
Sicarium · 46-50, M
@newjaninev2 Mmkay...
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Jackaloftheazuresand
Yes, some other dandelion species still use sexual reproduction, but Taraxacum officinale (the common, garden, everyday species), does not.
This, of course, indicates that originally all dandelion species used sexual reproduction, but Taraxacum officinale was able to take the risk of moving away from that (expensive) method... while still retaining the vestigial structures of the original process.
dandelions do both
Yes, some other dandelion species still use sexual reproduction, but Taraxacum officinale (the common, garden, everyday species), does not.
This, of course, indicates that originally all dandelion species used sexual reproduction, but Taraxacum officinale was able to take the risk of moving away from that (expensive) method... while still retaining the vestigial structures of the original process.
I think they often explain it by pointing out that many vestigial structures serve some purpose. This is of course a misunderstanding of what vestigial means.
It does not mean that it has no use. It means that it has lost most of its original function or functions for a different purpose entirely.
This seems silly if a creator made the organisms but makes quite a lot of sense assuming common ancestry.
It does not mean that it has no use. It means that it has lost most of its original function or functions for a different purpose entirely.
This seems silly if a creator made the organisms but makes quite a lot of sense assuming common ancestry.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Pikachu Yes, the argument misses the point. Evolutionary theory doesn’t say that vestigial characteristics have no function. A trait can be vestigial and functional at the same time. It is vestigial not because it’s functionless, but because it no longer performs the function for which it evolved. The wings of an ostrich are useful, but that doesn’t mean that they tell us nothing about evolution. Wouldn’t it be odd (and extremely silly) if a 'creator' helped an ostrich balance itself by giving it appendages that just happen to look exactly like reduced wings, and which are constructed in exactly the same way as wings used for flying?
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
My medical research friend laughs at vestigial structures. They are often important part of a well functioning body.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@canusernamebemyusername Looking in a mirror? Actually there are some people who lack a major part of their brain and some of them are very very high functioning.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 So there are no vestigial structures anywhere in nature, is that what you are saying?
@newjaninev2 But! He doesn't believe in evolved. That is the key.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
I don't think there will be many logical arguments from creationists. I seem to recall reading somewhere that they believe that there are no such things as vestigial organs, they all have alternative uses that are integral to life. Don't know how that could explain vestigial skeletal structure though.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@newjaninev2 I think that may be one of the big attractions of creationism, the idea that humans are more intelligent and advanced than all other animals, therefore we are better. Creation tells us that we were created in God's image and given dominion over all the earth and living things on it. Strokes our usually weak egos.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Bushranger Oh, absolutely1 The anthropocentric hubris exhibited by creationists is quite startling. There seems to be neither awareness nor appreciation of the web of life
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@newjaninev2 You should be careful about using big words, it might confuse some people on here.
Shaneishere · 31-35, M
Creationism and the theories of evolution (post creationism) are NOT mutually exclusive.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@Shaneishere OK, I'm being serious here, I'd like to hear your reasoning on this.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
RuiterInSwart · F
How do you eventually tap feelings from particles that appeared out of nothing?
YourBuddyRandall · 26-30, M
Put their by Satan to lead the flock astray.
Jm31xxx · 46-50, M
Deity feeling whimsy
Goddidit