Do creationists accept biology?

[Subduction Zone]

So you are saying that terminology is very important, am I right about that? Meaning the difference between useful and necessary, as if to say tonsils are vestigial organs NOT NECESSARY in the human body. Yet for some funny reason the evolutionary structure according to you has not eliminated them. Or have they? It's just one of those things that keep duplicating but not necessary. (Right?)
You also say that useful is not necessarily necessary in terms of biologic importance, is that right according to you? So please -- try to answer what is it that you say tonsils are not necessary for? Thank you.

I never claimed that they were vestigial. And why do you think that evolution has to eliminate them?

At any rate the tonsils are part of the immune system and it works better with them. But back to vestigial structures. A clear example is that of the eyes of cave fish. They are not totally gone, they are merely degraded to the point that they do not work any more. Those are the sort of structures that might almost disappear eventually. I say almost because there are often genetic traces of them. Like the teeth that can be made to grow in chickens. Biologists have managed to turn those genes back on. Genes do not disappear, if they are not needed they mutate to the point that they no longer work as they used to. For example our ancestors had a diet rich in vitamin C. Many mammals have a gene that can make vitamin C. We do too, but ours is broken. And example of a vestigial gene. It won't disappear altogether because there is no way to eliminate it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it is not useless then there MUST BE a REASON these so-called vestigial organs are there. Which some scientists are beginning to come to grips with. And, as some point out, because they have not FOUND the reason does not mean there IS no reason. Surely as an "advanced thinker" you can understand that.

They are there because they were of use in the past. They are part of an organisms DNA and they are not going to disappear.

Now if creationism was true you would think that would be the case, but there are actual vestigial organs. Just as there are vestigial genes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Um -- did scientists always understand, think, imagine, or know what the appendix is now surmised to be useful for?

There was little obvious present day use for the appendix. It took them a while to find what was probably a secondary function. Still if the organ does not do what it originally did it is vestigial even if it has a present day use.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anyway, to SZ, our conversation has been interesting and helpful.

I was waiting for you to ask why creationism does not have any scientific evidence for it. Well, perhaps another day.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not the best of sites since they foolishly used the word "designed". And the writer of that unfortunately displayed some ignorance. The appendix originally probably helped in the digestion of tougher vegetable matter. What so many article ignore is that fact that organs are regularly repurposed. That an organ has a use does not mean that it is not vestigial. If it not longer does the job it used to do it is vestigial. There are bones in whales that are left over from its land walking ancestors. They have a different use today than they had in the past. Again, the fact that they are useful does not mean that they are not vestigial. Just see if a whale can walk on land, even though it still has some of those bones. It will not be able to do that. Yet those bones are not "useless".

It is an error to think that vestigial has to mean useless.

So you're saying that researchers do not deduce that the appendix, shall we say, serves a rather useful function in the human body?

Are you trolling?

In other words, you are now saying you did not say I said they were not necessary? Shall I quote the post you made about what you said I said? And so you now wonder if I'm trolling? You make me smile and laugh sometimes.

 

[YoursTrue]

There was little obvious present day use for the appendix. It took them a while to find what was probably a secondary function. Still if the organ does not do what it originally did it is vestigial even if it has a present day use.

So now you should not-could not- say that the appendix has no function, can you? Yet you insist it's a vestigial organ not necessary for ??? what?

 

[YoursTrue]

I was waiting for you to ask why creationism does not have any scientific evidence for it. Well, perhaps another day.

I won't go into the broad divide about macro evolution right now. But again -- creationism vs. evolution had no bearing on scientific advances regarding the Salk polio vaccine.

 

[YoursTrue]

There was little obvious present day use for the appendix. It took them a while to find what was probably a secondary function. Still if the organ does not do what it originally did it is vestigial even if it has a present day use.

The organ seems to carry on quite well in its function while it's operating well. And yes, scientists are realizing it is not a disfunctioning organ as once thought. Same with tonsils. I'm thinking, guessing, surmising, figuring, that you believe such organs are not necessary because we can go on living without them. And yes, you've been quite wonderful in our discussions, thank you again. You're teaching me. Thanks for your patience.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you're saying that researchers do not deduce that the appendix, shall we say, serves a rather useful function in the human body?

In other words, you are now saying you did not say I said they were not necessary? Shall I quote the post you made about what you said I said? And so you now wonder if I'm trolling? You make me smile and laugh sometimes.

Amazing, you still do not know the difference between of use and necessary. As a result you have to try to twist what others say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So now you should not-could not- say that the appendix has no function, can you? Yet you insist it's a vestigial organ not necessary for ??? what?

I see that logic has abandoned you. A vestigial organ is one that no longer serves its original function. Quite often that results in the organ withering away over the ages. But you still have some remnants of your fishy past. When you were an embryo you still developed "gill slits". In fish they develop to become supports for the gills. In us they develop into the lower jaw and ear bones among other uses. As gill slits they are vestigial. They no longer function that way. Yet they are extremely important. So here we have an example of an organ that is not only vestigial, but necessary as well.

You need to drop the false narrative. Vestigial does not mean useless.

Pharyngeal arch - Wikipedia

 

[Jose Fly]

So are you saying that because I believe that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," I do not believe there have been benefits to scientific research? Let me make this clear. I go to the doctor. I don't BELIEVE everything a doctor says. I decide if I will take a medication he recommends, or have an operation. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. What a doctor may recommend may not have the best outcome. And it is possible he can have been taught as truth errors with serious consequences, later "proven" that the taught way was wrong, now a new way is better.
So how often does medical consensus turn out to be wrong?
(What doctors learn in school as "Truth" is often reversed within a few years, and what was taught by scientists can be detrimental. Do not take this to mean I do not go to doctors when I feel the need to. I do.)

You may have meant that for someone else, since that has nothing to do with what I posted.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is quite the opposite. There is no scientific evidence for creationism. There are mountains of scientific evidence for evolution. For a scientist to accept creationism they have to be reasoning irrationally. In the sciences one follows the evidence.

For someone to believe in God as the Creator of heavens and earth does not mean he cannot be a biologist or a doctor or scientist.

 

[YoursTrue]

I see that logic has abandoned you. A vestigial organ is one that no longer serves its original function. Quite often that results in the organ withering away over the ages. But you still have some remnants of your fishy past. When you were an embryo you still developed "gill slits". In fish they develop to become supports for the gills. In us they develop into the lower jaw and ear bones among other uses. As gill slits they are vestigial. They no longer function that way. Yet they are extremely important. So here we have an example of an organ that is not only vestigial, but necessary as well.

You need to drop the false narrative. Vestigial does not mean useless.

Pharyngeal arch - Wikipedia

you know that about the original function because???

I never claimed that they were vestigial. And why do you think that evolution has to eliminate them?

At any rate the tonsils are part of the immune system and it works better with them. But back to vestigial structures. A clear example is that of the eyes of cave fish. They are not totally gone, they are merely degraded to the point that they do not work any more. Those are the sort of structures that might almost disappear eventually. I say almost because there are often genetic traces of them. Like the teeth that can be made to grow in chickens. Biologists have managed to turn those genes back on. Genes do not disappear, if they are not needed they mutate to the point that they no longer work as they used to. For example our ancestors had a diet rich in vitamin C. Many mammals have a gene that can make vitamin C. We do too, but ours is broken. And example of a vestigial gene. It won't disappear altogether because there is no way to eliminate it.

You've helped me to research a bit about Haeckel's drawings of recapitulation in the womb. And I see that many scientists realized his drawings were simply not true. As an example, thinking you'll agree with the opinion that despite the inaccuracies, his ideas were ok anyway. Following the discussion of this from wikipedia, Stephen Jay Gould said that Haeckel "exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions." (Idealizations AND omissions?? Yes, that's what Gould said.) Yet one who criticized Haeckel's drawings, Michael Richardson, argued that "Haeckel's much-criticized drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution". (LOL, I say. They were?? But I have a feeling you'll agree with that.) Yet Richardson admitted in Science Magazine in 1997 that his team's investigation of Haeckel's drawings were showing them to be "one of the most famous fakes in biology." Useful, but fakes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Amazing, you still do not know the difference between of use and necessary. As a result you have to try to twist what others say.

Again -- legs are useful, but are they necessary? And since you make the distinction, please do tell what you mean by useful vs. necessary. I asked, but I don't think you answered except to mock, what these organs are not necessary for, if they are considered useful. Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

I was waiting for you to ask why creationism does not have any scientific evidence for it. Well, perhaps another day.

There are obviously many opinions about what you call creationism. By those who claim to be creationists and those who speak of creationism but don't believe in God as creator. As far as scientific evidence for that, I believe life itself is evidence for a Creator. That does not mean that I believe God created animals or people born with what is termed as deformities, although it happens.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you know that about the original function because???

You've helped me to research a bit about Haeckel's drawings of recapitulation in the womb. And I see that many scientists realized his drawings were simply not true. As an example, thinking you'll agree with the opinion that despite the inaccuracies, his ideas were ok anyway. Following the discussion of this from wikipedia, Stephen Jay Gould said that Haeckel "exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions." (Idealizations AND omissions?? Yes, that's what Gould said.) Yet one who criticized Haeckel's drawings, Michael Richardson, argued that "Haeckel's much-criticized drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution". (LOL, I say. They were?? But I have a feeling you'll agree with that.) Yet Richardson admitted in Science Magazine in 1997 that his team's investigation of Haeckel's drawings were showing them to be "one of the most famous fakes in biology." Useful, but fakes.

Not sure about how they know the original use of the appendix.

But Haeckel's drawings for the most part were "true". All that he did was what others did at his time which was to emphasize that which they wished to be seen. What he did was not that big of a sin at that time since photography was not possible and most knew what was being done.

And you are relying on lying sources again. They tend to quote mine. Tell me, did you know that the Bible says at least twelve times "There is no god". Does that mean that the Bible denies the existence of God? You should know better. To try to make that claim one must quote mine. That is quoting out of context. A favorite tactic of creationists. Haeckel was not perfect. But that does not make him a villain. For some reason creationists can see the evidence from his embryos so they have to lie about them. Rather sad really.

So, a bit inaccurate? Yes. Fakes? Definitely not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again -- legs are useful, but are they necessary? And since you make the distinction, please do tell what you mean by useful vs. necessary. I asked, but I don't think you answered except to mock, what these organs are not necessary for, if they are considered useful. Thanks.

Yes, if one has to go to extremes then yes, those are necessary. Countless people have had their tonsils and appendixes removed with little in the way of negative effects.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are obviously many opinions about what you call creationism. By those who claim to be creationists and those who speak of creationism but don't believe in God as creator. As far as scientific evidence for that, I believe life itself is evidence for a Creator. That does not mean that I believe God created animals or people born with what is termed as deformities, although it happens.

But it is not evidence for a creator. You really should learn what scientific evidence is.

Here, you can prove that life itself is not evidence for a creator. You can prove it by answering this simple question:

What reasonable test could prove you to be wrong?

 

[YoursTrue]

Not sure about how they know the original use of the appendix.

But that is the claim. Do they know what the original use of the appendix and supposedly things like tonsils are?

But Haeckel's drawings for the most part were "true". All that he did was what others did at his time which was to emphasize that which they wished to be seen. What he did was not that big of a sin at that time since photography was not possible and most knew what was being done.

So he manufactured (like the fish gills) what he thought might have-should have been.

And you are relying on lying sources again. They tend to quote mine. Tell me, did you know that the Bible says at least twelve times "There is no god". Does that mean that the Bible denies the existence of God? You should know better. To try to make that claim one must quote mine. That is quoting out of context. A favorite tactic of creationists. Haeckel was not perfect. But that does not make him a villain. For some reason creationists can see the evidence from his embryos so they have to lie about them. Rather sad really.

So, a bit inaccurate? Yes. Fakes? Definitely not.

Obviously one should or must take things in context.
I didn't say Haeckel was a villain. But surely making some things up. And taught for a long time as true in textbooks. Further, Stephen Gould said what he said about some of Haeckel's fictional pictures, taught as truth for a long time. And still being shown in some textbooks as -- truth.
So let's see what you think about this about the tailbone (coccyx) from Medscape:
"In humans, the coccyx serves important functions, including as an attachment site for various muscles, tendons, and ligaments. Physicians and patients should remember the importance of these attachments when considering surgical removal of the coccyx."
Serves "important functions." Necessary? Useful? Important? Which? (Junk science to say the coccyx serves important functions?)

 

[YoursTrue]

But it is not evidence for a creator. You really should learn what scientific evidence is.

Here, you can prove that life itself is not evidence for a creator. You can prove it by answering this simple question:

What reasonable test could prove you to be wrong?

So far let me put it this way: many things said to have been true with regard to evolution have been overturned. Further, remember the topic here. It is do creationists accept biology. And surely many who believe that God created the heavens and the earth as demonstrated in the Bible do. Now again it is late and therefore my human body and brain is telling me I must sign off. Good night.
Oh, yes, my brain so far is connected to my body, I want to make that clear so there is no misunderstanding about what I said.