Evolution as it relates to Religion

[Jose Fly]

First you have to explain why this isn't just a birth defect. The burden of proof is on you.

You're not paying attention. It is a birth defect, specifically a defect in regulation of Wnt-3a gene. But "birth defect" and "evolutionary atavism" are not exclusive categories. In fact, atavisms are a type of birth defect.

There's no reason to think it's anything else unless one has a preconceived idea.

As has already been explained, evolutionary common ancestry explains why human embryos share the exact same processes, via the exact same mechanisms, that create and then destroy tails in other apes. Evolutionary ancestry explains why the atavism is a tail rather than wings or antennae.

There's been babies born with hair in their back that looks like wings too, does that mean he had a bird for an ancestor?

Citation please.

Two of my four kids had abnormalities, one had a short leg and the other had a birth mark.. again nothing uncommon.

Not sure what your point is with that, unless it's the simplistic and ignorant argument that "birth defect" and "atavism" are mutually exclusive.

 

[Wildswanderer]

As has already been explained, evolutionary common ancestry explains why human embryos share the exact same processes, via the exact same mechanisms, that create and then destroy tails in other apes. Evolutionary ancestry explains why the atavism is a tail rather than wings or antennae.

We don’t have embryonic tails “as remnants of our evolution” from animals, but we do have the same genes to grow a spine that animals have... what does that tell you? Common design.

Living things frequently grow embryonic body parts that later die and are resorbed. So what? That doesn't say anything about who our ancestors are. You build the whole idea that the spine being longer than the body at some point for the fetus has something to do with monkeys on the assumption that we have primate ancestors. That's backwards.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Our spine doesn't protrude from our bodies. It's not like a tail in any way.

So?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We don’t have embryonic tails “as remnants of our evolution” from animals, but we do have the same genes to grow a spine that animals have... what does that tell you? Common design.

Living things frequently grow embryonic body parts that later die and are resorbed. So what? That doesn't say anything about who our ancestors are. You build the whole idea that the spine being longer than the body at some point for the fetus has something to do with monkeys on the assumption that we have primate ancestors. That's backwards.

What???

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Real tails have tail bones.

Do "real" vestigial tales have bones? It is vestigial.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They are obviously just birth defects... like all such odd growths anywhere in the body.

And vestigial structures are just a single line of evidence for evolution and the evolution of man.

It isn't God that evolution challenges, it is a literal interpretation of the Bible. You can believe in God and follow Christ without it from what I have learned.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Do "real" vestigial tales have bones? It is vestigial.

Circular reasoning.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So?

So, why are you pretending it's a tail, when it's clearly not?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Circular reasoning.

Deflection!

You are claiming that a structure must be fully formed and with original functional in order to claim that it evidence of ancestry.

The entire reason to describe it as vestigial is that when expressed, it does not retain all of the features and functions of the original structure. It is a vestige of that structure. Vestige does not mean without present function. Our appendix has a present function, but remains reasonably described as vestigial.

When the structure arises from the same genetic base that leads to tails in other organisms and that same pathway is revealed in human embryonic development, it is not baseless to claim a tail regardless of how poor a tail it might be.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So, why are you pretending it's a tail, when it's clearly not?

I am not anyone that is pretending. Show me that it is clearly not a tail. It is your claim that these structures are not tails and do not arise from an established genetic basis. It should be a piece of cake for you to do more than hand wave or offer weak challenges.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So, why are you pretending it's a tail, when it's clearly not?

Show us that in order to call something a tail it must have every feature YOU think defines tails. Show us that vestigial means that it must have all the features that YOU think defines tails and still function as a tail.

I suspect this will be no hill for a climber.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We don’t have embryonic tails “as remnants of our evolution” from animals, but we do have the same genes to grow a spine that animals have... what does that tell you? Common design.

Living things frequently grow embryonic body parts that later die and are resorbed. So what? That doesn't say anything about who our ancestors are. You build the whole idea that the spine being longer than the body at some point for the fetus has something to do with monkeys on the assumption that we have primate ancestors. That's backwards.

No, there is no "assumption" when it comes to the fact that we share ancestors with other primates. Perhaps you should learn what is and what is not evidence. Let's go over the concept of evidence quickly. In the sciences the concept of evidence has been well defined since people are people. They will tend to let their personal prejudices affect their reasoning. To avoid that the concept of evidence has been well defined in the sciences. Scientific evidence is:

"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,"

It is just that simple. If an observation supports a scientific theory it is by definition scientific evidence for it. Now the question is why can't ID believers find any evidence for their beliefs. I know the reason. Let's see if you do.

 

[Jose Fly]

We don’t have embryonic tails “as remnants of our evolution” from animals

Yes we do.

but we do have the same genes to grow a spine that animals have... what does that tell you? Common design.

Why in the world would a god "design" us to grow tails as embryos only to lose them prior to birth, and do so using the exact same genetics as other apes? What's the point of that "design"?

Living things frequently grow embryonic body parts that later die and are resorbed. So what? That doesn't say anything about who our ancestors are.

Sure it does, as I've already explained. Your "Nuh uh" replies are not at all meaningful.

You build the whole idea that the spine being longer than the body at some point for the fetus has something to do with monkeys on the assumption that we have primate ancestors. That's backwards.

Um...no, that's not what I posted. Try paying better attention.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes we do

That's not very convincing. We never have " tails" BTW, we have a tailbone forming, creating a piece that is temporary longer than the body during formation.
Some believe that these structures are examples of human evolution. Others believe that so-called vestigial organs do have a purpose, although these purposes aren’t yet understood.

To illustrate, some doctors and scientists once considered tonsils a human vestigiality. But scientists later discovered that the tonsils play a role in immunity, helping the body fight infections.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I am not anyone that is pretending. Show me that it is clearly not a tail. It is your claim that these structures are not tails and do not arise from an established genetic basis. It should be a piece of cake for you to do more than hand wave or offer weak challenges.

Of course it's not a tail. Tails have other functional uses. Swatting flys, hanging from trees, balance, and so on.
The bottom of your spine has uses, but they are not anything like a tail so again why are you calling it something it's clearly not?

 

[Jose Fly]

That's not very convincing.

It's an equivalent response to your "Nuh uh". I've already given fuller explanations of the data and how it is evidence of human/primate common ancestry.

We never have " tails" BTW, we have a tailbone forming, creating a piece that is temporary longer than the body during formation.
Some believe that these structures are examples of human evolution.

Um, no they are not "examples of human evolution". They are evidence of our common ancestry with other primates. Hopefully you understand the difference.

Others believe that so-called vestigial organs do have a purpose, although these purposes aren’t yet understood.

To illustrate, some doctors and scientists once considered tonsils a human vestigiality. But scientists later discovered that the tonsils play a role in immunity, helping the body fight infections.

Try and stick to the subject.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Try and stick to the subject.

I am. You however, are avoiding the obvious.

 

[Jose Fly]

I am. You however, are avoiding the obvious.

Do you have anything else besides avoiding most of what's posted to you and "Nuh uh"?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course it's not a tail. Tails have other functional uses. Swatting flys, hanging from trees, balance, and so on.
The bottom of your spine has uses, but they are not anything like a tail so again why are you calling it something it's clearly not?

This is a really poor argument that relies on flawed definitions of vestigial as well as a lack of substantial evidence addressing what you have been informed about.

No one is claiming that there is no function for the remnants of tails in humans. You really have had to reach to come up with anything to demonstrate as function. Preventing accidental anal insertion has to be the funniest thing I have heard in a long time.

The definition of vestigial has been clarified many times for you.

A vestigial tail is, by the definition of vestigial, not being claimed to describe a fully functional tail capable of swatting flies, facilitation of hanging from trees, balance and so on.

I will have to agree with others. The best you seem to have is nuh uh.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's not very convincing. We never have " tails" BTW, we have a tailbone forming, creating a piece that is temporary longer than the body during formation.
Some believe that these structures are examples of human evolution. Others believe that so-called vestigial organs do have a purpose, although these purposes aren’t yet understood.

To illustrate, some doctors and scientists once considered tonsils a human vestigiality. But scientists later discovered that the tonsils play a role in immunity, helping the body fight infections.

Vestigial organs are not claimed to be without function. Can you cite examples supporting your case from the literature? Are you aware there is literature on this subject?

Do you recommend closing your eyes and chanting nyah, nyah, nyah over and over to somehow make what a person wants to believe suddenly come true?

We have the genes for tails and during development those genes express to a point. Since selection no longer protects tails in humans, that expression is normally terminated.

You really have no rational means to get around the genetic and developmental basis other than continued weak denial without support of reason and evidence.

Just so stories are not rebuttal.