Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

[BilliardsBall]

I think you missed the point. You demanded that there has to be proof of species that have a set of traits that are intermediary because you don't know about them. I give you some examples of them. You then claim that I'm too dumb to know the topic. Got it.

You are a jerk. And now I remember why I had you on ignore... bye.

I didn't claim you are stupid, I am asserting that I'm not lacking experience in this field of debate, and that I prefer someone more knowledgeable, who doesn't conflate ideas--seeds becoming trees are not proof of "macro-evolution" and who conflates ideas. You see, there is no argument against your main tack so far, that "small changes add up over time to larger ones". They don't in human endeavors, reforming human behaviors, nor can they can magically turns birds into wingless beasts or vice versa. There are no species on Earth showing vestigial or ancilliary organs, or even parts of such! And no, I don't want to hear childish protestations that I don't need my molars--my dentist urged me to keep them yet again last visit--or that I don't truly need an appendix, when everyone who has one out has digestive issues and when it has a function, etc.

If all you will do is offer uninformed lay views on evolution, then insult me, I'm glad you have me on ignore. I seek peace with you, but you should find peace inside first, before screaming at me and calling me a jerk. Better yet, trust Jesus. Receive inner peace!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I didn't claim you are stupid, I am asserting that I'm not lacking experience in this field of debate, and that I prefer someone more knowledgeable, who doesn't conflate ideas--seeds becoming trees are not proof of "macro-evolution" and who conflates ideas.

They didn't say it was proof, it was a simple analogy. Many creationists find issue with the assertion of life forms evolving from simpler organisms into more complex ones over millions of years, but seem to have no issue of that very thing occurring when it is a human growing from a sperm and an egg or a tree growing from a seed. It's just pointing out a double standard. If you understand how a tree can grow from a seed over a period of a decade, I don't see why it's so unbelievable to imagine complex organisms forming from simpler organisms over millions of years.

You see, there is no argument against your main tack so far, that "small changes add up over time to larger ones". They don't in human endeavors, reforming human behaviors, nor can they can magically turns birds into wingless beasts or vice versa.

What do human endeavours or behaviours have to do with evolution? And where is your evidence that small changes cannot add up to "turn birds into wingless beasts"?

There are no species on Earth showing vestigial or ancilliary organs, or even parts of such!

That is just a naked lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

And no, I don't want to hear childish protestations that I don't need my molars--my dentist urged me to keep them yet again last visit-

You do realize that "vestigial" doesn't mean "without any use or function", right? On that note, how exactly do you explain the fact that humans tend to have too many teeth to fit in their jaws?

-or that I don't truly need an appendix, when everyone who has one out has digestive issues and when it has a function, etc.

See above. "Vestigial" doesn't mean "without any use or function", it simply means "reduced use or function". The appendix is an example. If you want an example of a vestigial feature which genuinely has no function any more, then an obvious example would be goosebumps.

If all you will do is offer uninformed lay views on evolution, then insult me, I'm glad you have me on ignore. I seek peace with you, but you should find peace inside first, before screaming at me and calling me a jerk. Better yet, trust Jesus. Receive inner peace!

This forum does not allow proselyting. Please don't bother with it when you are debating science.

 

[BilliardsBall]

They didn't say it was proof, it was a simple analogy. Many creationists find issue with the assertion of life forms evolving from simpler organisms into more complex ones over millions of years, but seem to have no issue of that very thing occurring when it is a human growing from a sperm and an egg or a tree growing from a seed. It's just pointing out a double standard. If you understand how a tree can grow from a seed over a period of a decade, I don't see why it's so unbelievable to imagine complex organisms forming from simpler organisms over millions of years.


What do human endeavours or behaviours have to do with evolution? And where is your evidence that small changes cannot add up to "turn birds into wingless beasts"?


That is just a naked lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality


You do realize that "vestigial" doesn't mean "without any use or function", right? On that note, how exactly do you explain the fact that humans tend to have too many teeth to fit in their jaws?


See above. "Vestigial" doesn't mean "without any use or function", it simply means "reduced use or function". The appendix is an example. If you want an example of a vestigial feature which genuinely has no function any more, then an obvious example would be goosebumps.


This forum does not allow proselyting. Please don't bother with it when you are debating science.

1. My teeth fit in my jaw. If they didn't, I would look like Dracula. Yours fit in your jaw also. Crowded teeth, and the need for orthodontics, are one consequence of the Fall, or thumb sucking, or a punch in the mouth.

2. The appendix does not have a reduced use or function. Recent research indicates it's anti-bacterial functions, and asking anyone who has had one out about their digestive issues will help you understand, too.

3. Speaking of not proselytizing, I don't want people to proselytize the magic of evolution here. "Look how cool it is that cells divide until a seed becomes a tree proves macro-changes!" is an appeal to magic and mysticism, not rock-cool inductive logic!

4. PS. A little proselytizing is good for you--better than for me, since I've already trusted Jesus. This is, I'm pretty sure, ReligiousForums.com and not ScientismPeopleOnly.com. And the OP is what I was addressing. Thanks.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1. My teeth fit in my jaw. If they didn't, I would look like Dracula. Yours fit in your jaw also.

Only after three years of dental surgery and braces.

Crowded teeth, and the need for orthodontics, are one consequence of the Fall, or thumb sucking, or a punch in the mouth.

So any obvious examples of poor design can just be dismissed as being a consequence of the fall? Where does the Bible state that humans having too many teeth is a consequence of the fall? Or the existence of goosebumps? Or the appendix?

2. The appendix does not have a reduced use or function. Recent research indicates it's anti-bacterial functions, and asking anyone who has had one out about their digestive issues will help you understand, too.

Again, I repeated, REDUCED use or function, not NO use or function. That's what vestigial means.

3. Speaking of not proselytizing, I don't want people to proselytize the magic of evolution here. "Look how cool it is that cells divide until a seed becomes a tree proves macro-changes!" is an appeal to magic and mysticism, not rock-cool inductive logic!

You are not qualified to tell me what is science and what is magic, and I will thank you not to use poorly constructed straw men in lieu of actually addressing or understanding the points being made.

4. PS. A little proselytizing is good for you--better than for me, since I've already trusted Jesus. This is, I'm pretty sure, ReligiousForums.com and not ScientismPeopleOnly.com. And the OP is what I was addressing. Thanks.

It's actually written into the rules. This is the DEBATE section of the forum. If you wish to proselytize, there are plenty of sections in the forum you can do that in. And I find it incredibly arrogant that you would ever assume to know what is good for me. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to deny or misrepresent facts to support my beliefs.

 

[Sapiens]

1. My teeth fit in my jaw. If they didn't, I would look like Dracula. Yours fit in your jaw also. Crowded teeth, and the need for orthodontics, are one consequence of the Fall, or thumb sucking, or a punch in the mouth.

Actually your need to have wisdom teeth pulled stems primarily from lack of tooth wear as a result of much less grit in your food.

2. The appendix does not have a reduced use or function. Recent research indicates it's anti-bacterial functions, and asking anyone who has had one out about their digestive issues will help you understand, too.

The appendix may not have a reduced function (Evolutionary Study Suggests Cecum not Vestigial ) it has long been thought to be a reduced cecum but recent evolutionary finds cast doubt on that:

"Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks," says William Parker, Ph.D., assistant professor of surgical sciences at Duke and the senior author of the study. "Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a 'vestigial organ.'"

Using a modern approach to evolutionary biology called cladistics, which utilizes genetic information in combination with a variety of other data to evaluate biological relationships that emerge over the ages, Parker and colleagues found that the appendix has evolved at least twice, once among Australian marsupials and another time among rats, lemmings and other rodents, selected primates and humans. "We also figure that the appendix has been around for at least 80 million years, much longer than we would estimate if Darwin's ideas about the appendix were correct."

Ain't science great ... it is self-correcting, and all based in the TOE.

3. Speaking of not proselytizing, I don't want people to proselytize the magic of evolution here. "Look how cool it is that cells divide until a seed becomes a tree proves macro-changes!" is an appeal to magic and mysticism, not rock-cool inductive logic!

You're suffering from a lack of background compounded by Sir Arthur's Third Law.

4. PS. A little proselytizing is good for you--better than for me, since I've already trusted Jesus. This is, I'm pretty sure, ReligiousForums.com and not ScientismPeopleOnly.com. And the OP is what I was addressing. Thanks.

The OP was dealt with fully in post 2:

There are not a number of completing TOEs, there is only one, Natural Selection or (if you prefer) descent with modification. There are discussions of mechanisms, but not of the basic theory itself.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Only after three years of dental surgery and braces.


So any obvious examples of poor design can just be dismissed as being a consequence of the fall? Where does the Bible state that humans having too many teeth is a consequence of the fall? Or the existence of goosebumps? Or the appendix?


Again, I repeated, REDUCED use or function, not NO use or function. That's what vestigial means.


You are not qualified to tell me what is science and what is magic, and I will thank you not to use poorly constructed straw men in lieu of actually addressing or understanding the points being made.


It's actually written into the rules. This is the DEBATE section of the forum. If you wish to proselytize, there are plenty of sections in the forum you can do that in. And I find it incredibly arrogant that you would ever assume to know what is good for me. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to deny or misrepresent facts to support my beliefs.

You have a mix here of philosophical ideas and facts. Let's address the facts re: reduced use of the appendix.

You have assumptions (admittedly, still held by many scholars) regarding the vestigial nature of the appendix. We can survive without one. We can also survive without a lung, a kidney, much of the liver, etc. The liver has over 500 known functions, the appendix has been linked to anti-bacterial action and digestive action. There is no proof that the appendix had more functions in the past, or less, or will have more or less functions for future generations of humans.

Other philosophical assumptions, you've made, such as "I'm unqualified to tell you what is science or magic" are presumptive. I'm aware that fans of macro-evolution constantly use an "evolution of the gaps" and more often than Christians use "a god of the gaps". If you want to say, "we don't know how X and Y and Z evolved yet, but it surely did evolve, and there was no other possible or plausible explanation, such as intelligent design by aliens, bad assumptions about the data we've made including misreading fossils, or God forbid, God..." I have the right to call your mumbo jumbo magic.

Another assumption that you made is that "people have too many teeth". I have 32 teeth, all have functions in my mouth. I do not seek to have some removed, it would change mastication and even the pitch of my voice. If you feel humans have too many teeth, you should begin a campaign on behalf of children and teens to have certain teeth removed as soon as they appear as adult teeth.

Another assumption you made is that having too many teeth somehow proves macro-evolution, when it might only prove adaptation within one species. So I suggest you calm down a bit, think about your arguments more carefully, and stay within the realm of fact as much as you can.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You're suffering from a lack of background compounded by Sir Arthur's Third Law.

If you are referring to the legendary scientist and writer Arthur C. Clarke's third law, calling mindless, mechanistic evolution "technology" boggles my mind! You must have been mistaken.

See my "use facts, not mumbo jumbo" post above.

 

[fantome profane]

If you are referring to the legendary scientist and writer Arthur C. Clarke's third law, calling mindless, mechanistic evolution "technology" boggles my mind! You must have been mistaken.

See my "use facts, not mumbo jumbo" post above.

You are right that this is not what Clarke was talking about, but the principle can be applied to nature as well as science. If people don't understand something they can and will call it "magic".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You have assumptions (admittedly, still held by many scholars) regarding the vestigial nature of the appendix. We can survive without one. We can also survive without a lung, a kidney, much of the liver, etc. The liver has over 500 known functions,

None of this has absolutely anything to do with the concept of vestigiality.

the appendix has been linked to anti-bacterial action and digestive action. There is no proof that the appendix had more functions in the past, or less, or will have more or less functions for future generations of humans.

There is evidence to suggest that the appendix evolved from serving a much greater function in the human digestive system than it currently does:

http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/farm/content/animalstructure.html

What's more, the appendix is just one example. Far more clear-cut examples are goosebumps, earlobes, cocyx and wisdom teeth.

Other philosophical assumptions, you've made, such as "I'm unqualified to tell you what is science or magic" are presumptive.

No, they're based on facts. You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of science in general and evolutionary biology in particular.

I'm aware that fans of macro-evolution constantly use an "evolution of the gaps" and more often than Christians use "a god of the gaps". If you want to say, "we don't know how X and Y and Z evolved yet, but it surely did evolve, and there was no other possible or plausible explanation, such as intelligent design by aliens, bad assumptions about the data we've made including misreading fossils, or God forbid, God..." I have the right to call your mumbo jumbo magic.

It's a very good thing then that I've never heard anyone on these forums make any such argument. Let me know when you've stopped engaging strawmen.

Another assumption that you made is that "people have too many teeth". I have 32 teeth, all have functions in my mouth. I do not seek to have some removed, it would change mastication and even the pitch of my voice. If you feel humans have too many teeth, you should begin a campaign on behalf of children and teens to have certain teeth removed as soon as they appear as adult teeth.

Do you have any idea of the number of people who require braces or surgery to remove wisdom teeth?

Another assumption you made is that having too many teeth somehow proves macro-evolution,

I never said that. So you're just blatantly lying here.

when it might only prove adaptation within one species. So I suggest you calm down a bit, think about your arguments more carefully, and stay within the realm of fact as much as you can.

And I suggest you spend more time reading the arguments presented rather than conjuring up strawmen and patronizing people. When are you going to present something of substance?

 

[Subhankar Zac]

As a religious man, evolution is vital to the understanding of how the cosmic consciousness works and how it molds energy into matter making life possible.

I reject all notions of creationism as it is incompatible with my faith. Though I'll admit that some theories have a little too unusually greater timeline, such as it believes that humans appeared on this planet around more than 10-120 million years ago, which is impossible.
Nevertheless, evolution by natural selection is accepted by 85% of God believing Hindus in my country and is the only natural way to understand.

The cosmic consciousness and Energy when interacts with each other, it creates matter and the cosmos as we know it. The theory of Hiranyagarbha can be used to explain the point of singularity.
Now religiously speaking, the universe is 155.55 trillion years old, though science says that it exists for 14-16 billion years. Whatever the case, due to the presence of the supreme consciousness, matter is molded very very slowly under the influence of it.
That's what causes the universe to change, from stars to galaxies to planets.
The landscape of mars suggests that it could have had water once, rivers flowing across the surface. Look at it now... Totally barren!
Evolution is similar... Very similar.
A planet when created remains to be hot, molten lava lives on the surface. Planets crash into it making moons, the steam creates water as rain along with supposed comet impacts. After cooling of the planet it becomes livable.

Yes, it is debatable of how exactly life started out but evolution is simple comprehend. As circumstances folded them, they adapted to the temperature, area, atmosphere, etc.
Many animals couldn't live in temperatures of upto 45℃ but humans and other lives can cuz we adapted as such.
It is under the cosmic consciousness (what he called the unmanifested form of Lord Krishna, that never changes but instead molds matter according to its will)

The Dashavatara of Lord Narayana explains evolution. The Ramayana has stories iof many beings that are ape man.
So, For me, evolution by natural selection is the best justification of how we came here to be.

It's evidence is all over your body as well. You can see it for yourself.

 

[habiru]

Everything was designed at the same time. Everything needs each other; and without each other that it would of never had existed. Like plant-life needs bees to exist. And if there's no bees, then there will be no plant-life. Unless, the monkeys went around pollinating the flowers until the bees arrived. But bees could not had been here before without plant-life. And so they were both created at the same time or if not, they would of have existed. Man has to be created at the same time as a woman, or if not, then there would of have been humans. Everything was created so perfectly that everything cannot live without the other.


An ecosystem is a community of living organisms in conjunction with the nonliving components of their environment (things like air, water and mineral soil), interacting as a system.[2] These biotic and abiotic components are regarded as linked together through nutrient cycles and energy flows.[3] As ecosystems are defined by the network of interactions among organisms, and between organisms and their environment,[4] they can be of any size but usually encompass specific, limited spaces[5] (although some scientists say that the entire planet is an ecosystem).[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem


Albert Einstein once said: “If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live. No more bees, no more pollination … no more men!” He wasn’t an entomologist, but entomologists around today agree that the sudden and mysterious disappearance of bees from their hives poses serious problems! https://globalclimatechange.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/einstein-on-bees/

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are right that this is not what Clarke was talking about, but the principle can be applied to nature as well as science. If people don't understand something they can and will call it "magic".

So do you call Creationism magic or truth?

If people don't understand something they can and will call it "magic".

 

[BilliardsBall]

None of this has absolutely anything to do with the concept of vestigiality.


There is evidence to suggest that the appendix evolved from serving a much greater function in the human digestive system than it currently does:

http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/farm/content/animalstructure.html

What's more, the appendix is just one example. Far more clear-cut examples are goosebumps, earlobes, cocyx and wisdom teeth.


No, they're based on facts. You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of science in general and evolutionary biology in particular.


It's a very good thing then that I've never heard anyone on these forums make any such argument. Let me know when you've stopped engaging strawmen.


Do you have any idea of the number of people who require braces or surgery to remove wisdom teeth?


I never said that. So you're just blatantly lying here.


And I suggest you spend more time reading the arguments presented rather than conjuring up strawmen and patronizing people. When are you going to present something of substance?

1. I'm not arguing against evolution, just "macro" changes, as you know. So I'm not pushing straw men on you.

I disagree about goose bumps, which provide biofeedback and proprioceptive feedback to humans, earlobes, which are used by many in sexual response/mating, my coccyx, which functions in balance--have a family member by marriage who had a malformed one and required corrective surgery or wisdom teeth. Again, something that works imperfectly for some may be evidence of the Fall, but does not de facto mean it devolved. To be consistent, you'd further have to show the survivability mechanisms prompting the devolution and etc.

I'm not lying about anything. And I spell better and my grammar is better, so let's agree to disagree. You know more about evolutionary biology, or at least presume to, and I know my logic, spelling and grammar is better...

...So not that we've both been supercilious and facetious, let's be real instead. I used to believe in Evolution at a macro level, but there are too many problems with it, and too much evidence for Creation.

Thanks.

 

[fantome profane]

So do you call Creationism magic or truth?

I understand Creationism. I call it pseudoscience.

 

[McBell]

So do you call Creationism magic or truth?

Wishful thinking.

 

[McBell]

I understand Creationism. I call it pseudoscience.

I have to disagree.
Creationism is wishful thinking.
Creationism relies on pseudoscience.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1. I'm not arguing against evolution, just "macro" changes, as you know. So I'm not pushing straw men on you.

I never said anything about micro or macro and you ARE pushing strawmen. Here are a couple of examples from your previous post:

"we don't know how X and Y and Z evolved yet, but it surely did evolve, and there was no other possible or plausible explanation, such as intelligent design by aliens, bad assumptions about the data we've made including misreading fossils, or God forbid, God..."

"Another assumption you made is that having too many teeth somehow proves macro-evolution"

The first is an obvious strawman, unless you can find a single example of anyone in this thread making this exact argument, and the second is EVEN MORE obvious since I never claimed (or "assumed") that having too many teeth "proved macro-evolution". You are formulating strawmen, and your are now a proven liar to boot. Please retract your blatant lie.

I disagree about goose bumps, which provide biofeedback and proprioceptive feedback to humans,

In what way do goosebumps do either of those things?

earlobes, which are used by many in sexual response/mating,

What?

my coccyx, which functions in balance--have a family member by marriage who had a malformed one and required corrective surgery

The coccyx is still the remnant of the vestigial tail.

And literally everything you said above is made moot by the fact that I have already explained vestigial does not mean NO function, it means REDUCED function.

or wisdom teeth. Again, something that works imperfectly for some may be evidence of the Fall,

Only if they can also be evidence of magical pixies.

but does not de facto mean it devolved.

They didn't, because that's not a thing.

To be consistent, you'd further have to show the survivability mechanisms prompting the devolution and etc.

It isn't "devolution", it's "evolution", and the mechanisms are the same as always - mutations and selective environmental pressures.

I'm not lying about anything.

Proven false. You have clearly and demonstrably lied about my position - unless you can find a single instance in which I stated that people having too many teeth "proved macro-evolution".

And I spell better and my grammar is better, so let's agree to disagree. You know more about evolutionary biology, or at least presume to, and I know my logic, spelling and grammar is better...

Are you serious?

...So not that we've both been supercilious and facetious, let's be real instead. I used to believe in Evolution at a macro level, but there are too many problems with it, and too much evidence for Creation.

Since you have demonstrated both that you are dishonest and know very little about evolution itself, remarks like this shall be taken with a healthy dose of salt. You are clearly far too ignorant of this subject for me to believe that you are in any way a accurate judge of it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I never said anything about micro or macro and you ARE pushing strawmen. Here are a couple of examples from your previous post:

"we don't know how X and Y and Z evolved yet, but it surely did evolve, and there was no other possible or plausible explanation, such as intelligent design by aliens, bad assumptions about the data we've made including misreading fossils, or God forbid, God..."

"Another assumption you made is that having too many teeth somehow proves macro-evolution"

The first is an obvious strawman, unless you can find a single example of anyone in this thread making this exact argument, and the second is EVEN MORE obvious since I never claimed (or "assumed") that having too many teeth "proved macro-evolution". You are formulating strawmen, and your are now a proven liar to boot. Please retract your blatant lie.


In what way do goosebumps do either of those things?


What?


The coccyx is still the remnant of the vestigial tail.

And literally everything you said above is made moot by the fact that I have already explained vestigial does not mean NO function, it means REDUCED function.


Only if they can also be evidence of magical pixies.


They didn't, because that's not a thing.


It isn't "devolution", it's "evolution", and the mechanisms are the same as always - mutations and selective environmental pressures.


Proven false. You have clearly and demonstrably lied about my position - unless you can find a single instance in which I stated that people having too many teeth "proved macro-evolution".


Are you serious?


Since you have demonstrated both that you are dishonest and know very little about evolution itself, remarks like this shall be taken with a healthy dose of salt. You are clearly far too ignorant of this subject for me to believe that you are in any way a accurate judge of it.

Bottom line. Repeating, you have to prove a reduced function and how and when and where it was reduced--or do you have magic or pseudoscience or wishful thinking?

Repeating, many use the earlobes as erogenous zones. I'm sorry if you are experiencing any sexually reduced functions, but for those who aren't, they enjoy making love and thank God the earlobes have multiple functions!

Kindly save the blatant lie militant nonsense for someone who actually lies to you. You've been un-blatently lied to, that is, unintentionally lied to, by people who've been taught by scientists and scientism practitioners that if we think hard enough, we can come up with pseudo-reasons for every kind of presumed evolution because it simply is impossible for an omnipotent being to actually do anything.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Bottom line. Repeating, you have to prove a reduced function and how and when and where it was reduced--or do you have magic or pseudoscience or wishful thinking?

Actually, all I have to do is point to similar features in the animal kingdom or fossil record, find the distinct similarities between those parts of the bodies and their own, and how the functions differ. The lack of (or limited) function of various vestigial features can be explained through the evolutionary model, and there currently exists no other viable scientific theory or hypothesis which better explains the phenomenon of organisms such as humans possessing organs or features which have little to no purpose.

Repeating, many use the earlobes as erogenous zones. I'm sorry if you are experiencing any sexually reduced functions,

Please stop with the childish ad hominems and presumptions, please. I'm getting quite sick of your inability to debate this in an honest and respectful manner.

Kindly save the blatant lie militant nonsense for someone who actually lies to you. You've been un-blatently lied to, that is, unintentionally lied to, by people who've been taught by scientists and scientism practitioners that if we think hard enough, we can come up with pseudo-reasons for every kind of presumed evolution because it simply is impossible for an omnipotent being to actually do anything.

So your claim that I assume "humans having too many teeth to fit in their mouths proves macro-evolution" isn't a lie? Then please provide an example of me saying that. I will not take another attempt to dodge this clear example of you lying. Either prove that I said it, or else apologize for lying and retract the statement.

 

[viole]

1. My teeth fit in my jaw. If they didn't, I would look like Dracula. Yours fit in your jaw also. Crowded teeth, and the need for orthodontics, are one consequence of the Fall, or thumb sucking, or a punch in the mouth.

In increasing order of plausibility.

Respectful suggestion to God: next time, give the pinnacle of your creation a beak. Teeth are a pain to maintain.

2. The appendix does not have a reduced use or function. Recent research indicates it's anti-bacterial functions, and asking anyone who has had one out about their digestive issues will help you understand, too.

Theological question. Did Adam and Eve have an appendix? Or did God give appendix to people after the Fall in order to protect them from the Fall consequences, namely from bad guys like some bacteria?

3. Speaking of not proselytizing, I don't want people to proselytize the magic of evolution here. "Look how cool it is that cells divide until a seed becomes a tree proves macro-changes!" is an appeal to magic and mysticism, not rock-cool inductive logic!

You are embarassing yourself, I think. It is pretty obvious that you do not know what evolution is.

Ciao

- viole