Human appendix not vestigial

[edwest2]

For all Catholics who doubt evolutionary claims, a good article:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090820175901.htm

I must point out that I still view the geological dates as incorrect. Polystrate fossil trees, some extending into coal seams, indicate earth geology was drastically and rapidly altered at one time.

Peace,
Ed

 

[hatsoff]

For all Catholics who doubt evolutionary claims, a good article:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090820175901.htm

I must point out that I still view the geological dates as incorrect. Polystrate fossil trees, some extending into coal seams, indicate earth geology was drastically and rapidly altered at one time.

Why is this a good article for evolution-deniers?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Vestigial = no longer performs its original function. A vestigial organ can perform a secondary function, as long as it’s not the primary function for which it first evolved.

 

[edwest2]

Vestigial = no longer performs its original function. A vestigial organ can perform a secondary function, as long as it’s not the primary function for which it first evolved.

I am skeptical that any evolution occurred. There is no way to prove your statement.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Shredderbeam]

I am skeptical that any evolution occurred. There is no way to prove your statement.

Peace,
Ed

I’m only going by strict definitions here, but why are you skeptical that evolution occurred? And can this thread have a debate on whether or not evolution has occurred without being locked?

 

[rossum]

I am skeptical that any evolution occurred.

Just think of all the money you could save ed. All those expensive new drugs that were developed because bugs had supposedly evolved immunity to them? You can just keep on using the old drugs that are way cheaper.

There is no way to prove your statement.

Correct. Science does not do proof, all science does is “the best solution we have at the moment”. Proof is for mathematics, not science.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

I used to think that was true until I read about bacteria found in dirt in Canada that were immune to natural and synthetic antibiotics. It rendered moot the whole idea of bacteria eating nylon. Then I read how some hospital bacteria actually lost genetic information to stave off antibiotics, and how those bacteria could not survive in the wild.

I read about antibiotics on an atheist forum. That appears to be one more thing they hold on to regarding their faith in science. Bacteria have the built-in ability to exchange bits of genetic material between other species of bacteria. It’s built in. I’m no longer convinced that gradual, incremental changes brought about this characteristic. A better explanation is intelligent desigm.

I also used to take it for granted when I was told that scientists believe that planets with water and amino acids have the ‘building blocks of life.’ Then after reexamining this statement, I realized what a huge, unprovable assumption that was. There is no way scientists can take amino acids and water and create life.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

There is no way scientists can take amino acids and water and create life.

The collected intelligence of the entire science community on earth for the past 50 years has not been able to take the components required for biological organisms and create life out of them.

An even easier test would simply be to take a human body which is missing one part – like the heart, and restore it to life.

Making it even much, much easier – take a human being that possesses all of the material components needed for life, all of the parts, all of the proportions – everything in place. The only thing missing is “life itself”. So, a recently, freshly dead human being. All of the material, physical aspects are present – all the scientists have to do is bring the human being back to life.

A car, for example, which is missing a starter can be restored to function.
Or a watch, missing a part can be brought back to functioning activity.
Even if you had all the separate parts for a watch – someone with the skill could build a functioning watch.

The traditional Catholic doctrine teaches that God is the author of life.
The materialist teaches that human life is the accidental by-product of blind, unintelligent physical processes and matter.

These unintelligent processes created something so sophisticated and brilliant that the combined intelligence of all scientists over the past 100 years has not been able to figure it out or replicate it.

Therefore, those scientsts are not as intelligent as unintelligent physical processes that created life. The scientists cannot figure out how they were created – and they were created out of unconscious, unintelligent matter and forces.

So, they are not as intelligent as unthinking, purposeless natural laws.

 

[Mersenne]

These unintelligent processes created something so sophisticated and brilliant that the combined intelligence of all scientists over the past 100 years has not been able to figure it out or replicate it.

Therefore, those scientsts are not as intelligent as unintelligent physical processes that created life. The scientists cannot figure out how they were created – and they were created out of unconscious, unintelligent matter and forces.

All it means is that unintelligent blind physical processes over millions of years can often create things that are complex and difficult to replicate in short periods of time in a lab. This is a fact. When can simulate similar processes, and blind purposeless physical laws CAN create incredibly complex things. In fact people have been tinkering with doing real design using evolutionary processes, and it works very well, and, not surprising, the results tend to have a very organic feel to them.

I would suggest looking into fractals, emergent properties. The truth is often there are buildings that don’t have builders, and paintings that don’t have painters.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I used to think that was true until I read about bacteria found in dirt in Canada that were immune to natural and synthetic antibiotics. It rendered moot the whole idea of bacteria eating nylon. Then I read how some hospital bacteria actually lost genetic information to stave off antibiotics, and how those bacteria could not survive in the wild.

Can you explain the significance of those two findings?
"edwest2:

I read about antibiotics on an atheist forum. That appears to be one more thing they hold on to regarding their faith in science. Bacteria have the built-in ability to exchange bits of genetic material between other species of bacteria. It’s built in. I’m no longer convinced that gradual, incremental changes brought about this characteristic. A better explanation is intelligent desigm.

Gradual, incremental changes wouldn’t be required to bring about this characteristic. Any replicators, even if they’re surrounded by a lipid bubble, can occasionally come into contact.

edwest2:

I also used to take it for granted when I was told that scientists believe that planets with water and amino acids have the ‘building blocks of life.’ Then after reexamining this statement, I realized what a huge, unprovable assumption that was. There is no way scientists can take amino acids and water and create life.

Peace,
Ed

Well, amino acids are the building blocks of life. They’re what make up proteins.

Also, how do you know that scientists would not be able to create life with amino acids and water?

The collected intelligence of the entire science community on earth for the past 50 years has not been able to take the components required for biological organisms and create life out of them.

Not very surprising, given the approximately 100-200 million year window in which life emerged.

An even easier test would simply be to take a human body which is missing one part – like the heart, and restore it to life.

Making it even much, much easier – take a human being that possesses all of the material components needed for life, all of the parts, all of the proportions – everything in place. The only thing missing is “life itself”. So, a recently, freshly dead human being. All of the material, physical aspects are present – all the scientists have to do is bring the human being back to life.

This has been done. People have temporarily died, only to be brought back to life by a jolt of electricity.

These unintelligent processes created something so sophisticated and brilliant that the combined intelligence of all scientists over the past 100 years has not been able to figure it out or replicate it.

Therefore, those scientsts are not as intelligent as unintelligent physical processes that created life. The scientists cannot figure out how they were created – and they were created out of unconscious, unintelligent matter and forces.

So, they are not as intelligent as unthinking, purposeless natural laws.

I don’t think that this is a fair conclusion. Simple rules can produce incredible complexity - take a look at termite nests.

 

[edwest2]

All it means is that unintelligent blind physical processes over millions of years can often create things that are complex and difficult to replicate in short periods of time in a lab. This is a fact. When can simulate similar processes, and blind purposeless physical laws CAN create incredibly complex things. In fact people have been tinkering with doing real design using evolutionary processes, and it works very well, and, not surprising, the results tend to have a very organic feel to them.

I would suggest looking into fractals, emergent properties. The truth is often there are buildings that don’t have builders, and paintings that don’t have painters.

That is not true. Buildings have builders and paintings do have painters. There is actual design in nature.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Can you explain the significance of those two findings?

Gradual, incremental changes wouldn’t be required to bring about this characteristic. Any replicators, even if they’re surrounded by a lipid bubble, can occasionally come into contact.

Well, amino acids are the building blocks of life. They’re what make up proteins.

Also, how do you know that scientists would not be able to create life with amino acids and water?

Not very surprising, given the approximately 100-200 million year window in which life emerged.

An even easier test would simply be to take a human body which is missing one part – like the heart, and restore it to life.

This has been done. People have temporarily died, only to be brought back to life by a jolt of electricity.

I don’t think that this is a fair conclusion. Simple rules can produce incredible complexity - take a look at termite nests.

“simple rules” do not come into being by themselves. You should try to create a fictional set of organisms, a fictional environment, a fictional diet and a fictional social order and create it.

Electricity is not the issue about bringing people back to life. The example specifically referred to a body part.

The significance of finding antibiotic resistant bacteria in dirt is that scientists were concerned that they might pass to animals and then to man. The fact that they were ‘already resistant’ to antibiotics, including some synthetics, indicates bacteria, in dirt, are already resistant. No ‘evolution’ was required to change them. Eating nylon is the standard atheist response that supposedly proves that bacteria evolved this ability. Not true.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Shredderbeam]

“simple rules” do not come into being by themselves. You should try to create a fictional set of organisms, a fictional environment, a fictional diet and a fictional social order and create it.

Simple rules are nothing more than tendencies or habits of individuals in a population. In the case of termites, a rule might be “If you smell that three termites have been here recently, place a dirt particle here”. It’s possible to have simple rules come into being if the individuals in a population have a certain amount of random behavior - natural selection encourages the behavior that happens to be beneficial.

I don’t know if this is exactly what you’re thinking of, but large populations of unintelligent individuals are frequently modeled by researchers hoping to harness their abilities (traffic flow, problem solving, etc.).

edwest2:

Electricity is not the issue about bringing people back to life. The example specifically referred to a body part.

Oh, well that has also been done. People have been given artificial/animal hearts before.

edwest2:

The significance of finding antibiotic resistant bacteria in dirt is that scientists were concerned that they might pass to animals and then to man. The fact that they were ‘already resistant’ to antibiotics, including some synthetics, indicates bacteria, in dirt, are already resistant. No ‘evolution’ was required to change them. Eating nylon is the standard atheist response that supposedly proves that bacteria evolved this ability. Not true.

Peace,
Ed

How was it determined that the bacteria had had no prior contact with antibiotics?

Also, even if it hadn’t, antibiotics work in a specific chemical way. Because of their variable nature, some bacteria would happen to be immune from their effects.

I’ve never heard of the nylon response before.

 

[edwest2]

First, how does an organism classify smell? This is a good smell, this is a bad smell? I assure you, the Laws of Probability are against things just randomly falling into place, much less an organism knowing, in any random way, what sensory (name removed by moderator)uts mean.

To borrow a saying on the internet: “It was once believed that if you put a thousand monkeys in a room with a thousand typewriters, eventually, just by randomly pounding on the keys, they would produce the Gettysburg address (or something). Thanks to the internet, we now know that’s not true.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Shredderbeam]

First, how does an organism classify smell? This is a good smell, this is a bad smell? I assure you, the Laws of Probability are against things just randomly falling into place, much less an organism knowing, in any random way, what sensory (name removed by moderator)uts mean.

That’s an interesting question. I would guess that animals react to smells largely on instinct, much as the snarl of a lion puts humans into emergency mode.

edwest2:

To borrow a saying on the internet: “It was once believed that if you put a thousand monkeys in a room with a thousand typewriters, eventually, just by randomly pounding on the keys, they would produce the Gettysburg address (or something). Thanks to the internet, we now know that’s not true.”

Peace,
Ed

That’s a funny saying, but it was a joke, intended to poke fun at the collective idiocy of the internet.

Also, evolution has selective pressures, whereas the monkeys do not.

 

[edwest2]

Again, probability rules out a randomly developed, nonspecific sensory feedback mechanism. And instinct, that just appeared randomly as well?

Respectfully, I write fiction as part of my job. Evolutionary explanations fall into the wild speculation category. I say wild because a plausible sounding explanation does not imply an actual explanation. There are no creatures from millions of years ago alive today.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Shredderbeam]

Again, probability rules out a randomly developed, nonspecific sensory feedback mechanism. And instinct, that just appeared randomly as well?

I don’t see why probability would rule out a sense of smell.

I don’t know for certain how instinct evolved, but as Charles Darwin said:

“It will be universally admitted that instincts are as important as corporeal structures for the welfare of each species under its present conditions of life. . . . If it can be shown that instincts do vary ever so little, then I can see no difficulty in natural selection preserving and continually accumulating variations of instinct to any extent that was profitable. It is thus, as I believe, that all the most complex and wonderful instincts have originated.”

Instincts do seem to vary slightly among related species, and more so among species that are less similar, giving us an idea that these species may have common ancestors. As to what the mechanism for instinct is, or how specific instincts were created by natural selection, I cannot say, as the evolution of instinct is not a topic I am familiar with.

edwest2:

Respectfully, I write fiction as part of my job. Evolutionary explanations fall into the wild speculation category. I say wild because a plausible sounding explanation does not imply an actual explanation. There are no creatures from millions of years ago alive today.

Peace,
Ed

“Wild speculations” can be corroborated by evidence. If, say, there are three proposed situations that DNA might have originated in, and recent chemical research shows the first two to be very improbable, but the last one to be quite feasible, then the model is updated to lead towards the last one.

 

[edwest2]

An example of what I’m talking about is the recent, confident cry of “junk DNA.” Scientists told the public that ‘junk DNA’ would contain traces of our evolutionary past. Not true. It turned out the junk (non-coding regions) was useful after all.

This is a good example of the ‘assume evolution works’ before the proof is in.

Evolution as a storytelling element is infinitely flexible. I read the word “must” when describing certain unproven assumptions in scientific papers. In other words, the person that wrote the paper is saying A must have happened because we have B. No proof, just an assertion.

Precise, unbiased word usage is essential or the wrong impression is left for the average, non-scientist reader. Example: The coelocanth has a primitive heart. How does the writer know this? By rewording it to read: The coelocanth has a simple heart, accuracy is preserved and an unwarrented assumption about the past is avoided.

One more example. Recently, I viewed a photo of an insect trapped in a piece of amber supposedly millions of years old. It had eyes, wings and multiple legs. I am certain it was fully functional.

Consider this scenario. I am a randomly mutated and naturally selected organism. I wake up to the world. What do I eat? What is that shiny stuff over there? (Water.) If I eat the wrong things, I might die. I try to walk through the shiny stuff but it makes my skin feel funny and my legs are disappearing! The shiny stuff is bad.

See how easy it is to craft a story?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Shredderbeam]

A recent example of what I’m talking about is the recent, confident cry of “junk DNA.” Scientists told the public that ‘junk DNA’ would contain traces of our evolutionary past. Not true. It turned out the junk (non-coding regions) was useful after all.

This is a good example of the ‘assume evolution works’ before the proof is in.

It was discovered that junk DNA may play an important role in regulating gene activity, yes (similar to a vestigial organ having another function), but there are still traces of our evolutionary past there, whether the DNA is junk or not.

edwest2:

Evolution as a storytelling element is infinitely flexible. I read the word “must” when describing certain unproven assumptions in scientific papers. In other words, the person that wrote the paper is saying A must have happened because we have B. No proof, just an assertion.

Where have you seen these?

edwest2:

One more example. Recently, I viewed a photo of an insect trapped in a piece of amber supposedly millions of years old. It had eyes, wings and multiple legs. I am certain it was fully functional.

It very probably was fully functional, yes. According to the best evidence we have, insects have been around for a few hundred million years.

edwest2:

Consider this scenario. I am a randomly mutated and naturally selected organism. I wake up to the world. What do I eat? What is that shiny stuff over there? (Water.) If I eat the wrong things, I might die. I try to walk through the shiny stuff but it makes my skin feel funny and my legs are disappearing! The shiny stuff is bad.

Organisms don’t suddenly appear in the world, fully conscious and not understanding what their sense impressions are. Long before consciousness appeared, animals were capable of feeding, breeding, etc.

 

[edwest2]

Which is why, for me, evolution is becoming less and less credible and Intelligent Design more reasonable.

Evolution is credited with doing something as if it were a being with intelligence.

Nature is credited with doing something as if it were a being with intelligence.

Which is why Intelligent Design is so strongly opposed. It suggests someone with an actual intelligence designed everything.

Another example: Birds evolved from dinosaurs. Not true. Birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they’re supposedly descended from.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

Peace,
Ed