Is There Visible Proof of God?

Theology

(Dale Cutler) #181

Do you know what… never mind.


(Timothy Horton) #182

That’s right, never. Despite the dishonest attempts to cherry-pick and ignore the scientific definition.


(Dale Cutler) #183

Did you go to Ouachita?


(Timothy Horton) #184

Oh look, here’s another definition:

Vestigial: (biology) A structure in an organism that has lost all or most of its original function in the course of evolution, such as human appendixes.

https://www.yourdictionary.com/vestigial-structure

What’s that word in bold say Dale?


(Dale Cutler) #186

What’s that word in bold say, Tim?


(Timothy Horton) #188

Gee, another definition:

vestigial:

Refers to an organ or part (for example, the human appendix) which is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function.

Vestigial structures provide a clue to the evolutionary history of a species because they are remnants of structures found in the ancestral species.

https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Vestigial

What do those words in bold say Dale?


(Dale Cutler) #189

G’night. You may have the last word if you must. I’m done with the schoolyard quarrel.


(Timothy Horton) #190

That’s one way to admit you were wrong and slink out. I’ll let the lurkers see who ran from the multiple scientific definitions I provided.


(Dale Cutler) #192

Well, I lied, too, because after I brushed my teeth, I came back.

Dear @Timothy_Horton. All that you’ve proven is that you can look up current definitions. …No, you’ve proven a couple of other things too.


(Guy Coe) #196

Here’s an example of a creationist abusing the definition of “vestigial.”

“Vestigial organs are parts of the body that once had a function but are now more-or-less useless.”

Oh; wait. That sentence is from New Scientist Magazine --my mistake. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13927-five-things-humans-no-longer-need/

Oh, well. Semantic precision can’t be expected everywhere, until it becomes a handy tool to bludgeon those you disagree with, and avoid the deeper issues actually at hand.


#197

Does the human appendix digest cellulose? Nope. Therefore, the human appendix is still vestigial. Does the ostrich wing allow the species to fly? Nope. Therefore, those wings are still vestigial.

Also, scientists have concluded that 90% of the human genome is junk because of evidence, such as lack of sequence conservation. Nothing I have read from Dr. Rana addresses this evidence, and all of the arguments I have seen fail rather badly. For example, finding an Alu sequence that has function does not mean that all Alu insertions have function.


#198

Perhaps this quote will help you understand the concept:


(Guy Coe) #199

I already understand it; thank you, however, for your attempts to be sure.
Did you not notice that, in order to understand the quote I cited as an equivocation, I had to already understand its meaning did not, in, fact, have to convey entire uselessness or lack of function? It’s a “how much, versus how little” question, as I’ve said previously.
You do realize I was being deliberately ironic in that post, right?


(John Mercer) #200

When were scientists allowed to do such things, Guy?


(John Harshman) #201

I encourage you, if nothing else, to make use of the reply button attached to the post you’re replying to rather than the reply button at the bottom of the page, which attaches to nothing. That would provide at least a little context to help in interpreting your comments. And people need a lot of help.


(Guy Coe) #202

Scientists are allowed to do such things every day, but not neccessarily to human beings.
The professionals (physicians, clinicians, social workers) who were carrying out these acts felt as though they were doing so with good scientific warrant.
There’s no sense in denying it; virtually any science, or even moral teaching, can be misunderstood and misapplied.


(Guy Coe) #203

The appendix doesn’t have to digest cellulose to be vitally useful; this alone makes the assumption that it’s a vestigial organ, whose “original” function no longer continues, a suspect one. How do you know it’s a vestigial stomach?


Either way, it amounts to a classification which, if misapplied or misconstrued, can actually be used to do harm.


(Dale Cutler) #204

Old news:


#205

If it was vitally useful then people would die without it. Obviously, this isn’t the case.

The appendix is part of a large caecum in other species, and that caecum is responsible for digesting plant matter. It doesn’t do that in humans. What we have left is a rudimentary structure that has taken on functions similar to the wings on ostriches.


#206

Vestigial organs can still have function. Please catch up.