PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     People born with tails

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On a very rare occassion, a human baby will be born with a tail.  The reason: within the human genome we still possess the genes of our distant primate ancestor that had tails.  However, this 'tail' gene is normally surpressed during our embryonic development.  But on rare occassion there is genetic mutation that causes the tail suppression to malfunction, resulting in a baby born with a tail.

A perfect example of Common Descent, and of evolution.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:15 PM on August 15, 2008 | IP
Beaner

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On occassion babies are born with no brain, no legs or arms or some other awful disease or abnormality from which they die shortly after birth. Which shows that if you don't get it right the first time your species will die.

Just any way to show evolution doesn't work.


-------
Prove it.....In english please!
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 8:19 PM on August 16, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Or occasionally born with a mutation that is beneficial, such as being able to see more colors than other humans.
Looking for Madam Tetrachromat


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:59 PM on August 16, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's a very interesting article about tetrachromats.  Thank you for sharing.

On occassion babies are born with no brain, no legs or arms or some other awful disease or abnormality from which they die shortly after birth. Which shows that if you don't get it right the first time your species will die.


The species does not die out because individuals born with harmful traits have a lesser chance of surviving to reproductive age and passing their harmful traits to their offspring.  That's part of the process Darwin described as Natual Selection.  

It works very well.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:59 PM on August 17, 2008 | IP
Beaner

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, but when you are the very first of your species and let's say you are evolving lungs to breathe oxygen if you don't get it right ,you're done....toast...dead. No offspring coming that way.


-------
Prove it.....In english please!
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 2:18 PM on August 17, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Beaner at 2:18 PM on August 17, 2008 :
Yes, but when you are the very first of your species and let's say you are evolving lungs to breathe oxygen if you don't get it right ,you're done....toast...dead. No offspring coming that way.



That's why no species that require air have been able to get around evolving the proper body parts. What you're saying is about the same as, "It's impossible that adults were once children: If they hadn't grown their legs to the proper length, they wouldn't be as tall as they are!"


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:52 PM on August 17, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Beaner at 2:18 PM on August 17, 2008 :
Yes, but when you are the very first of your species and let's say you are evolving lungs to breathe oxygen if you don't get it right ,you're done....toast...dead. No offspring coming that way.


Hence why evolution didn't work like that. Too bad you don't understand it.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 7:57 PM on August 17, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Beaner at 2:18 PM on August 17, 2008 :
Yes, but when you are the very first of your species and let's say you are evolving lungs to breathe oxygen if you don't get it right ,you're done....toast...dead. No offspring coming that way.


What do you think about Lungfish ?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:28 PM on August 17, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is so widely accepted as fact in the scientific community because it explains things so well - the example of people being born with tails.  That's explained nicely by evolution and Common Descent.  

DNA was unknown back in Darwin's day.  But when it's structure was determined back in 1953 it meshed perfectly with the idea of  Natural Selection.  Genome comparison between different species is confirming the linkage between species and Common Descent.

On the other hand, if all species were a seperate and immutable 'kind' (as specified in the Bible), then how do you explain the 'tail' in people?  You're stuck with 'God works in mysterious ways - who knows why?'  And then go back and bury your head in the sands of ignorance.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:55 PM on August 17, 2008 | IP
Beaner

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It seems very remarkable to me that as humans we are quite smart and can do woundrous things, yet we can't create or understand the workings of a tiny cell.  But I'm being told that rocks and dust and minerals and who knows whatever else can create these complex cells and so much more even though they are lifeless and void of any knowledge. I'd better go get those rocks out of my flower bed before they turn into a T-Rex!


-------
Prove it.....In english please!
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 12:10 AM on August 18, 2008 | IP
Beaner

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What do you think about a Dolphin???


-------
Prove it.....In english please!
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 12:12 AM on August 18, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It seems very remarkable to me that as humans we are quite smart and can do woundrous things, yet we can't create or understand the workings of a tiny cell

Here's a summary of a book by Thomas Ming Swi Chang called, appropriately enough,
"Artificial Cells"
"This is the first book that provides a comprehensive review of the entire area of artificial cells. The author, a pioneer of the field, invented the first artificial cells some 50 years ago and has continued to carry out active research in this field. Since then, there have been explosive research activities around the world on artificial cells, especially in fields related to biotechnology, nanomedicine, cell therapy, blood substitutes, drug delivery and others."

So you're wrong, we've been creating cells for the past 50 years and we understand them pretty well.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:22 AM on August 18, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Beaner at 12:12 AM on August 18, 2008 :
What do you think about a Dolphin???



It doesn't have both gills and lungs.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:07 AM on August 18, 2008 | IP
Beaner

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello Apoapsis,

A very interesting fish indeed, but until you show me the fossil record showing the progression from nothing all the way up to fish  I'll have to say this fish is wonderfully created.

P.S. I think the flying fish is cool as well.
Thanks


-------
Prove it.....In english please!
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 8:01 PM on August 18, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Beaner at 8:01 PM on August 18, 2008 :
Hello Apoapsis,

A very interesting fish indeed, but until you show me the fossil record showing the progression from nothing all the way up to fish  I'll have to say this fish is wonderfully created.

OK, here are invertebrates to fish:Invertebrate to Fish transitional fossils

P.S. I think the flying fish is cool as well.
Thanks


Flying squirrels are even cooler, they show how bat wings developed.


(Edited by Apoapsis 8/18/2008 at 8:16 PM).

(Edited by Apoapsis 8/18/2008 at 8:17 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:14 PM on August 18, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Beaner, are you going to address any of the many mistakes you 've made?  You claimed that we can't create of understand cells, and I showed that we've been making artifical cells for 50 years now...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:59 PM on August 18, 2008 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A very interesting fish indeed, but until you show me the fossil record showing the progression from nothing all the way up to fish  I'll have to say this fish is wonderfully created.


beaner, you seem to enjoy wallowing in your ignorance.

Below is something I posted two years ago:

Here is a brief introduction to Taphonomy  (the study of the conditions and processes by which organisms become fossilized) that I have paraphrased and embellished (honestly) from various sources.

With so many variables needing to fall into place, the odds for the remains of any organism being preserved are essentially close to nil.  And even on that rare occasion that a specimen does get fossilized, there is no guarantee that it will remain that way.  Forces, such as erosion, or volcanic action may change the fossil to the point that it adds no scientific value to the fossil record.  Add to this, the fact that most fossils don’t get discovered, and one can begin to understand if not expect that there might be holes or gaps in the fossil record.  

There are many factors or bias’ that one needs to understand when considering how rare an event fossilization actually is.  Here are a few:

Depositional Environment Bias: Environmental conditions play a key role determining whether an organism will be fossilized. Land based organisms are less likely to be fossilized than water based organisms because under dry conditions the minerals needed for fossilization are less likely to be transported.  Both the aquatic and terrestrial environments have erosion, volcanic action, scavengers and decay that act to  prevent an organism from both fossilizing as well as remaining preserved once fossilized.  The chitinous hard parts of arthropods, for instance are easily broken down into consumable sugars by bacteria.

Hard Verses Soft Bias:  As we learned with “chitin”, being hard does not guarantee that an organism’s remains will be preserved but it does increase the odds. With all else being equal, a specimen from a population of thick shelled clams is more likely to be preserved then a specimen from a much larger population of organisms with completely soft bodies like slugs.

Large Verses Small Bias:  With all else being equal, large items are more likely to be preserved than small items.  They are also more likely to be discovered.  This is why we have found quite a few skull bones and leg bones of ancient hominids but very few ear bones.

Population Bias:  The sheer numbers of an organism will affect the odds of whether a member specimen will be preserved in the fossil record. With all else being equal, a specimen from a population of 10 million bats is more likely to be preserved in the fossil record than a specimen from a population of 5 thousand bat/tree-shrew “transitionals”.

The bottom line is that no fossil, at least none that has been discovered, falsifies the theory of evolution.
Once open-minded and reasonable people gain a rudimentary understanding of the fossilization process, all the creationist arguments directed at the fossil record (including the tired old war-horse “holes in the fossil record/no transitionals”) fall to pieces.  Moreover with what we have learned from genetics in the last 20 – 30 years, the theory of evolution remains an established fact with or without the fossil record.


 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 08:28 AM on August 19, 2008 | IP
Beaner

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis,
Thank you for your cartoon drawings of "Invertebrate to fish"  But it leaves me wanting.


-------
Prove it.....In english please!
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 10:31 PM on August 19, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thank you for your cartoon drawings of "Invertebrate to fish"  But it leaves me wanting.

Leaves you wanting?  Where is the problem, why isn't this best explained by evolution?  Please present your evidence...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:39 PM on August 19, 2008 | IP
Beaner

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dear fredguff,
No transitionals are HUGE holes indeed.  It reminds me of an evolutionist I saw on TV once. He said something like this- "We believe that species evolved in quick spurts in relatively short time periods which would explain why we have so few transitional fossils"  Doesn't sound to scientific to me, sounds like an excuse.  Now I know all scientists don't agree on everything.  What would be your take on that.


-------
Prove it.....In english please!
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 10:54 PM on August 19, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No transitionals are HUGE holes indeed.

Well, there are many, many transitional fossils...  HOw do you explain them?

"We believe that species evolved in quick spurts in relatively short time periods which would explain why we have so few transitional fossils"  Doesn't sound to scientific to me, sounds like an excuse.

Why doesn't it sound scientific?  Makes perfect sense for what we see...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:02 PM on August 19, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Beaner at 10:31 PM on August 19, 2008 :
Apoapsis,
Thank you for your cartoon drawings of "Invertebrate to fish"  But it leaves me wanting.



As my mother alway said:" better wanting more than had enough". ;-)

Frankly, it's hard to appreciate real fossils without having spent at least a few days working under a microscope digging away the rock matrix, maybe you could take a course in basic paleontology?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 01:08 AM on August 20, 2008 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dear fredguff,
No transitionals are HUGE holes indeed.  It reminds me of an evolutionist I saw on TV once. He said something like this- "We believe that species evolved in quick spurts in relatively short time periods which would explain why we have so few transitional fossils"  Doesn't sound to scientific to me, sounds like an excuse.  Now I know all scientists don't agree on everything.  What would be your take on that.


My take is that because of the overwhelming odds against an organism’s remains becoming fossilized, you need to demonstrate why the fossil record should be filled with “transitional” fossils.  You like all creationists have failed on this point.  Moreover, you have not even explained what a “transitional” is.  Certainly all kinds of fossils of bipedal primates that post-date early quadripedal primates and pre-date modern humans have been found .


(Edited by fredguff 8/20/2008 at 12:28 PM).

(Edited by fredguff 8/20/2008 at 7:19 PM).
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 08:27 AM on August 20, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Beaner at 8:19 PM on August 16, 2008 :
On occassion babies are born with no brain, no legs or arms or some other awful disease or abnormality from which they die shortly after birth.


Yeah, so please explain why God - who according to the Bible knits fetuses together in the womb - continues to create babies such as those you listed?

 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 06:53 AM on October 5, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If we never had tails, how come we develop a tail in the womb, and lose it later?

I'd love if a branch of christians claimed that God has fur, tail, fangs, and a strong plantaris muscle to swing from tree branches using His lordly feet (and every other vestigial and atrophied thing, oh, and vitamin C), and humans had them too but devolutioned to lose them. Awesome religion!!!

Edit: "Devolutioned"?? I meant "devolved", i think... This neologism is kinda confusing to me.


(Edited by wisp 10/14/2008 at 12:52 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:57 PM on October 11, 2008 | IP
0112358132134

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Beaner at 10:54 PM on August 19, 2008 :
Now I know all scientists don't agree on everything.  What would be your take on that.

If all scientist agreed on everything, we would still think Aristotle's model for motion is correct, that the earth is flat, and the sun would revolve around the Earth.  The beauty of science is that skepticism is expected and welcomed, it keeps everyone honest.




-------
“It is impossible for any number which is a power greater than the second to be written as a sum of two like powers. I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.” -Pierre de Fermat
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 6:45 PM on October 13, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And, from time to time, a new skepticism is born. Like when Einstein decided not to take simultaneity for granted. By doing that he disagreed with, well, everybody in the world!!


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:32 PM on October 13, 2008 | IP
0112358132134

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ahhh

So many fun thought experiments dealing with simultaneity... none apply to this of course but they are fun nonetheless

Twin Paradox


-------
“It is impossible for any number which is a power greater than the second to be written as a sum of two like powers. I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.” -Pierre de Fermat
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 9:46 PM on October 13, 2008 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.