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
     An obvious vestige
       unless you can wag your tailbone

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is a muscle, not present in all humans, called the extensor coccygis.

For those who are not familiar with the anatomy, the extensor coccygis is a tiny muscle, about the size of a piece of linguini. If it is even present, it usually originates on the proximal vertebrae of the coccyx and or caudal sacrum and inserets on the distal bones of the coccyx. Contracting a muscle only does one thing – pull. Contracting the extensor coccygis would result in the extension of the coccyx, that is, sticking the tailbone out. I know of nobody that can do this, and what is more, I can see no reason that this would occur. In addition, the coccyx is a fused bone, so contracting the e.c. would do nothing anyway.

So either this is a vestige - after all, tailed vertebrates also possess this musclew, and they can use it to make their tails stand up - or the Designer was a crackpot.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:16 AM on April 17, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Woah!
Very interesting.

I couldn't find decent images of it.



-------
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: 7:22 PM on April 17, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Try "extensor coccygeus":
http://www.anatomyfacts.com/Muscle/Muscles_files/image040.gif
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 07:43 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Thanks but... Where is it?

I don't see any muscle that would make the coccyx stick out...


(Edited by wisp 4/20/2009 at 11:36 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: 09:21 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I suspect this is not a stellar drawing :-P
but this was labeled as "extensor coccygeus" so...
I think it's the muscle that is noted for its "insertion attachments"...  I guess I'll keep looking for a better illustration.
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 09:40 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That muscle wouldn't make the coccyx stick out, but inward.

Derwood said that the muscle would stick the coccyx out (well, if such a thing was still possible).



-------
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: 10:12 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is a muscle called the coccygeus, but that is not what this muscle is.


It is mentioned here in Gray's anatomy (
scroll way down )


You likley will not find many pictures of it, for it is often mistaken for connective tissue.  I've seen one.  


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:16 AM on April 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It says not all people have it.

Would that be vestigial enough to timbrx?

I think some people lack the plantaris muscle too.



-------
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: 9:09 PM on April 20, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He's just going to ignore this thread I'm sure :P
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 05:57 AM on April 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 9:09 PM on April 20, 2009 :
It says not all people have it.

Would that be vestigial enough to timbrx?

I think some people lack the plantaris muscle too.



And the palmaris longus and the palmaris brevis.





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:39 AM on April 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very interesting. Thanks!


-------
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: 12:05 AM on April 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello?

IDcreationists?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:54 AM on April 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where are the resident experts on science?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:05 PM on June 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationist updated response: http://tinyurl.com/creationist-response


-------
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: 5:12 PM on June 19, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood:
So either this is a vestige - after all, tailed vertebrates also possess this musclew, and they can use it to make their tails stand up - or the Designer was a crackpot.


So if humans and tailed vertebrates have a similar muscle than the humans must be vestigial because they don't have a tail.
Are you sure that lifting the tail is all this could be used for? What if it, say, pulls on the anus from outside of the anal canal? Like when a dog twitches his tail to cut off a crap? Or like when humans do likewise to their coccyx?

I would have to go with the second choice. According to your limited understanding and intellect the designer and creator of life was a crackpot. I don't think He was a crackpot because I don't think I'm smarter than God, but if you do than I'd have to say you more closely fit the definition of a crackpot.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 12:41 AM on June 21, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What if it, say, pulls on the anus from outside of the anal canal? Like when a dog twitches his tail to cut off a crap? Or like when humans do likewise to their coccyx?

Any evidence to support this claim?  Or is it just another wild, illocical, harebrained wish?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:24 AM on June 21, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well I really think Timbrx has a point there.
Interestingly enough, without your levator ani and coccygeus muscles which attach to the coccyx your pelvic organs would collapse, that is, fall down. Without them you could not have a bowel movement, nor could you walk or sit upright.
But if you're sure it's vestigial or that the designer must have been a crackpot, then why don't you have yours removed and check.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:13 AM on June 21, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccygeus_muscle
Here it says that timbrx is right.


-------
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: 9:41 PM on June 21, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would still call it vestigial. There's no need for that muscle. Some people live without it, AND it seems easy to avoid it in the blueprint.
Nevertheless i'm sure it won't be vestigial for any creationist, being that it assists another muscle.

Perhaps we should focus on vestigials that are completely functionless today. Vestigials that don't have a chance of serving some purpose. Like the darwin spot.

Like the troublesome toe nails. Like those useless goose bumps.

Focusing on those wouldn't be a double standard if what you're set to demonstrate is the existence of vestigials. I hope no creationist suggests otherwise.



-------
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: 11:48 PM on June 21, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Personally I don't think there is such a thing as a trans-phylogenic vestigial. I think the whole thing is a spin off from Heckle's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" farce. Similarities between organisms or seemingly useless parts does not support evolution. For a transitional to be a transitional, by definition, it must follow the presupposition of evolution.

Wisp, thanks for the confirmation of my guess. It seems I, too, can guess correctly sometimes. But I don't think nitpicking "obvious vestigials" serves any purpose when trying to support or reject our respective views.

Is I said in my first "vestigial" post, I am convinced the whole thing is a misdirection. Dare I say it: Strawman.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 7:54 PM on June 22, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Maaan! Nooo!

You don't mean "strawman" but "red herring"!
Misdirection = red herring.
Putting words in the other guy's mouth = strawman.

And yes, you could get this right.
Was it really a guess, or you read it somewhere? Don't cheat! =D

Anyway, it's very easy for a vestigial to retain some minor function, or to gain a new minor one. This is quite obvious (I don't mean that vestigiality should be obvious to you, but that, if you understand our "Evolution delusion", you can realize that there's no problem if some vestigials retain some function).

And yes! Nitpicking is perfect in this case!
You do it a lot when talking about irreducible complexity. You nitpick. And you shouldn't, because everything should be irreducibly complex, if your hypothesis is correct. So nitpicking doesn't seem valid.

And if our theory is correct not every vestigial should be completely functionless. And only a functionless vestigial would (ideally) convince you. So nitpicking seems valid.



-------
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: 8:26 PM on June 22, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I stand corrected. Vestigiality is a "red herring".

It was a guess. I was sitting here testing lower muscles and it seemed obvious.

My theory is that the only true vestiges are ontogenous.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 9:50 PM on June 22, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That wouldn't be a theory but a hypothesis.

And it's not a red herring... We're not trying to deviate from anything! We like real subjects!

And vestigiality is best explained by Evolution than devolution.

Are you aware that you say that vestigiality (what we mean by it) is non existent, while Lester says that it's due to devolution?
Lester thinks that random mutations alone (devolution) took away some lizard's legs.

We look at the T-Rex and know that it used to have functional arms, not those twiggies. Devolution would kill species. You're aware of it, and that's why you didn't use it to explain things (i presume).



-------
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: 10:00 PM on June 22, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Maybe lester and I don't agree on everything after all. Or maybe were apart in the semantics.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:08 PM on June 22, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nothing semantic. He believes that the legless lizard lost its legs due to devolution. You believe they were created like that.

And it's really huge.

Both of your hypotheses have different cons, and very few pros.

I think i could help you out with this concept: "chiseling devolution".

God would give each animal a lot (an excess of traits), and devolution would chisel out some traits, while allowing them to be functional.

Would it work for you?
I think it's not so bad.

Well, it wouldn't explain venom injecting hollow fangs (nothing does under your presupposition, i think), but it seems (to me)  better than what you now have.

Another problem would be that, if you acknowledge the vestigiality of the legless lizard's limbs and hip, that automatically would draw attention towards the snake's hip...

Also, "chiseling devolution" wouldn't explain the animal's instincts, finely tuned to move its body, except maybe if you postulate "neural path chiseling devolution" too...

Every animal in the Garden of Eden would have needed a massive brain, or you could postulate that brains worked better with less mass...

I'm really trying here... And that's the best i could come up with.



-------
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: 10:08 AM on June 23, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think that's an interesting concept. As far as the "semantics" issue, I think Lester and I both agree that the legless lizard is still a lizard. I don't know by what process it became legless but if it was once a legged lizard, and it lost its legs due to micro-evolution or devolution, any "vestiges" are still ontogenous because it is still a lizard.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 5:29 PM on June 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 12:41 AM on June 21, 2009 :
Derwood:
So either this is a vestige - after all, tailed vertebrates also possess this musclew, and they can use it to make their tails stand up - or the Designer was a crackpot.


So if humans and tailed vertebrates have a similar muscle than the humans must be vestigial because they don't have a tail.


Organisms are not vestigial.

I thought you were one of the YEC-types that pretends to understand this stuff?


Are you sure that lifting the tail is all this could be used for? What if it, say, pulls on the anus from outside of the anal canal? Like when a dog twitches his tail to cut off a crap? Or like when humans do likewise to their coccyx?


And those folks without them - what, they can't pull on their anus?

You are not very familiar with human pelvic anatomy, are you?

Having taken medical school gross anatomy and having taught human anatomy at the college level for 10 years, I know that it is simply impossible for the extensor coccygis to move anything.

Even if it did, do you think that it would suddenly be rendered non-vestigial?



I would have to go with the second choice. According to your limited understanding and intellect the designer and creator of life was a crackpot.

While I admit that I do not possess ultimate knowledge, I am also quite certain that I possess substabtially sup;erior knowledge on these topics than you do, and your pathetic attempt at denigration of my knowledge base
was a flop.

I don't think He was a crackpot because I don't think I'm smarter than God, but if you do than I'd have to say you more closely fit the definition of a crackpot.

I have merely commented on the reality of the situation.  If your best is to label me a crackpot because you are too ignorant to understand the facts and too prideful and pseudocertain to allow that you might be in error, then the only one deserving such a label would appear to be you.

Undeserved arrogance seems to be a very common creationist trait.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 8:20 PM on June 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:13 AM on June 21, 2009 :
Well I really think Timbrx has a point there.
Interestingly enough, without your levator ani and coccygeus muscles which attach to the coccyx your pelvic organs would collapse, that is, fall down. Without them you could not have a bowel movement, nor could you walk or sit upright.



That is unadulterated hogwash.

The coccygeus and levator ani have NOTHING to do with sitting.


But if you're sure it's vestigial or that the designer must have been a crackpot, then why don't you have yours removed and check.


What a stupid statement.

Unable to comment intelligently, the creationist just spews hackneyed nonsense and pats itself on the back for propping up their pathetic dogma.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 8:22 PM on June 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 9:41 PM on June 21, 2009 :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccygeus_muscle
Here it says that timbrx is right.



Except that, again, the OP was not about the coccygeus.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 8:23 PM on June 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 7:54 PM on June 22, 2009 :
Personally I don't think there is such a thing as a trans-phylogenic vestigial. I think the whole thing is a spin off from Heckle's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" farce. Similarities between organisms or seemingly useless parts does not support evolution.


What an amazing assertion.  Surely, you MUST be right!


For a transitional to be a transitional, by definition, it must follow the presupposition of evolution.

You do realize that even creation 'scientists' accept evolution, right?
They just place arbitrary 'limits' on it.

Wisp, thanks for the confirmation of my guess. It seems I, too, can guess correctly sometimes.

Actually, he didn't.  Your original post was a red herring.  Wisp didn't see that you had pulled a bait and switch.


But I don't think nitpicking "obvious vestigials" serves any purpose when trying to support or reject our respective views.


Nitpicking is the only thing YECs are left with.
That and diversions.

Is I said in my first "vestigial" post, I am convinced the whole thing is a misdirection. Dare I say it: Strawman.



The true strawman is diverting the issue and declaring victory.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 8:28 PM on June 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 5:29 PM on June 23, 2009 :
I think that's an interesting concept. As far as the "semantics" issue, I think Lester and I both agree that the legless lizard is still a lizard. I don't know by what process it became legless but if it was once a legged lizard, and it lost its legs due to micro-evolution or devolution, any "vestiges" are still ontogenous because it is still a lizard.



Yet the ontogenetic program is inherited.

And of course if it were no longer classified as a lizard, the creationist would then just declare that it was a seperate creation, no?




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 8:31 PM on June 23, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood,
you make it difficult for me to want to debate you because you have this habit of being a condescending ass...
Perhaps if you would argue against the merits of the topic rather than the merits of the opposition we could conduct a worthwhile discussion.
Take wisp for example. We seldom agree, his arguments are difficult to overcome, yet he is reasonable and respectful ( to me anyway).
For all of your education and experience it is human nature to tune you out because you are rude and obnoxious. Shape up.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:56 AM on June 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
(...) it is simply impossible for the extensor coccygis to move anything.

Even if it did, do you think that it would suddenly be rendered non-vestigial?
That's the issue. They really really really think that it would. If a mosquito bites your ankle and you use your toe nails to scratch the bite they will think that God put them there for that purpose (even if God didn't intend for mosquitoes to ever bite us).

That's why we should focus on the most obviously useless ones. I say "goose bumps".

But now that i see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccygeus_muscle
Here it says that timbrx is right.
Except that, again, the OP was not about the coccygeus.
OMG! You're so very right! I take that back and appologize.
I'm sure timbrx was honestly mistaken on this one, and followed Google's suggestion to change "coccygis" for "coccygeus", and i just forgot the actual word you had used (and the fact that you had already clarified that those two are not the same).

Ok then, the coccygis is as obvious a vestigial as it gets, and deserves a creationist explanation or a humble "I don't know", just like goose bumps.

However i must agree with timbrx in regard to our ways.

I guess it depends on what we're trying to do here. Perhaps we're not trying to do the same thing.
But whatever it is, are you sure that insulting (coupled with your undeniable knowledge and wits) is the best way to achieve it?

Timbrx is the most honest, brainy and openminded creationist i know of. I have hopes for him (and his children).
And we all are a bit proud and less willing to accept things if said the wrong way.

My hope is that his brains+honesty might someday leave him no choice but to recant.


(Edited by wisp 6/26/2009 at 12:34 PM).


-------
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: 9:04 PM on June 25, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 10:56 AM on June 25, 2009 :
Derwood,
you make it difficult for me to want to debate you because you have this habit of being a condescending ass...

This from the non-scientist who declared me a 'crackpot' for implying that your made-up 'creator' didn't do a very good job?

The same fellow who tossed out some information on the coccygeus, thinking it was the same thing I was writing about in the OP, and thought he had refuted my claim?

Tell me - who is more condescending, the fellow who apparently thinks that a quick Wiki search or worse,  a CreationWiki search, makes him the ultimate authority on any topic related to evolutinary biology, or the fellow who tries to explainn things and point out YEC disinformation after having completed graduate school and teaching at the college level on the subjects at hand for 10 years?


Perhaps if you would argue against the merits of the topic rather than the merits of the opposition we could conduct a worthwhile discussion.

Again, from the fellow who decided to label me a crackpot for not trembling in awe at your made-up 'creator's crappy designs, this is most entertaining.

Take wisp for example. We seldom agree, his arguments are difficult to overcome, yet he is reasonable and respectful ( to me anyway).
For all of your education and experience it is human nature to tune you out because you are rude and obnoxious. Shape up.


I guess that must be why you've ignored anything of substance and only come out with these smarmy holier-than-thou platitudes and the occasional creationist PRATT or pseudo-relevant bafflegab.

I don't care if you reply or not, frankly.  You are but one of thousands like you - over-confident, under-informed, bombastic blowhard creationists who think that because you've read a few creationist websites and books and maybe took biology in high school 15 years ago you have some sort of 'special insight' into all things related to evolution.

Get over yourself.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:31 PM on June 26, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 9:04 PM on June 25, 2009 :
However i must agree with timbrx in regard to our ways.

I guess it depends on what we're trying to do here. Perhaps we're not trying to do the same thing.
But whatever it is, are you sure that insulting (coupled with your undeniable knowledge and wits) is the best way to achieve it?

Timbrx is the most honest, brainy and openminded creationist i know of. I have hopes for him (and his children).
And we all are a bit proud and less willing to accept things if said the wrong way.

My hope is that his brains+honesty might someday leave him no choice but to recant.


I should like to remind you of Timbrx's VERY FIRST response to me in this thread, emphases mine:


So if humans and tailed vertebrates have a similar muscle than the humans must be vestigial because they don't have a tail.
Are you sure that lifting the tail is all this could be used for? What if it, say, pulls on the anus from outside of the anal canal? Like when a dog twitches his tail to cut off a crap? Or like when humans do likewise to their coccyx?

I would have to go with the second choice. According to your limited understanding and intellect the designer and creator of life was a crackpot. I don't think He was a crackpot because I don't think I'm smarter than God, but if you do than I'd have to say you more closely fit the definition of a crackpot.



Please note that I had not addressed him personally in this thread at all until I had replied to his asinine, insulting, condescending, ignorant YEC handwave quoted in toto above.

I especially liked his claim that I have "limited understanding and intellect" - having taken medical school gross anatomy and having taught human and comparative anatomy at the college level for 10 years, I think my understanding of anatomy and physiology is much less 'limited' than some dude on the internet.  

But remember that it is ME that is the "condescending ass" who makes it difficult for poor Timmy the Creationist to want to 'debate'...

It is very easy, and very common, for creationists to try to avoid having to admit their ignorance by engaging in this sort of bait-and-look-how-much-of-a-meanie-that-mean-old-evo-elitist-is-when-he-responds-to-my-attempt-to-handwave-a-good-point-made-by-an-evo-in-which-I-insult-them routine.

Context is important.

Of course, if this fellow was so brainy and honest, one has to wonder about a few things...




(Edited by derwood 6/26/2009 at 5:46 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:39 PM on June 26, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok then, the coccygis is as obvious a vestigial as it gets, and deserves a creationist explanation or a humble "I don't know", just like goose bumps.


Again, vestige of what? For this seemingly useless structure to be vestigial in any sense other than a left over from embryonic development you must presuppose evolution. It doesn't matter what structure you pick to demonstrate vestigiality. Toe nails, goose bumps, whatever. In order for any structure, whether its use or non-use is known or not, to be vestigial in any sense other than ontogeny, you must presuppose evolution.

I know, "it fits the theory". But it fits in hindsight. You don't look at a mysterious anatomical structure and conclude the TOE. You start with the TOE and claim that it explains the mysterious structure.

Maybe it's not circular reasoning in the purest sense. But you can't deny that vestigiality follows the presupposition.

As to what the extensor coccygis itself is for, I don't know. But I don't believe you can conclude some non human ancestor based on it's similarity with another animal.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 7:55 PM on June 26, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 7:55 PM on June 26, 2009 :
As to what the extensor coccygis itself is for, I don't know. But I don't believe you can conclude some non human ancestor based on it's similarity with another animal.


We have the same information.

There is a muscle going across fused bone joints that in other animals raises the tail.

Wouldn't common descent be a reasonable hypothesis?  If not, why?





-------
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: 10:22 PM on June 26, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 7:55 PM on June 26, 2009 :
Ok then, the coccygis is as obvious a vestigial as it gets, and deserves a creationist explanation or a humble "I don't know", just like goose bumps.


Again, vestige of what?


A muscle that actually extends the caudal vertebrae.


For this seemingly useless structure to be vestigial in any sense other than a left over from embryonic development you must presuppose evolution.


What would it have done in the embryo?

It is not enough to simply toss out an assertion.
If you think that the extensor coccygis played a role embryological development, what was it?

What role might have the hind limb buds in whales have played in their development?

What role does the lanugo on human embryoes play in their development?

Again, it is not enough to merely toss out an assertion without supplying any sort of rationale, much less evidenciary support.

It doesn't matter what structure you pick to demonstrate vestigiality. Toe nails, goose bumps, whatever. In order for any structure, whether its use or non-use is known or not, to be vestigial in any sense other than ontogeny, you must presuppose evolution.


Actually, it was such structures that helped to formulate the theory of evolution.  

You've stated a few times now that you think what we poor deluded ignorant condescending evolutionists call vestigial are really somehow related to development.

HOW?

What role do fingernails play in development such that their presence in adults is just a 'left over'?


I know, "it fits the theory". But it fits in hindsight.

No, it helped formulate the theory and that such structures can be found merely supports it.

In hindsight, creationists wish to dismiss any and all evidence indicative of evolution.

Well, the less informed do, anyway.  Kurt Wise, PhD (Harvard), creationist at Bryan U., has stated that if it were not for his unyielding religious belief in a literal bible, he would be an evolutionist because that is what the evidence indicates.  

What do you know that he doesn't?



You don't look at a mysterious anatomical structure and conclude the TOE. You start with the TOE and claim that it explains the mysterious structure.


Now, yes.  Just as we look at mysterious objects in the universe and start with the various theories in physics to explain them.  

Does your simplistic wrath apply to those astronomers and physicists, too?

Maybe it's not circular reasoning in the purest sense. But you can't deny that vestigiality follows the presupposition.

And you start with the bible being 100% true, and you 'interpret' all evidence following that presupposition.

Why the double standards?


As to what the extensor coccygis itself is for, I don't know.



I do.

Muscles can only do 1 thing - contract.  And when they contract, they only do 1 thing - they shorten and in doing so generate tension.  That is, they pull.  The extensor coccygis can ONLY act to pull the bones it is attached to closer together.  Yet those bones, in humans, cannot move, and many people do not even HAVE an EC.  

I know, I know, my "limited knowledge and intellect" just makes me a condescending ass, but at least I understand basic anatomy and physiology.  And I aslo teach embryology.  
Muscles play no role whatsover in development of form.  But that is just my 'limited knowledge and intellect' speaking...


But I don't believe you can conclude some non human ancestor based on it's similarity with another animal.


Good thing that mere similarity is not the only thing considered.

But you know that, right?




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:01 AM on June 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You say that our evidence is the same, but the conclusions are different.

That's not really the case.

We have lots of explanations (that require no patches, no new elements, no weird ancient conditions). For everything.
When it comes to structures that lack a function (today) or are nasty (venom injecting hollow fangs), you have nothing.

derwood:
timbrx
As to what the extensor coccygis itself is for, I don't know.
I do.

Muscles can only do 1 thing - contract.  And when they contract, they only do 1 thing - they shorten and in doing so generate tension.  That is, they pull.  The extensor coccygis can ONLY act to pull the bones it is attached to closer together.  Yet those bones, in humans, cannot move, and many people do not even HAVE an EC.
Flawless victory.



-------
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: 2:06 PM on June 29, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wisp:
Flawless victory.


By what standard? Observational biology? What does this have to do with evolution? Actually, nothing. Why? Because the only way to link observation with theory is through a presupposition. This muscle is only vestigial in light of evolution. And since (macro) evolution is false, so is defining this muscle as vestigial.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:19 AM on June 30, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm sure you find that thought process very comforting.


-------
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: 09:26 AM on June 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Flawless victory.
By what standard? Observational biology? What does this have to do with evolution? Actually, nothing. Why? Because the only way to link observation with theory is through a presupposition. This muscle is only vestigial in light of evolution. And since (macro) evolution is false, so is defining this muscle as vestigial.
Vestigiality also makes sense in the light of DEVOLUTION. I think Lester would agree.

But Evolution makes more sense. Like PERFECT sense.

If not, tell us why.

If creation somehow explains it better, tell us how.

You don't know what this muscle does. We do: nothing useful (sorry if i too got confused with the coccygeus).

The same goes to the muscles that move our ears. Evolution, once again, makes perfect sense. You might as well stop fighting it, because it always makes perfect sense, and allows us to make the best predictions. Let's forget about the question "But is it true?". It_works. That's what a theory is supposed to do.



-------
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: 11:57 AM on June 30, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's forget about the question "But is it true?". It_works.


You are an evolutionist, that is why the question 'is it true?' is not important to you. Not everyone feels that way.

Mutations don't increase information.
Natural selection doesn't increase information. Neither can provide the raw materials for evolution so your faith is in vain.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:42 AM on July 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's forget about the question "But is it true?". It_works.
You are an evolutionist, that is why the question 'is it true?' is not important to you. Not everyone feels that way.
We shouldn't care about feelings, but about what works.

Mutations don't increase information.
You have not told us what information is, and how to tell.

The same with intent, and purpose.

Do rabbit warrens contain any of those?

You don't know. That's because you don't know what you're talking about. That's because you're not talking about real things, and you don't even realize.

Anyway, WHATEVER you mean by "increase of information" should be easy with gene duplication. If the duplicated gene contained any information (you claim it did), then presto. Increase. Piece of cake.

Natural selection doesn't increase information. Neither can provide the raw materials for evolution so your faith is in vain.
We keep predicting successfully. And everything keeps fitting smoothly in the phylogenetic tree of life. So your faith is vain.



-------
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: 12:16 PM on July 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 12:16 PM on July 1, 2009 :


Mutations don't increase information.

You have not told us what information is, and how to tell.


He did give a definition, which was basically that information had to come from an intelligent source, so obviously mutations cannot increase information since they are not intelligent.



-------
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: 1:09 PM on July 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, well... That's not a definition to me. It's just exclusion. And not even with a good parameter. That's what i meant by saying "and how to tell".

The same with intent and purpose.
They cannot tell if there's any in rabbit warrens.



-------
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: 1:27 PM on July 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 09:19 AM on June 30, 2009 :
wisp:
Flawless victory.


By what standard? Observational biology?

Yes
What does this have to do with evolution? Actually, nothing. Why? Because the only way to link observation with theory is through a presupposition.

Absolutely wrong, vestigals were known long before evolution.  Evolution is a hypothesis developed to explain the observation of vestigals.  Consider that 1798 was ten years before Darwin was born:Vestigial structures have been noticed since ancient times, and the reason for their existence was long speculated upon before Darwinian evolution provided a widely-accepted explanation. In the 4th century BC, Aristotle was one of the earliest writers to comment, in his History of Animals, on the vestigial eyes of moles, calling them "stunted in development".[3] However, only in recent centuries have anatomical vestiges become a subject of serious study. In 1798, Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire noted on vestigial structures:
“ Whereas useless in this circumstance, these rudiments... have not been eliminated, because Nature never works by rapid jumps, and She always leaves vestiges of an organ, even though it is completely superfluous, if that organ plays an important role in the other species of the same family.[4] „


This muscle is only vestigial in light of evolution. And since (macro) evolution is false, so is defining this muscle as vestigial.


An you are free from presuppositions?


(Edited by Apoapsis 7/1/2009 at 4:29 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: 4:27 PM on July 1, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's forget about the question "But is it true?". It_works.

You are an evolutionist, that is why the question 'is it true?' is not important to you. Not everyone feels that way.
We shouldn't care about feelings, but about what works.


How do you 'feel' about things that are untrue being presented as fact? Are you sure feelings don't matter?

You have not told us what information is, and how to tell.


You haven't responded to my answer in the information thread.

Do rabbit warrens contain any of those?You don't know. That's because you don't know what you're talking about.


I know nothing of rabbit warrens, you're right and I can't say I really care. If you have a point to make, tell us about it.

Anyway, WHATEVER you mean by "increase of information" should be easy with gene duplication. If the duplicated gene contained any information (you claim it did), then presto. Increase. Piece of cake.


You don't increase information by copying information. If you have a copy of a book, you have no new information in the copy.
Try copying your passport and see if you know anything new about yourself.

We keep predicting successfully. And everything keeps fitting smoothly in the phylogenetic tree of life. So your faith is vain.


Repetition of the same rubbish doesn't make your case any stronger. Please refer to other threads where I have discussed phylogenetics lately.








-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:30 AM on July 3, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you 'feel' about things that are untrue being presented as fact? Are you sure feelings don't matter?

I detest it.  It does great damage to human society, that is why I detest creationism.  It was disproven oer 200 years ago and ignores all evidence and common sense.


You don't increase information by copying information. If you have a copy of a book, you have no new information in the copy.
Try copying your passport and see if you know anything new about yourself.


what does this have to do with genetics?  You've already been shown that DNA is not a code, it's nothing like a book.  And of course, you forgot to mention when gene duplication occurs, point mutations can change on of the copies thereby increasing the information.  this is a documented fact.  From here:
InfoIncrease

"Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references."

There you go, documented examples of just what you say can't happen.  

Repetition of the same rubbish doesn't make your case any stronger.

Not only haven't you refuted a thing, you haven't even demonstrated you know what you're talking about.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:34 PM on July 3, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:30 AM on July 3, 2009 :
Repetition of the same rubbish doesn't make your case any stronger. Please refer to other threads where I have discussed phylogenetics lately.


Plagiarizing Wells is neither a discussion or refutation.



-------
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: 11:33 PM on July 3, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
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.