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
    

    
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 10:01 AM on June 27, 2009 :


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?


Quoted for truth.


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.  


More science that deserves discussion.



-------
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: 12:43 AM on July 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Notice that without a ready made stash of quotable quotes from some YEC guru, internet creationists tend to shy away from even attempting discussion.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:37 PM on July 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

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.
Oh... More analogies...

Ok, i have a better analogy. Take any file in your computer. Zip it and see how much information it contains in kilobytes.
Now duplicate the same file (with another name), and zip them both. See how much information it contains in kilobytes.



-------
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: 05:03 AM on July 9, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 05:03 AM on July 9, 2009 :
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.
Oh... More analogies...

Ok, i have a better analogy. Take any file in your computer. Zip it and see how much information it contains in kilobytes.
Now duplicate the same file (with another name), and zip them both. See how much information it contains in kilobytes.




What you quoted/responded to demonstrates quite clearly that the underlying basis for creationist 'information' claims is sheer ignorance of basic genetics.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:06 AM on July 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Indeed. And the worst part is that many creationists claim that they used to believe in Evolution (and understand it, of course).
What version?

They seem to think that Evolution means a stairway to intelligence.
That it's a race to humanity, and we made it.
That it would produce a crocoduck.
That it produces a constant rate of change.
That it can make a monkey give birth to a human.
That it "desires" to build things (and looks forward to it).
That it goes against thermodynamics.
That it relies on dinosaurs dated using c14.
That it should make plants grow legs and walk.
That it has something to do with the human concept of "information".
That it can be divided in "micro" and "macro".
That it can't produce "morality" and "love".
That it's in crisis among scientists.
That it's subject to scientific debate.
That it deals with simple chemicals.
That it implies that things build themselves.
That it's random.
That "it's just a theory".
That it would make ants smart and lovely.

And they say "I used to believe like you do". No, sir. You never did.

I did believe in creationism, like you do, and that was when i was 7 and read The Bible for Kids (devoid of killings, rape, pillage, and stuff).



-------
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: 4:08 PM on July 9, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ANOTHER ignored smackdown...

Poor timmy ran away....
Quote from derwood at 10:01 AM on June 27, 2009 :
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: 1:56 PM on August 5, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 10:16 AM on April 17, 2009 :
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.



We give evolutionists the flagellum (motor) and things like the electron transfer chain (electric pump--runs on hydrogen ions) in the mitochondria, and evolutionists say no intentional design.  

So you are making a big deal about some linguini-sized muscle that not everyone has.  Can a linguini lift a tail?  Must have been like a mouse tail.

Inductive possibility--a mutation.

As far as the designer being a crackpot. The talk of imperfect design--there was the fall of man, but that is not admissible in scientific court.

He said "It is good" before the fall.  Animals were then all herbivores.  Check Genesis 1-3
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:22 PM on August 6, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 9:22 PM on August 6, 2009 :  Animals were then all herbivores.  Check Genesis 1-3


Here's a funny looking herbivore.




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 12:10 AM on August 7, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mustrum - for heavens sake!  That's no herbivore!  Look at those teeth!  That looks like a T-rex, and he certainly ain't no herbivore.

Tell me AF3, there were other stories from other cultures that also had creation stories - different from the Bible.  What makes the stories in the Bible more true than the others?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:00 AM on August 7, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Personally I don't think there is such a thing as a trans-phylogenic vestigial.


The great thing about science, is that it depends on evidence, not beliefs.  

The evidence for vestigial organs is quite obvious to anyone who looks.   Not only is this tiny muscle vestigial, the entire coxxyx is.   BTW, "vestigial" means "no longer serving original function", not "useless."   The coxxyx is also useless, however.

I think the whole thing is a spin off from Heckle's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" farce.


If so, you don't understand the issue.

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.


For a paperweight to be a paperweight, it must follow the presupposition of gravity.   Turns out, gravity is less certain than evolution.   We can observe both of them happening, but we know why evolution works.  We still aren't quite certain why gravity works.



 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 08:51 AM on August 7, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 10:22 PM on August 6, 2009 :
Quote from derwood at 10:16 AM on April 17, 2009 :
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.



We give evolutionists the flagellum (motor) and things like the electron transfer chain (electric pump--runs on hydrogen ions) in the mitochondria, and evolutionists say no intentional design.  

Metaphorical language and analogies are not evidence.



So you are making a big deal about some linguini-sized muscle that not everyone has.  Can a linguini lift a tail?  Must have been like a mouse tail.

Muscle atrophies with disuse.


Inductive possibility--a mutation.

A mutation for what?


As far as the designer being a crackpot. The talk of imperfect design--there was the fall of man, but that is not admissible in scientific court.

Why would it be?
No actual explanation or mechanism for this has ever been presented.  Itr is a mere assertion to make reality seem to comport with religious superstition.

That and it is indicative of a supremely sadistic, evil deity unworthy of worship.


He said "It is good" before the fall.  Animals were then all herbivores.  Check Genesis 1-3


I also note that Yahweh had a thing for foreskins.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:06 PM on August 10, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We give evolutionists the flagellum (motor) and things like the electron transfer chain (electric pump--runs on hydrogen ions) in the mitochondria, and evolutionists say no intentional design.

Yes because there is no evidence for intelligent design but we can see how they could arise naturally.

So you are making a big deal about some linguini-sized muscle that not everyone has.  Can a linguini lift a tail?  Must have been like a mouse tail.

Why is it there then?

As far as the designer being a crackpot. The talk of imperfect design--there was the fall of man, but that is not admissible in scientific court.

That's because it's a primitive myth, no basis in reality.

He said "It is good" before the fall.  Animals were then all herbivores.  Check Genesis 1-3

Ridiculous.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:43 PM on August 10, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 7:43 PM on August 10, 2009 :
So you are making a big deal about some linguini-sized muscle that not everyone has.  Can a linguini lift a tail?  Must have been like a mouse tail.

Why is it there then?


Well, according to a story that I heard (it was in a book that was reeely old so it must be true)
... God was making all the animals. He had already made Adam, but hadn't bothered making Eve yet, much to the chagrin of Adam who was desperate for some female company.
Whilst making all the tailed animals (monkeys and such like) he realised that he had some little linguini sized muscles left over.
He turned to Adam and said
"Hey Adam, I've got these extra extensor coccygis, what should I do with them?"
As mentioned, Adam was not in a good mood and said. "I don't care! Stick 'em where the sun don't shine!" (cleaned up for public consumption, Adam was a little more coarse than that)
God smiled and gave Adam his wish ;)



-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 07:39 AM on August 12, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JimIrvine at 07:39 AM on August 12, 2009 :
Quote from Demon38 at 7:43 PM on August 10, 2009 :
So you are making a big deal about some linguini-sized muscle that not everyone has.  Can a linguini lift a tail?  Must have been like a mouse tail.

Why is it there then?


Well, according to a story that I heard (it was in a book that was reeely old so it must be true)
... God was making all the animals. He had already made Adam, but hadn't bothered making Eve yet, much to the chagrin of Adam who was desperate for some female company.
Whilst making all the tailed animals (monkeys and such like) he realised that he had some little linguini sized muscles left over.
He turned to Adam and said
"Hey Adam, I've got these extra extensor coccygis, what should I do with them?"
As mentioned, Adam was not in a good mood and said. "I don't care! Stick 'em where the sun don't shine!" (cleaned up for public consumption, Adam was a little more coarse than that)
God smiled and gave Adam his wish ;)




Now THAT makes snese!




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:34 PM on September 2, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Debating over the coccyx being vestigial.Well it is not,As it serves a very real role in human females.They would be worse off without it for sure.  In females, the coccygeus muscle draws the coccyx forward after it has been pressed back during parturition.The movements of the coccyx help to enlarge the birth canal during childbirth. The levator ani muscles constrict the lower end of both the rectum and the vagina, drawing the rectum both forward and upward. Far from being remnants of muscles that pull the tail down in a dog, as others claim, the small sling of muscles attached to the coccyx serves several functions.I'm a Christian,Therefore a creationist.Also curiously the lower rib bone will grow back if removed,The only bone able to regenerate itself.I think god knows exactly what he is doing and always has.The appendix is not vestigial either.Its not science of evolution Vs the religion of God,Its the religion of evolution Vs the religion of God. Only by learning a good deal about both subjects (evolution and scripture)Can we make a somewhat objective decision.Both require faith in the subject matter,And both are religious.

(Edited by Think-Twice 9/26/2009 at 5:59 PM).
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 5:41 PM on September 26, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Think-Twice at 5:41 PM on September 26, 2009 :
Debating over the coccyx being vestigial.Well it is not,As it serves a very real role in human females.


Vestigial just means that it no longer serves the original purpose, not that it no longer serves a purpose. If you are a creationist than nothing, by default, can be vestigial as far as I'm aware.

Also evolution is not a religion, I've seen that said in several of your posts. Just because you have faith in something doesn't make it a religion, just a belief. And evolution is a scientific theory, which means it is backed with a considerable number of observations.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 8:59 PM on September 26, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer - very well explained.

Whales have vestigial pelvic bones.


Vestigial features.The skeleton of a baleen whale, a representative of the group of mammals that contains the largest living species, contains pelvic bones. These bones resemble those of other mammals, but are only weakly developed in the whale and have no apparent function.


From 'Why Evolution is True' - Jerry Coyne - evolutionary biologist - University of Chicago.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:04 PM on September 26, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 8:59 PM on September 26, 2009 :
Vestigial just means that it no longer serves the original purpose, not that it no longer serves a purpose.
the problem is there is no proof that what it does now is anything but its "original purpose"

what evolutionists do is look at our tail bone (and Think-Twice has proven it "serves a very real role in human females") and then look at a similar  muscle in other primates and assume that ours must be the leftover remains of evolution.

In 1895 there was a list of 180 vestigial structures within the human body. how many are there now?
how many will there be in 10 years?



-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 12:03 AM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So a tail has been observed (In place)on early hominid fossils ?.I am willing to be taught,really i am.But logicically speaking,to presume (if it is a presumption)that  the coccyx had(tail related),but no longer has its original purpose.why does it fall into a category, inferring vestigial ?.Whale  pelvic bone structure being a vestige.I don't have time at the moment,but i will post regarding that claim.thanks all,explore the subject matter,and be nice to each other.i personaly will  never insult any person on this forum for any reason.thanks by for now!

(Edited by Think-Twice 9/27/2009 at 10:03 AM).
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 10:01 AM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 12:03 AM on September 27, 2009 :

what evolutionists do is look at our tail bone (and Think-Twice has proven it "serves a very real role in human females") and then look at a similar  muscle in other primates and assume that ours must be the leftover remains of evolution.


The thread was started about the muscle, not the tailbone.  How does a muscle that is sometimes absent and is connected between two fused bones without a joint serve a real role in human females?

Quote from derwood at 10:16 AM on April 17, 2009 :
There is a muscle, not present in all humans, called the extensor coccygis.






-------
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: 10:48 AM on September 27, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 How does a muscle that is sometimes absent and is connected between two fused bones without a joint serve a real role in human females?

you say it it connected between two fused bones (and I believe you).
And unless I am mistaken, baby humans have more bones then adult humans.
so when you said "two fused bones" it lead me to think that perhaps the muscle served a purpose before the bones where fused.

could someone more knowledgeable on the topic please agree/disagree with this statment




-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 4:47 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Think-Twice at 5:41 PM on September 26, 2009 :
Debating over the coccyx being vestigial.Well it is not,As it serves a very real role in human females.They would be worse off without it for sure.  In females, the coccygeus muscle draws the coccyx forward after it has been pressed back during parturition.The movements of the coccyx help to enlarge the birth canal during childbirth. The levator ani muscles constrict the lower end of both the rectum and the vagina, drawing the rectum both forward and upward. Far from being remnants of muscles that pull the tail down in a dog, as others claim, the small sling of muscles attached to the coccyx serves several functions.


Ummm....

I did not mention the coccygeus, sorry.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:20 AM on September 28, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 12:03 AM on September 27, 2009 :
Quote from Fencer27 at 8:59 PM on September 26, 2009 :
Vestigial just means that it no longer serves the original purpose, not that it no longer serves a purpose.
the problem is there is no proof that what it does now is anything but its "original purpose"


Please read my OP:

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.



what evolutionists do is look at our tail bone (and Think-Twice has proven it "serves a very real role in human females")


Actually, TT rambled on about something other than the subject of this thread, as he should have/would have known had he read it.  
The coccygeus muscle, which TT copied from somewhere about, serves a similar fucntion in males, too.  However, the coccyx fuses to the sacrum later in life, and thus the coccygeus then loses its 'purpose'

and then look at a similar  muscle in other primates and assume that ours must be the leftover remains of evolution.


The extensor coccygis exists in ALL tailed vertebrates.  And in tailed vertebrates, it only does one thing.


In 1895 there was a list of 180 vestigial structures within the human body. how many are there now?
how many will there be in 10 years?


Same number, if we use the original definitions and do not rely on "simplified" and idiosyncratic definitions.

Darwin wrote that vestigial organs/structures were those that were either functionless remnants OR structures that had changed function from its original.





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:25 AM on September 28, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 4:47 PM on September 27, 2009 :
 How does a muscle that is sometimes absent and is connected between two fused bones without a joint serve a real role in human females?

you say it it connected between two fused bones (and I believe you).
And unless I am mistaken, baby humans have more bones then adult humans.

Yes, they do.  Primarily because the long bones have not fully ossified and the ends of such bones are separated from the rest of the bone by the epiphyseal (growth) plates, which are cartilage.  During/after puberty, that cartilage ossifies.



so when you said "two fused bones" it lead me to think that perhaps the muscle served a purpose before the bones where fused.

No, the coccyx and sacrum ossify independantly, and the points of attachment of the E-C does not impinge on any areas of ossification.

Due to its location, the E-C can only do one thing, yet it cannot do it because fo the current arrangement of bone, ligament, and muscle in the human pelvis.

It is a vestige.


could someone more knowledgeable on the topic please agree/disagree with this statment




Just did, but I suspect my comments will be ignored or dismissed because I am arrogant and get under your nerves.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:29 AM on September 28, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 4:47 PM on September 27, 2009 :

so when you said "two fused bones" it lead me to think that perhaps the muscle served a purpose before the bones where fused.

could someone more knowledgeable on the topic please agree/disagree with this statment


Whether you are irritated with Derwood or not, perhaps you can explain how you suspect know what the function of this muscle is without knowing anything about it.  I'd never heard of it before.


   With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

   – St. Augustine, De Genesi ad literam, 2:9 [AD 408]




-------
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: 11:50 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If i was a creationist i would attack the name "extensor coccygis". I wouldn't just say "It's not vestigial" but "It's not an extensor coccygis". Because (as derwood points out) it's the same in all tailed vertebrates.

Of course we, reasonable fellows, have no reason to give it any other name. But they do: the Bible.

Same goes to the whale's hip.



-------
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: 2:47 PM on October 17, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 8:22 PM on June 23, 2009 :
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.


Got to love Dr.Lester's expertise in human anatomy....




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 07:55 AM on May 11, 2010 | 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.