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
     Intelligent Design Flaws
       Human body design flaws

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
FreeAmerican

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Human design flaws

1. Female pelvis too small for the human baby's head making birth difficult and prone to perinatal injuries to the baby.

2. Retinal arteries/veins lying on and in front of the retina of the eyes. Many causes of blindness come from this defective design.

3. Wisdom teeth (already noted) with secondary abscesses, occasionally dissecting up into the cranium -> brain abscess, meningitis, epidural empyema.

4. Larynx too highly placed, leading to common choking deaths.

5. A bony projection, called the Odontoid Process, an extension of the C2 vertebral body lie a long finger, up to the end of the brainstem. It can easily fracture, especially in rheumatoid arthritis. That leads to death or paralysis of all extremities and inability to breathe without a mechanical ventilator. A simpler rotatory ball-socket joint would be better and safer.

6. Semi-soft disc material between vertebrae and just anterior to the spinal cord, were suited well to quadrupeds. But in humans the upper body weight compresses these and can cause herniations with mild to moderate trauma. There are 6 of these (none at C1-2) in the neck, 12 in the thoracic spine, 5 (rarely 6) in the Lumbar spine. That is 23 flaws or accidents waiting to happen.

7. Hip joints perfectly suited to support human weight if there were four of them or 4 supporting limbs. In a biped, the stress causes extremely common hip degeneration, femoral neck fractures in women and older people. How often do you hear of that in a dog or horse?

8. Knees similarly are not strong enough with the tibial cartilage in two legs for human weight, jumping down, and running. If we had 4 legs it would not be so bad. How often do you see cats with knee problems?

9. Foot and ankle bones are badly designed. Most quadrupeds walk on their toes or the balls of the feet. This puts more weight on flexible tendons, ligaments and several bending joints spreading the stress. In the human food, we are walking on essentially our leg "wrists" and balls of the foot with an arch that is traumatised by walking and standing. When it falls it has an additional problem of severe foot pain. (see 10).

10. In those fallen arches, the plantar nerves are badly placed. Instead of weaving between or over top of bones to their skin sensory receptors, these course "under" the ankle bones, under the arch to the metatarsal joints. When the arch slowly gives way it stretches those nerves and eventually compresses them. This never happens in dogs or cats.

11. Human wrist must extend to provide maximum finger flexion; a major human task is to hold things in our hands. So the wrist flexes a thousand times a day. Problem is that the median nerve runs through a bony trough covered by tough ligaments, the Carpal Tunnel. With every wrist flexion the median nerve is pulled in and out of that canal. The canal is easily narrowed by minor injuries or repetitive use. The nerve is injured causing pain, finger numbness, and weakness in thumb opposition.

12. The Elbow flexes and extends, but an important nerve, the Ulnar Nerve mostly motor to the muscles of the forearm and hand. It unfortunately does not go in front of the elbow in the safer soft tissue. It courses behind the elbow which is fine in horses, but human flex the arm at the elbow that pulls and stretches the ulnar nerve in a long course behind the elbow in an "ulnar groove" and additionally a human sitting often rest elbows on a table, and that compresses the ulnar nerve.  Dogs and cats don't do that.

13. The Brachial Plexus is a cluster of the nerves to the arm that travels through a triangle with the first rib being the bottom, the collar bone in front, and the scalene muscles behind. Also in the triangle is the brachial artery to supply blood to the arm. Poor posture, hanging by exercise bars from the hands, or throwing balls, cause the triangle to compress either or both structures. This is Thoracic Outlet Syndrome, the Neuronal form when the plexus is injured and vascular form when the brachial circulation is impaired.

14. Female urinary opening (urethra), vagina, and rectum all located in a close row so that rectal infection of the urethra/bladder/kidneys, or the vagina is risky. The old joke is why is the recreational park located at the sewage outflow pipes?

15. Appendix is a seemingly useless relic of evolution that often gets infected and ruptures in a life threatening peritonitis unless removed quickly. A few postulate that it might have bacterial that make certain vitamins. That is unproven.

16. Large veins in the legs, progressively dilating from standing, walking, run the risk of blood clotting when the human sits for a period of time. These veins send those clots north to the heart's right ventricle and directly into the lungs causing pulmonary emboli (clots and lung infarction) that is often fatal.) Quadruped animals rarely die of this. Many humans do.

17. Venous Cavernous Sinuses at the skull base on left and right are large draining veins from the brain. But inside of the vein there is the carotid artery taking blood into the brain, and several important nerves: III, IV, VI that control all eye movements, pupillary diameter, and lens focusing, and V-1, V-2, and V-3 that supply sensation to the eye and face. This venous structure packed with these important structures is infected by sinus infection or pustules in or on the nose. Infection causes the blood to clot (thrombosis) that injures the nerves, makes the eye bulge and swell, and can cause spreading thrombosis into the brain which can be rapidly fatal.

18. Other cranial sinuses such as the transverse are located next to the middle ear that frequently gets infected in kids. The infection spread to the venous sinus and causes thrombophlebitis, the major effect is increased fluid pressure in the brain, venous strokes, and seizures. If all of those venous drainage pipes were internally situated, there would not be such a risk. (17 and 18).

19. Congenital birth defects caused by structures found only in primitive animals (but still in our genes): gills in our embryonic stage may have some left over at birth and a baby may have a partial gill (technically called a branchial cleft cyst.) These can cause pain as the person grows, or develop abscesses. Another is a chordoma, tumour composed of notochord tissue only otherwise found in ancient animals like Pikaea and Amphioxus. It preceded the evolution of the bony spine. We have one in our early embryo stages but absorb it. Sometime absorption is incomplete and notochord tissue grows (tumour) unfortunately in the clivus at the base of the brain.

20. Our abdomen. It houses our stomach, our liver, our spleen, great vessels (aorta) small bowel, and colon. In quadripeds it is underneath. An attacker cannot easily get to it. The predator has to attack the tougher back and spine. But in the human the belly is sticking out there for some clawed or toothed predator or knife wielding human criminal to take a swipe and eviscerate us.

FreeAmerican


-------
"The man who follows is a slave. The man who thinks is free." Robert G. Ingersoll
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 9:45 PM on April 6, 2003 | IP
Hammer_of_God

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh c'mon, you say we'd be better with 4 legs...

if we were born with 100 legs, you'd say it would be an intelligent design flaw cause you'd say..

"Oh, 102 legs would be sooo much better"


-------
Life is either an adventure, or nothing...
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 5:47 PM on April 16, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are assuming a Creator would make every organism perfect. I don't know where you get these expectations, but you are assuming something about the supernatural. Anyways, I would think the evolutionary process would have eliminated some of those "mistakes".
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:45 AM on April 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perfection can only create perfection.

The existance of vestigial organs and flaws is predicted by evolution.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:14 PM on April 17, 2003 | IP
Hammer_of_God

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perfection can only create Perfection??

Are you trying to say what God can and cannot create. If you're perfect, you can always choose to make whatever you want. You can choose whether or not it's perfect or near-perfect...

Personally I think that we were created excelently. I mean, every little cell in our bodies was made so intricately, didga know one human cell is more complicated than an entire city. Or that a honeybee's brain can process trillions of times faster than the fastest computer on earth!

Don't tell me we were made poorly...


-------
Life is either an adventure, or nothing...
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 4:20 PM on April 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If we were 'made', then the maker definitely could have done a better job.   An omnipotent, omniscient being should produce nothing less than perfection.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:44 PM on April 17, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I find it hard to believe that you honestly think that we were made perfectly...granted, a single cell is extremely complex, but just because it is complex does not necessarily imply that it is perfect as well.  And as we all know, the human body is imperfect in so many ways.  Extending FreeAmerican's list, the immune system is also something that, while complex, is no where near perfect.  Often, it does more harm to an individual than help them.  Countless deaths arise each year from autoimmune diseases where the body simply fails to recognize itself and instead attacks it.  If human bodies were designed perfectly, we wouldnt have diseases such as diabeties mellitus, rhematoid arthritis, and multiple sclerosis.
 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 9:03 PM on April 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't heart attacks caused by the 'stupidity' of the immune system?  The artery wall begins to get some cracks and immediately white blood cells cram in there to form a clot, causing a heart attack.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:06 PM on April 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Things get worse as time goes on. So therfore there were less problems health wise as there are today. Those who didn't follow the Jews example of cleanliness had sanitary problems sure but today  cells and things fall apart quicker and more often.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:09 PM on April 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

    This is absolute absudity. Now you assume the responsibility of correcting the way God made you?! That is a sick perverse thing to accuse my God of, not doing a good enough job! Well, we will see what happens when we stand before the White Throne. When it's all siad and done and life here is at last at it's end...
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:08 PM on April 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Make a note that the people pointing out the imperfections in the human body are the people who DON'T believe it was formed by a god.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:33 PM on April 17, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am not actually sure that is what causes heart attacks in general (though it may be one reason).  I think heart attacks result from the build up of plaque in the arteries over long periods of time.  Of course though, I am not an expert on the subject.

Quoting: "Things get worse as time goes on. So therfore there were less problems health wise as there are today. Those who didn't follow the Jews example of cleanliness had sanitary problems sure but today  cells and things fall apart quicker and more often."

What do you mean by this? Of course, as we grow older, our bodies deteriorate, but why do you say that there are less health problems today then there were thousands of years ago?  That is a ridiculous statement.  Mortality was much, much higher back then.  They had no treatments, or very few effective ones for many diseases.  If I remember correctly, the average lifespan of a person in the Roman Empire was something like 33 years, less than half that of what is expected in the U.S. today.    

Quoting: "This is absolute absudity. Now you assume the responsibility of correcting the way God made you?! That is a sick perverse thing to accuse my God of, not doing a good enough job! Well, we will see what happens when we stand before the White Throne. When it's all siad and done and life here is at last at it's end..."

Well, if accusing God of not making me perfect is a crime than I am guilty, because I know for a fact that if modern medicine had not intervened, I would have died by the time I was four or five years old.  In my opinion, God definitely did not do a very good job making me.
 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 4:31 PM on April 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think the plaque makes the inner walls of the artery bulge and that's what can cause the breaking of the wall.


because I know for a fact that if modern medicine had not intervened, I would have died by the time I was four or five years old.

I would have died 3 months ago if not for an appendectomy.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:36 PM on April 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

  Sickness and infirmity is a result of the curse from sin, and is taken away from Jesus Christ, who "bore our sicknesses". We should believe God for healing as much as salvation, He has paid the price. I am glad that you are not gone.

                 ---Benjamin
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:39 PM on April 18, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quoting: "We should believe God for healing as ..."

Still, I am skeptical.  God hasn't healed me.  The only thing keeping me alive are the drugs I take every day.
 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 1:38 PM on April 21, 2003 | IP
FreeAmerican

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 2:45 PM on April 17, 2003 :
You are assuming a Creator would make every organism perfect. I don't know where you get these expectations, but you are assuming something about the supernatural. Anyways, I would think the evolutionary process would have eliminated some of those "mistakes".


All comments about the supernatural are assumptions. The very existence of anything supernatural (i.e.not natural) is a big assumption lacking in evidence.

FreeAmerican





-------
"The man who follows is a slave. The man who thinks is free." Robert G. Ingersoll
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 7:41 PM on April 21, 2003 | IP
FreeAmerican

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Hammer_of_God at 8:47 PM on April 16, 2003 :

Oh c'mon, you say we'd be better with 4 legs...

Better at running and less back pain, but not as good at tool making that coincided with evolution of larger more complex brains.

if we were born with 100 legs, you'd say it would be an intelligent design flaw cause you'd say..

"Oh, 102 legs would be sooo much better"



Obviously your brain is not capable of understanding my post. It is a silly question. Millipedes function well because of small size and living under logs. A 30 metre millipede weighing 2 tonnes would likely not support its weight.

You missed the point that evolution never produces perfection. It just comes up with what works.

FreeAmerican





-------
"The man who follows is a slave. The man who thinks is free." Robert G. Ingersoll
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 7:49 PM on April 21, 2003 | IP
FreeAmerican

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 01:33 AM on April 18, 2003 :
Make a note that the people pointing out the imperfections in the human body are the people who DON'T believe it was formed by a god.


Exactly. My point is that evolution only produces what works. Sometimes that results in a very cruel and savage world. Wild dogs in a pack attack a baby gazelle. The chomp on its nose, legs, and tail. They bite chunks of flesh from its flanks while it screams in pain. They rip out its intestines. It may still be alive 30 minutes later with limbs ripped off, intestines spread out still weakly moaning in dispair. Substitute the occasional child who is taken by this dog pack. Evolution or God's plan?

Hyenas do the same to zebras every day. The prey animal suffers terribly. They also take their share of human adults and children. It is not uncommon for a father to see his little daughter screaming in the jaws of a lion or hyena running off through the bush. Evolution or God's plan?

Human children develop brain tumours that are deep and inoperable, only partially respond to irradiation or chemotherapy. They linger on for 4 to 9 years, suffering headaches, vomiting from increased intracranial pressure, have hemiparalysis, bilateral leg paralysis, or clonic partial seizures and generalised seizures, terrible pain from dystonic muscle spasms, blindness, and finally mental deterioration and coma. The parents must watch this dreadful scene for several years.

These are just a few samplings of a world that if it arrived by natural evolution it is understandable. Evolution is just a biochemical, biophysical process with amoral values and no affective/emotional meaning.

If you think your God actually intentionally made such a nightmare world, then such a God is a monster. He is a cruel, vindictive, merciless monster. Can you put your trust and faith in the monster who intentionally designed childhood brain tumours, flesh shredding hyenas and wild dogs? How do you know it what you believe (without reason) that such a terrible God is not lying to you?

FreeAmerican





-------
"The man who follows is a slave. The man who thinks is free." Robert G. Ingersoll
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 8:05 PM on April 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 "Evolution or a result of our sin and the death that has come along with us constantly pushing God away?" WOULD BE A MORE ACCURATE QUESTION TO ASK.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:36 AM on April 23, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quoting :"Evolution or a result of our sin and the death that has come along with us constantly pushing God away?" WOULD BE A MORE ACCURATE QUESTION TO ASK.

I assume that you are stating that death and sickness are the result of sin; still,  I cannot justify that many people are born cursed from day one as a result of what their ancestors thousands of years ago did.  How can one justify still born babies, who are dead when they arrive in the world? Have they apparently sinned so badly that they don't even get a chance to repent?
 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 10:57 AM on April 23, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

      What are you doing to better the lack of morality and the unfortunate mistakes af mankind?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:55 PM on April 23, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 If you rebelled agianst the government and pushed away the rules of it and created your own society because you didn't want to submit, wouldn't your children end up paying sometimes as well? Yes, because you decided that you didn't need the covering of the authority.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:00 PM on April 23, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You people are missing the point about making man in perfection. The Bible itself says that man was made in God's image--Adam and Eve were the fruits of perfection. However, with those first sins, God left our bodies to slowly mutate and decay throughout the generations. What evidence do I have of this? For a good portion of the Bible, we see marriages between cousins--even brothers and sisters. However, later on, God gives the commandment that relatives can no longer produce offspring for each other (close-lying DNA can produce severe birth defects). How would this have been known prior to Science? Apparently, even the ancient world stumbled upon something that Science can't even explain.
The reason our bodies aren't perfect is because of sin.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:01 PM on May 29, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How would this have been known prior to Science? Apparently, even the ancient world stumbled upon something that Science can't even explain.


Please explain to me how science cannot explain this.  It is really simple.  I dont know exactly what you mean by close lying DNA, but why we see severe birth defects in closely related kin is that they will tend to have more of the same deleterious recessive alleles.  Inbreeding tends to uncover these alleles.  Besides science isnt needed to explain something like this.  Anyone could make the simple observation that people closely related to each other that produced offspring would have offspring that suffered from more deleterious birth defects than other individuals
 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 4:20 PM on May 29, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you rebelled agianst the government and pushed away the rules of it and created your own society because you didn't want to submit, wouldn't your children end up paying sometimes as well? Yes, because you decided that you didn't need the covering of the authority.

Your children would suffer because your country would be crappy, not because the president placed a curse on you
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:34 PM on May 29, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The whole inbreeding thing is actually quite nicely worked out in nature.  Animals quite naturally do not interbreed with their brothers or sisters, generally prefering 1st cousins.  So while keeping the genes in the family is kept, severe inbreeding is avoided.  A superb test done within the last few years have shown that even humans have the capacity to tell humans that have a different genetic makeup using MHC's, and the simple sense of smell.  People with different MHC make ups found tshirts smelled nicer than those with similar mhc types.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:56 AM on June 22, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've got hair falling out of head and growing on my butt. Whose big idea was that?

Rod Knee (can't log in with the password provided, another screwup)


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:15 PM on June 22, 2003 | IP
AMD4EVER

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Excellent post FreeAmerican!  That is something I had never thought about before.
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 4:16 PM on June 23, 2003 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok I think all the creationists missed the point of why legs are better suited to be in four. It shows that our ancestors were suited to have four legs, evolution. Also the reason our bodys get loads of probelems is that we have made medicine to get this old and our bodys need to evolve more to catch up we nether had these problems before.
Inter breeding often causes problems with children, so how if we all came from adam and eve arn't we it great disrepair. Also did adam and eve have any daughters or are we all the products of gay love, oh but thats out lawed by the bible...


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 2:57 PM on January 2, 2005 | IP
Admiral Valdemar

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course, the simple answer is that there was no Adam and Eve else we'd be be up shit creak genetically speaking. The population of primates that were our ancestors was a little bit bigger than two individuals.

A four legs are more stable than two. That's just common engineering. Whereas 102 is redundant even compared to 100.


-------
"An Outside Context Problem was the sort of thing most civilisations encountered just once, and which they tended to encounter rather in the same way a sentence encountered a full stop."
-Iain M. Banks, Excession
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 7:42 PM on January 11, 2005 | IP
Yod Heh Vav Heh

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you look at a human spine, you'd think it was meant for a quadroped anyway.

You people are missing the point about making man in perfection. The Bible itself says that man was made in God's image--Adam and Eve were the fruits of perfection. However, with those first sins, God left our bodies to slowly mutate and decay throughout the generations.


If they were created perfect, they would've been unable to sin, since they would've perfectly abided by God's laws, even though they couldn't have known that going against them was wrong, by their very nature they would've abided them.

What evidence do I have of this? For a good portion of the Bible, we see marriages between cousins--even brothers and sisters. However, later on, God gives the commandment that relatives can no longer produce offspring for each other (close-lying DNA can produce severe birth defects). How would this have been known prior to Science?


Because there were more miscarriages and birth defects? :lol:  Noticing that and understanding the genetic explanation are different concepts. The middle ages englishmen didn't know about germs, but they did know that diseased carrion makes you sick, so they used it as a weapon in sieges. Ignorance of something doesn't magically protect you from harm from it
.
Apparently, even the ancient world stumbled upon something that Science can't even explain.


Recessive genes explain increased genetic disease.

The reason our bodies aren't perfect is because of sin.


Nonsense, the reason our bodies aren't perfect is gradual wear and tear thanks to existence. Blaspheming the holy spirit is the unforgivable, big sin in the bible. Smoking 50 packs of cigarettes a day is not a sin, nor is taking thalidomide. Now, which couple's offspring will be the most unhealthy:

Couple A are both christian. John smokes 50 packs of cigarettes a day, and handles snakes and drinks poison as mark 16:18 tells him to. Jane goes to church, and works in a smoky environment with dodgy asbestos fibres all day. She also hasn't heard about thalidomide and still takes it for some reason. Both families have histories of cystic fibrosis, heart conditions and cancer.

Couple B are atheist and satanist. Jeff goes for runs, doesn't drink or smoke and is all round a very healthy man. Judith is a satanist and gets John to blaspheme the holy ghost with her as soon as they wake up and before they go to sleep. She is likewise very healthy and neither of their families have records of genetic illness.


-------
Vengeance is mine.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 8:32 PM on January 11, 2005 | IP
Tigerlilly

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Since God is a perfect being (or so his propaganda says), why would he intentionally create flawed creations? WHy would he make humans which are easily damaged, fragile, and with genetic mistakes and backward organ designs? If a human can come up with a better organism design, that's not saying much for God's creative genius.

Why would he make such an inefficient system?

He doesn't HAVE to, no, but if he deliberately did that, he is malevolent.

If he did it by accident, then he's not too competent and perfect.


-------
If it hurts no one, then there's nothing immoral about it.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 10:13 PM on January 12, 2005 | IP
celticgreen

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Isn't the original post questioning the so-called intelligent design "science"?

What's so intelligent about putting an eye behind a thin lid and a few lashes as its only protection. Couldn't you come up with a better design than that?

Sheesh, we're not talking about perfection here, just *intelligent* design. There's little intelligent in the human body's design plan. It's a mish-mash of several structures that work well for a short time. With continued use, these structures start to fail. I'm not talking about disease, just wear and tear.  And is putting your eyes in front of your brain really smart? To see the danger, you have to put your computer, your command center,  in the line of fire.  Duh.

If those who support the intelligent design theory insist that the human race had to have a maker, based on the design features, they must believe in a God called Ford - designed just well enough to last just long enough to be out of warranty, with occasional extra or missing parts, or, on occasion, a true lemon that never runs right.

Heck, Ford (and the other American auto makers/Gods) didn't design these flaws by accident either. Ford is perfect. Therefore, Ford is God.

Still, no one supporting this intelligent design theory has explained how eyelashes are smart protection for an eye, or how a poorly engineered spinal column is intelligent, or how including a uselss appendix that can cause high medical bills (or death!) makes sense to mensa level people, or how having an extra head a birth wins the design of the year award.

We're not looking for perfection here, just that intelligent design your theory proposes.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 06:27 AM on July 20, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let all Christians give another thanks to Calvin and Luther for screwing up everyone's idea of Christianity.  God is not omniscient.  Nowhere in the Bible will you find the words omniscience, omnipotence or omnipresence.  Two, God's plan does not cover everything you say and do.  Predestined, when used in the Bible, must be understood in the context to which it was used (and with the pronouns it was used with).  You as an individual were never predestined to do anything.  The only time you find the word predestined in the Bible it used with PLURAL pronouns.  He was speakin to Christians in general (in other words, those who DECIDED for themselves to be Christians had certain promises made to them regarding the after-life).  We were given FREE-WILL.  Each and every creature on the planet is free to make thier own decisions (often to the detriment of their fell inhabitants).  If God put his hand over every "good" person and kept them from harm then those wishing to do them harm would not have free will.  They'd only be able to do what God let them.  Besides, Christians are promised that they will suffer for the cause of Christ, so let's just ignore that whole line of rational for a moment.  From now on, please, only the people who have actually read the Bible are allowed to talk about "God's Plan".  Thank you.  I also think that most can agree that almost all (not all, but most) of our health problems are directly related to things that we (human beings) have created or done.  Poisons, pesticides, chemicals, STDs, sports (hey, alot of injuries come from doing stupid stuff.  When God created us it was not his plan that we put tiny blades on our feet and throw our 200+ bodies at each other while trying to stay upright on ice.  Come on, now).  As for that whole birth canal thing, et al at the begining (sp?), child birthing was promised to be more difficult and painful after sin.  Everything was promised to be harder than what was originally planned.  Life spans were shortened.  Who is to say that the human body back then didn't have a larger pelvic opening and body parts that didn't wear down so quickly (otherwise Methusaleh was in really bad shape).

As for couple A in an earlier post.  Don't be stupid.  A Christian (true Christian, not someone who has a fish on their bumper and a cross hagning from their window {come on people, if Christ had been stoned would you run around with a rock hanging from a necklace? sheesh}) wouldn't smoke and would know that Mark 16:18 was spoken to the Apostles, not to Christians in general.

Couple B? Blaspheming the Holy Spirit was said to be unforgiveable, not something that would cause you zits.  There is no promise that clean living will result in good health.  All promises made to Christians have their rewards in the after-life except Honoring your Father and Mother.  

Thanks for reading.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 06:07 AM on September 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Any evidence to support your silly myths?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 09:21 AM on September 7, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Which myths?  Someone was alluding to what the Bible said and trying to make a point with it.  I simply clarified what the Bible said about it so that they could make their point from an enlightened point of view.  I'm simply stating what the book they are quoting has in it.  I'm not giving it credence one way or the other in this post.  If you'd like to make comments on my other posts that question evolution or the authenticity of the Bible as a legitimate source of information, please post them there with your specific arguments and I'd be happy to look at them.  Here, in this context, I have no idea what you are asking.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:03 AM on September 7, 2005 | IP
camaroracer214

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

vestigal organs don't exist. all organs and body parts are there for a reason. the appendix is part of the immune system, even though you can live without it, it does have a use.  You can also live without the following:  one kidney, one lung, both testes, both ovaries, etc.  This doesn't mean they are vestigal.  They all serve some purpose, but as humans continue to rely more and more on modern medicine and technology, these body parts lose their relative importance.  this doesn't mean they are vestigal.
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 1:51 PM on September 20, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

vestigal organs don't exist. all organs and body parts are there for a reason. the appendix is part of the immune system, even though you can live without it, it does have a use.


Wrong. In the college course on Human Anatomy I started this term, we learned during the first bleeding hour that the appendix does not in fact have a use. (It did, but that was several hundred thousand years ago at a minimum.) It's called a "vestigal stomach" for a reason. Unlike a second kidney, the appendix doesn't actually function. It just exists. Both kidneys, unless one has a problem, consistently and effectively function. If one fails, the other is fortunately there to serve as a backup.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/20/2005 at 2:55 PM).


-------
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: 2:51 PM on September 20, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

vestigal organs don't exist.

Of course they do.

all organs and body parts are there for a reason.

I agree.  

the appendix is part of the immune system, even though you can live without it, it does have a use.

But that's not it's primary function.  From here:
Encyclopedia

"However, most physicians and scientists believe the appendix lacks significant function, and that it exists primarily as a vestigial remnant of the larger cellulose-digesting cecum found in our herbivorous ancestors."

So while the appendix in humans may have some minor function, it evolved to aid in digesting cellulose in our ancestors.  That we still retain it is evidence for evolution.

You can also live without the following:  one kidney, one lung, both testes, both ovaries, etc.

But we have 2 lungs, 2 kidneys, women live fine without testes and men live fine without ovaries.  Lungs are for respiration, that is their prime function, they are not vestigial.  Kidneys filter wastes from the body, they are not vestigial.  Testes and ovaries are part of our reproductive system, they are not vestigial.  You don't seem to understand what vestigial means.  Here's a good definition:
VestigialOrgan
"2. Biology A rudimentary or degenerate, usually nonfunctioning, structure that is the remnant of an organ or part that was fully developed or functioning in a preceding generation or an earlier stage of development."

This doesn't mean they are vestigal.  They all serve some purpose,

Yes, the lungs, kidneys, testes and ovaries do serve a purpose and they serve the same purpose in our ancestors, so they are not vestigial.

but as humans continue to rely more and more on modern medicine and technology,

Please explain how modern science has rendered the appendix or the cocyx vestigial?


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:30 PM on September 20, 2005 | IP
camaroracer214

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

well the coccyx is definitley not vestigal and isn't the remnants of a tail.  show me where our ancestors had a tail.  neandertals didn't have one, neither did other primitive men.  also, the tail bone, or coccyx, serves a purpose.  if you didnt have a tail bone then certain muscles of your butt would have nothing to attach to and you wouldn't be able to control your bowel movements.

and about the appendix, well...no one knows it had a different function than what it has now.  and many say that it was a larger intestine that shrank and has no use now.  well, how could someone possibly know this?  there is no evidence of appendix evolution.  organs don't seem to fossilize too well and no one has proof of a larger appendix let alone a more primary function.
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 8:07 PM on September 20, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from camaroracer214 at 6:07 PM on September 20, 2005 :
well the coccyx is definitley not vestigal and isn't the remnants of a tail.  show me where our ancestors had a tail.  neandertals didn't have one, neither did other primitive men.  also, the tail bone, or coccyx, serves a purpose.  if you didnt have a tail bone then certain muscles of your butt would have nothing to attach to and you wouldn't be able to control your bowel movements.

and about the appendix, well...no one knows it had a different function than what it has now.  and many say that it was a larger intestine that shrank and has no use now.  well, how could someone possibly know this?  there is no evidence of appendix evolution.  organs don't seem to fossilize too well and no one has proof of a larger appendix let alone a more primary function.



the coccyx is the remants of a tail because we are mammals, which all evolved from animals in the form of rodents.  rodents have tails.

the appendix is the remnants of an organ our ancestors used to digest plant fiber and uncooked foods.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 8:28 PM on September 20, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

well the coccyx is definitley not vestigal and isn't the remnants of a tail.

Yes it is.  From here:
Coccyx
"The coccyx is regarded as vestigial in humans, meaning it no longer serves major functions it did in ancestor species of humans. (Those included supporting a tail and accommodating its nerves.)"

From here:
CoccyxII
"The coccyx is all that is left of the tailbone of animals we evolved (changed into over time) from in the past."

show me where our ancestors had a tail.

Look up "Euprimates".

neandertals didn't have one

Neandertal man wasn't our ancestor.

neither did other primitive men

No homonid has a tail.

also, the tail bone, or coccyx, serves a purpose.

But it's main purpose was to control a tail, that's obvious.  Since we don't have a tail, it is vestigial.  Now you have to explain why a human fetus has a tail to begin with.  And how do you explain atavistic tails that still occaisonally pop up in humans.  

and about the appendix, well...no one knows it had a different function than what it has now.  

Yes we do.  By comparing it to other mammals, we can determine what the primary function of the appendix is.  From here:
Appendix
"The most familiar vestigial organ in humans is the appendix. This wormlike structure attaches to a short section of intestine called the cecum, which is located at the point where the large and small intestines join. The human appendix is a functionless vestige of a fully developed organ in other mammals, such as the rabbit and other herbivores, where a large cecum and appendix store vegetable cellulose to enable its digestion with the help of bacteria."

We see what the appendix does in other mammals.  There is no way the appendix is primarily part of the immune system.  

well, how could someone possibly know this?  there is no evidence of appendix evolution.  organs don't seem to fossilize too well and no one has proof of a larger appendix let alone a more primary function.

We know this by studying it's function in other mammals.  Comparative anatomy has been very useful over the centuries...
We don't need to have fossilized organs, when we can look at existing organs and compare and contrast them.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:29 PM on September 20, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

and about the appendix, well...no one knows it had a different function than what it has now.  and many say that it was a larger intestine that shrank and has no use now.  well, how could someone possibly know this?  there is no evidence of appendix evolution.  organs don't seem to fossilize too well and no one has proof of a larger appendix let alone a more primary function.


You're not just trying to hide a serious misconception over commonly known facts in science--or for that matter, a complete lack of knowledge over the subject--are you Camaroracer? You have heard of the study of Anatomy... haven't you, Camaroracer? You're not just skimming over the first incomplete clause you see on Google, are you, Camaroracer? You're actually making a genuine attempt to learn facts and support your arguments with them, right Camaroracer? So, when you wrote that paragraph, you were kidding, weren't you Camaroracer?


-------
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: 04:22 AM on September 21, 2005 | IP
camaroracer214

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i apologize for the late response.  i live and go to school in galveston, texas and have had to flee to oklahoma.  i was on the road for 31 hours straight.  i had originally started this response before i left, but fortunately could save it so i wouldn't lose my track of mind.  but inevitably to the topic at hand.

you cannot look at one animal to determine the function of another animals organs.  you cannot say that because a scorpion has a stinger we used to have one, and have lost it in evolution.  differing animals have organs, although similar to ours, that function somewhat differently.  rabbits don't eat meat.  they are strictly vegetarian.  humans eat a lot of different things, from vegetables, fruits, meats, and various other things.  so, of course a rabbit is going to have a differing appendix because its diet is different.  also, the rodents we "evolved" from probably had a much different diet as well.  from bugs to seeds, to whatever it could find.  we have a different appendix because WE ARE DIFFERENT, not becuase we evolved from them and our appendix is seemingly vestigal.  so if an animal who primarily eats vegetation has a larger appendix, what makes the appendix of an organism that eats various items appendix vestigal.  we may not depend on it as much as a rabbit, but that doesn't mean we used to need it more and it has therefore become vestigal.  show me a hominid that has a much larger appendix that has, in your eyes, a much more primary function.  because according to you the appendix and a large cecum aid in digestion and storage of cellulose.  we do eat vegetation, unless your mother always let you eat your dessert before your broccoli.  but we don't eat vegetation as our main source of nutrition.  why do you think the cattle industry is so big?

and as far as tails go...its quite easy to assume that since we have a "tailbone" that we used to have a tail.  but can you wiggle your tailbone?  i doubt it.  why would we lose out tailbone?  it does serve some purpose in nature.  you could carry more things or close the door if your hands were full.  i know this is a quite comical way to look at it, but seriously, why would we lose a tail?  why don't we gain fingers, or arms?  evolution is all about going from simpler things to more advanced things.  if that were the case then why do we lose things like tails and appendixes?  just a generalization.  and no i know neandertals don't have a tail, or ever had one, but they are closer to the ancestor we both branched off from i assume.  and what about human ancestors?  i searched euprimate and didn't really see anything involving tails or anything.  here's a little bit of the "information" that i've seen:

Most of the early euprimates are known only from isolated teeth or jaw fragments, found in North America and Europe. (from http://www.china.org.cn/english/culture/85191.htm)

how do you deterine an animal's anatomy based soley on one part of their body (in this case being the skull)?  i know that's how the famous "lucy" skeleton was formed from a bunch of little fragments all found in a certain area of a country that were put together to form a psuedoskeleton of a primate type organism.  i'm not sure which country "lucy" was found, but i have read about how they put her together and how they found her.  she was nothing more than a bunch of crushed bones found spread out in a seemingly large area.  and a bunch of scientists put her together based on what they expected her to look like.  and there is no way to know how she walked (upright or not), how she lived, or how human or unhman she was.  and as far as euprimates go, there is no information saying they did or didn't have a tail that i could find.  but i am sure that if these organisms had a tail it was a fully functioning tail, not a little stub hanging out of their butts.  i have done extensive searching  but have found nothing important, other than they were really small.  i could find nothing involving how different they are to modern primates or thier tails, or lack thereof.  but if you want to use it as an argument, go ahead, and if you have sources showing their tails and relatedness to modern humans, please show me.
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 7:03 PM on September 23, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you cannot look at one animal to determine the function of another animals organs.


Comparitive Anatomy is in fact a very firm science.

you cannot say that because a scorpion has a stinger we used to have one, and have lost it in evolution.


That would be silly to propose. The evidence doesn't support such an example.

differing animals have organs, although similar to ours, that function somewhat differently.  rabbits don't eat meat.  they are strictly vegetarian.  humans eat a lot of different things, from vegetables, fruits, meats, and various other things.  so, of course a rabbit is going to have a differing appendix because its diet is different.


The appendix is vestigial. Acknowledge it and stop making a fool of yourself. Unless you'd care to win your very own Nobel Prize and find out what exactly the appendix is necessary for, stop pretending.

also, the rodents we "evolved" from probably had a much different diet as well.  from bugs to seeds, to whatever it could find.  we have a different appendix because WE ARE DIFFERENT, not becuase we evolved from them and our appendix is seemingly vestigal.


I'd like to emphasize: Nothing's wrong with believing what you want to believe for the soul purpose of satisfying your own mind, even if there's virtually nothing to support your assertions.

so if an animal who primarily eats vegetation has a larger appendix, what makes the appendix of an organism that eats various items appendix vestigal.


You know this already. We've explain half a dozen times the answer to that question: Perhaps because our appendix doesn't actually do anything.

show me a hominid that has a much larger appendix that has, in your eyes, a much more primary function.


Primates eat meat. The appendix would have become useless as far as deits go a long time before the first hominid.

because according to you the appendix and a large cecum aid in digestion and storage of cellulose.


No, it really doesn't even do that anymore.

and as far as tails go...its quite easy to assume that since we have a "tailbone" that we used to have a tail.  but can you wiggle your tailbone?  i doubt it.  why would we lose out tailbone?  it does serve some purpose in nature.  you could carry more things or close the door if your hands were full.


What a good question. Why hasn't Natural Selection favored those who can open doors and carry groceries simultaneously? After all, we're clearly going extinct without tails.

i know this is a quite comical way to look at it, but seriously, why would we lose a tail?  why don't we gain fingers, or arms?  evolution is all about going from simpler things to more advanced things.


Not it isn't. It's about either getting lucky or going extinct. If getting lucky means you lose features that would otherwise be disadvantageous, how does that not make sense?

You asked why we don't grow more fingers. This is probably the first reasonable thing you've come up with out of anything you've ever posted, but the answer is quite simple:

Evolution works with what works. It is by no means perfect. Imperfection implies evolution in the first place. Anyway, if hominids with less fingers don't go extinct or change niches, allowing the hominids with more digits to take over, there won't be any Natural Selection, and therefore, no evolution.

if that were the case then why do we lose things like tails and appendixes?


Fortunately, we just established that that is not the case.

 i searched euprimate and didn't really see anything involving tails or anything.


Boys are sometimes born with a genetic mutation that grants them an inefficient tail. In India, one such boy was worshipped as a god.

Link

how do you deterine an animal's anatomy based soley on one part of their body (in this case being the skull)?  i know that's how the famous "lucy" skeleton was formed from a bunch of little fragments all found in a certain area of a country that were put together to form a psuedoskeleton of a primate type organism.  i'm not sure which country "lucy" was found, but i have read about how they put her together and how they found her.  she was nothing more than a bunch of crushed bones found spread out in a seemingly large area.  and a bunch of scientists put her together based on what they expected her to look like.  and there is no way to know how she walked (upright or not), how she lived, or how human or unhman she was.  and as far as euprimates go, there is no information saying they did or didn't have a tail that i could find.  but i am sure that if these organisms had a tail it was a fully functioning tail, not a little stub hanging out of their butts.  i have done extensive searching  but have found nothing important, other than they were really small.  i could find nothing involving how different they are to modern primates or thier tails, or lack thereof.  but if you want to use it as an argument, go ahead, and if you have sources showing their tails and relatedness to modern humans, please show me.


Yada yada... Lucy was never submitted as true evidence. Why don't you waste more time and disprove the Pilt Down Man and the other dozen examples of hominids that have either been fraudulently presented or misinterpreted as non-humans?


-------
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: 8:33 PM on September 23, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from camaroracer214 at 5:03 PM on September 23, 2005 :
i apologize for the late response.  i live and go to school in galveston, texas and have had to flee to oklahoma.  i was on the road for 31 hours straight.  i had originally started this response before i left, but fortunately could save it so i wouldn't lose my track of mind.  but inevitably to the topic at hand.

you cannot look at one animal to determine the function of another animals organs.  you cannot say that because a scorpion has a stinger we used to have one, and have lost it in evolution.  differing animals have organs, although similar to ours, that function somewhat differently.  rabbits don't eat meat.  they are strictly vegetarian.  humans eat a lot of different things, from vegetables, fruits, meats, and various other things.  so, of course a rabbit is going to have a differing appendix because its diet is different.  also, the rodents we "evolved" from probably had a much different diet as well.  from bugs to seeds, to whatever it could find.  we have a different appendix because WE ARE DIFFERENT, not becuase we evolved from them and our appendix is seemingly vestigal.  so if an animal who primarily eats vegetation has a larger appendix, what makes the appendix of an organism that eats various items appendix vestigal.  we may not depend on it as much as a rabbit, but that doesn't mean we used to need it more and it has therefore become vestigal.  show me a hominid that has a much larger appendix that has, in your eyes, a much more primary function.  because according to you the appendix and a large cecum aid in digestion and storage of cellulose.  we do eat vegetation, unless your mother always let you eat your dessert before your broccoli.  but we don't eat vegetation as our main source of nutrition.  why do you think the cattle industry is so big?
we didn't always have the cattle industry though.  hominids didnt start eating meat until their brains were large enough to strategize.  then tools were made to aid them in killing another animals.  before that, hominids ate whatever they could get, from foliage and bugs or small rodents sometimes.  so the appenidx was neccessary for the digestion of so much of this plant matter.

your understanding of evolution seems to be at an immature level if you think that your 'stinger' example has absolutely any credit.  it is rediculous.  for one, a stinger is almost absolutely individualistic for arachnids and insects, mammals are on a completely different chain of animals.  they're on a completely different phylum.  the appendix is different because it is not needed now.  it has virtually no use.  it can be totally removed and a human can live healthily afterwords.  it is vestigial.

Quote from camaroracer214 at 5:03 PM on September 23, 2005 :and as far as tails go...its quite easy to assume that since we have a "tailbone" that we used to have a tail.  but can you wiggle your tailbone?  i doubt it.  why would we lose out tailbone?  it does serve some purpose in nature.  you could carry more things or close the door if your hands were full.  i know this is a quite comical way to look at it, but seriously, why would we lose a tail?  why don't we gain fingers, or arms?  evolution is all about going from simpler things to more advanced things.  if that were the case then why do we lose things like tails and appendixes?  just a generalization.  and no i know neandertals don't have a tail, or ever had one, but they are closer to the ancestor we both branched off from i assume.  and what about human ancestors?  i searched euprimate and didn't really see anything involving tails or anything.  here's a little bit of the "information" that i've seen:

Most of the early euprimates are known only from isolated teeth or jaw fragments, found in North America and Europe. (from http://www.china.org.cn/english/culture/85191.htm)


monkeys have tails.  apes evolved from monkeys.  and monkeys used their tail primarily for hangning from trees and more easily enabling them to climb.  when the brain size increased they became larger and tended to stay on the ground more. because of this they lost the tail (it became vestigial).  it had no use and the ones who were born without a tail survived better.  the cocyx is just the remnants of the rest of the spine.  when our ancestors had a tail, the spine went all the way to the end of the tail instead of ending just below the pelvis as it does now.

evolution is not about making things more complex.  evolution is about the organisms that survive and procreate.  whichever organisms survive iand also breed, pass on their genes to the next generation.  over time the weak genes are phased out and the more dominant ones associated with probability of survival and procreationg remain.  the human brain has developed to the point that it is at so that it can compete with any other animal on the planet (and win) and also compete against itself (and win, depending on the intelligence of the rivals).

Quote from camaroracer214 at 5:03 PM on September 23, 2005 :how do you deterine an animal's anatomy based soley on one part of their body (in this case being the skull)?  i know that's how the famous "lucy" skeleton was formed from a bunch of little fragments all found in a certain area of a country that were put together to form a psuedoskeleton of a primate type organism.  i'm not sure which country "lucy" was found, but i have read about how they put her together and how they found her.  she was nothing more than a bunch of crushed bones found spread out in a seemingly large area.  and a bunch of scientists put her together based on what they expected her to look like.  and there is no way to know how she walked (upright or not), how she lived, or how human or unhman she was.  and as far as euprimates go, there is no information saying they did or didn't have a tail that i could find.  but i am sure that if these organisms had a tail it was a fully functioning tail, not a little stub hanging out of their butts.  i have done extensive searching  but have found nothing important, other than they were really small.  i could find nothing involving how different they are to modern primates or thier tails, or lack thereof.  but if you want to use it as an argument, go ahead, and if you have sources showing their tails and relatedness to modern humans, please show me.


after extensive study spanning from the past century and more, scientists can accurately predict how bones and fragments of bones fit together.  records show what the bones of certain species known to have existed would look like.  if the bone fragments found for 'lucy' did not match any known types, then it is a new species, which they said, right?  these same records also accurately predict how to match this new set of bones, so now, with the evidence of this new bone type, the scientists can now predict that any other similar bone types in the same geological time area would be from the same species.  there is a whole science for this.  its called paleontology.

as for predicting how 'lucy' walked and such, bones have a shape fitted to how the rest of the body is, another adaption of evolution.  the way a bone looks, compared to all other bones and body types known to have existed, can accurately portray what the muscles were like in that region, or the ligaments and fat; how big the person was.  all of this information can be used to accurately predict what body type it had, how it walked normally, and so much more.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 10:20 PM on September 23, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you cannot look at one animal to determine the function of another animals organs.

How much research have you done to disprove the accuraccy of comparative anatomy?  How many organisms have you dissected and compared?  Why is a bat's wing more similar to my arm than a birds wing?  
I'd really like you to answer these questions and provide evidence to support your truely ignorant statement.  All of biology and medicine says you are wrong.   Here's what Auburn says about comparative anatomy:
Auburn
"In comparative anatomy, we examine each of the major body systems and track its course of evolution from the inception of the system to its presence in animals alive today.  We also discuss how these systems work and work together to produce life.  What you will see is that we are really a product of our past.  Nothing that is in our bodies has developed in a vacuum.  What we see today in us is really just a rearrangement of parts that we see in our ancestors.  Our trachea, modified gills; our limbs, modified fins; our brains, just a modified swelling at the end of a neural tube.  Because we can see so many features of ourselves in other mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and even fishes, we can use them as model animals for exploring our own bodies."

This is what is being taught in advanced biology courses.  You obviously don't understand modern biology.

you cannot say that because a scorpion has a stinger we used to have one, and have lost it in evolution.

You're the only one trying to say this...

differing animals have organs, although similar to ours, that function somewhat differently.

You're saying that animals that have more similar organs are NOT more closely related?
We're NOT more closely related to chimpanzees than we are to alligators?  Relationships are determined by comparative anatomy.  Do you think there are ANY relationships between organisms?  Why are reptiles classified as reptiles?  Why are all mammals classified as mammals?  Because they have similar structure as determined by comparative anatomy.  
You also don't seem to realize that the tree of life that shows how all life is interrelated is based on the results of comparative biology.
We conduct tests on animals and because we know how they are related to us, why their organs are similar to ours, we can see how humans will react to similar stimulus.  If we could not look at one animal to determine the function of another animals organs, we couldn't test the affects of drugs on rats or chimps, we couldn't test surgical techniques  on other animals before we tried them on ourselves.  Why are you right and all of modern biology and medicine wrong?
You also don't seem to understand that the tree of life, the nested hierarchy based on morphology, as determined by comparative anatomy, has been independently confirmed by modern genetics.  When we construct the tree of life, not based on morphology, but on genetics, it is identical to the relationships found with morphology, a twin nested hierarchy.  From here: tp://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html]TNH[/url]
"The Twin Nested Hierarchy
Even before Darwin, biologists noted that living things can be classified into a tree-like pattern called a nested hierarchy, in which each group of species is a sub-group of a larger level of classification (for example, humans are primates are mammals are amniotes are eukaryotes) and in which each group possesses some characteristics of its ancestors plus some of its own (for example, humans and apes both share some basic similarities with fossils of early hominids; however, humans have some unique characteristics that neither earlier hominids nor apes possess, and apes have others that neither hominids nor humans have). The concept of the twin nested hierarchy is a reflection of the fact that the tree of descent produced by classifying organisms on the basis of physical similarities is the same tree we obtain when we classify organisms on the basis of their genes. Morphological resemblances confirm genetic similarities, and vice versa. In other words, if species are arranged in a classification according to morphology, with species that are progressively more dissimilar assumed to be more distantly related, the pattern of genetic similarities will match up. Similarly, if species are classified according to genetics, with species whose genes are progressively more dissimilar assumed to be more distantly related, the pattern of morphological similarities will confirm this.
This is evidence for evolution because: The branching nested tree that all organisms fall into is the exact pattern predicted by an evolutionary model employing common descent. The fact that they can be organized into such a pattern points very strongly to the descent of all living things from common ancestors; by contrast, if evolution was not true, there would be no good reason why such a pattern should exist."

You keep ignoring the evidence presented to you and you have been unable to backup anything you've posted.  Please, explain how we can have a twin nested hierarchy of life without evolution.



(Edited by Demon38 9/24/2005 at 6:05 PM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:28 PM on September 23, 2005 | IP
camaroracer214

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i completely understand comparative anatomy, and perhaps the point i was trying to get across was completely misworded or i just didn't fully explain what i was trying to get across.  you have to realize that i had been on the road for 31 hours straight fleeing hurricane rita and i didn't really proofread my argument and i made a very unclear statement.  i rushed it onto the forum because i know all of you had posted in a timely manner and i was unable to.  

i know how scientists use one animal's anatomy to get an idea of how other organisms operate.  and i know that we wouldn't have as full an understanding of anatomy without comparing body parts of one organism to another.  i also realize that i stated the following, "you cannot look at one animal to determine the function of another animals organs."  but i also stated, "differing animals have organs, although similar to ours, that function somewhat differently."  not all animals share the same functional capabilities.  i know that all lungs have the same general purpose, as do teeth.  but a rabbits’ teeth are different from human teeth because of the diet they survive on.  humans eat a number of different foods, so our teeth are better suited to that.  rabbits eat vegetation.  they don't eat meat so they lack the proper meat eating teeth, not to mention they would probably have a hard time digesting meat.  in comparison we both have teeth that both function the same: to start the breakdown of food.  but the teeth are very different.

the point i was trying to get across with my opening statement of my previous posting is that if you look at a rabbit's appendix there will be differences in comparison to that of a human appendix.  it may be larger, it may be more important to the survival of that rabbit, but that doesn't mean that humans used to have a larger appendix, or that it has lost its primary function.  please, tell me what the primary function of the appendix was and what its main function is now, because all i have heard is how it doesn’t currently function and how that proves it is vestigial.  the appendix does serve some purpose, whether you believe it or not.  it serves under both the endocrine/immune system and the digestive system.  yes we can live without it, so what.  but show me where this organ hasn't always functioned the way it does currently.  how long ago did human appendixes lose their primary function?  when did it adapt a new function?  when did it become part of both the immune and digestive system?  here's a nice little bit of information from Scientific American:

"Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, there is a growing body of evidence indicating that the appendix does in fact have a significant function.”

it seems to me that everyone’s sources say either of the following:  the appendix doesn't actually function (quoted from EntwickelnCollin), or the appendix does have a use but doesn’t have a primary function (as paraphrased from Demon38).  so which is it guys?  does it even function, or is its current function just a non-primary function?

and i find it funny how you all try to question my concerns about comparative anatomy to show relatedness between animals/species when apparently you, and others who believe the garbage i’m about to bring up, have problems seeing key differences in certain animals.  on another forum on this very website Demon38 and i were arguing the relatedness of birds to alligators, based on the structural protein beta-keratin and how reptiles evolved into birds.  well…here’s a nice quote posted by Demon38 in the current forum:

Relationships are determined by comparative anatomy.  Do you think there are ANY relationships between organisms?  Why are reptiles classified as reptiles?  Why are all mammals classified as mammals?  Because they have similar structure as determined by comparative anatomy.

so we look at one animal to determine its relatedness based on similar characteristics.  but if you notice, modern science has the alligator/crocodile in the reptile family, and birds in the bird family.  one’s warm blooded and the other cold; one has wings, the other tiny little legs; the differences are numerous, but modern science says alligators are both more closely related to birds than other reptiles yet keeps them in the reptile class while birds remain in the bird class.  why aren’t they grouped in the same class if they are more closely related?  maybe i’m not the one who has a problem with comparative anatomy, which i don’t have an actual problem with.  like i said, i do understand the importance of comparative anatomy but i merely misstated my opinion.

now to the tailbone issue…no one has yet to show proof that we, humans, used to have a tailbone.  all i have read is a bunch of quotes from people who just say we had one, but no proof. from Demon38,

The coccyx is all that is left of the tailbone of animals we evolved (changed into over time) from in the past

ok, that’s an opinion, now where’s the proof?  Demon38 told me to look up euprimates and i did, but found no proof of a tail, just a few skulls were found here and there that belonged to a primate.  also from Demon38,

No homonid has a tail.

ok, so where did ours come from, if in fact we did have one?  i know you will say hominid ancestors, but that assumes we evolved from monkeys and apes.  yes, some monkeys have tails and some don’t.  but it is only assumed that we evolved from monkey/apelike ancestors.  and now you will say…look at all the evidence and fossils blah blah blah, but all that has been found are “neandertals” and some other bogus fossils like the hoaxed pilt down man.  and i know there are some fossils of australopithecines and and various other “primitive humanlike” organisms and what not, and i know they have been discovered, but who says they were entirely monkeys, or were “human like” or a link between the two?  sometimes fossilization can do things to the organism being fossilized that alter the shape of the bones.  also, bones are crushed and put together based on what the person putting the bones back together thinks they should fit or look like.  and I know that scientists know how to put certain bones together based on what kind of bone it may be or comparative anatomy.  but how do you put together bones that are crushed into tiny fragments and come up with a structure that resembles an actual animal without using some kind of biased judgment?  by that i mean, if a scientist is looking for the missing link and finds a bunch of crushed bones alongside some intact bones, wouldn’t he/she put together the bones based on what he is expecting the animal to look like or to fulfill his/her hunt for a missing link?  he/she finds a humanlike or apelike femur and a bunch of crushed bones and comes up with a complete skeleton including a skull that shows a link between both apes and humans.  i’m actually referring to how lucy was found and put together, although i’m not sure exactly what bones were found intact and what bones were crushed and i had even heard rumors that the bones weren’t even found in the same exact location but actually found over a few square miles.  a lot of bones are found this way.  and i know some are found fully intact.  but where’s the missing link?  Someone show me please.  

science can’t be biased can it?  well, maybe not science, but a scientist surely could be.

 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 9:01 PM on September 26, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i'm sorry about your situation.  i hope everything is alright with your house.

Quote from camaroracer214 at 7:01 PM on September 26, 2005 :"Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, there is a growing body of evidence indicating that the appendix does in fact have a significant function.”


taken from wikipedia:
"Hypothesized functions for the appendix include lymphatic, exocrine, endocrine, and neuromuscular. However, most physicians and scientists believe the appendix lacks significant function, and that it exists primarily as a vestigial remnant of the larger cellulose-digesting cecum found in our herbivorous ancestors."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix

Quote from camaroracer214 at 7:01 PM on September 26, 2005 :it seems to me that everyone’s sources say either of the following:  the appendix doesn't actually function (quoted from EntwickelnCollin), or the appendix does have a use but doesn’t have a primary function (as paraphrased from Demon38).  so which is it guys?  does it even function, or is its current function just a non-primary function?


its function is not yet determined.  what this means is that it does still function, but for what specific purpose, we don't know.  we do know that it is not vital and can be removed (sometimes must be removed, see appendicitis)

but its function in suspected ancestors to humans was for the processing of plant matter, namely cellulose.  its the closest thing to an answer that we can find.  until we have a better one, its the best bet.  (believe me, we will have a better answer)

Quote from camaroracer214 at 7:01 PM on September 26, 2005 :and i find it funny how you all try to question my concerns about comparative anatomy to show relatedness between animals/species when apparently you, and others who believe the garbage i’m about to bring up, have problems seeing key differences in certain animals.  on another forum on this very website Demon38 and i were arguing the relatedness of birds to alligators, based on the structural protein beta-keratin and how reptiles evolved into birds.  well…here’s a nice quote posted by Demon38 in the current forum:

Relationships are determined by comparative anatomy.  Do you think there are ANY relationships between organisms?  Why are reptiles classified as reptiles?  Why are all mammals classified as mammals?  Because they have similar structure as determined by comparative anatomy.

so we look at one animal to determine its relatedness based on similar characteristics.  but if you notice, modern science has the alligator/crocodile in the reptile family, and birds in the bird family.  one’s warm blooded and the other cold; one has wings, the other tiny little legs; the differences are numerous, but modern science says alligators are both more closely related to birds than other reptiles yet keeps them in the reptile class while birds remain in the bird class.  why aren’t they grouped in the same class if they are more closely related?  maybe i’m not the one who has a problem with comparative anatomy, which i don’t have an actual problem with.  like i said, i do understand the importance of comparative anatomy but i merely misstated my opinion.


birds and alligators have some similarities.  but so do fish and whales.  but fish are fish and whales are mammals.  and there are so many different types of animals that have keratin.  most, if not all mammals have keratin; reptiles, birds.  i hardly know any real biology and i know this.  the thing about taxonomy is that it is a completely outdated and useless science.  it was developed long ago even before evolution.  if every animal that has ever lived on this planet lived today (supposing that the earth was larger and could sustain them) we would see that every animal has similarities to every other animal.  there would be no possible way to classify them all.

Quote from camaroracer214 at 7:01 PM on September 26, 2005 :now to the tailbone issue…no one has yet to show proof that we, humans, used to have a tailbone.  all i have read is a bunch of quotes from people who just say we had one, but no proof. from Demon38,

The coccyx is all that is left of the tailbone of animals we evolved (changed into over time) from in the past

ok, that’s an opinion, now where’s the proof?  Demon38 told me to look up euprimates and i did, but found no proof of a tail, just a few skulls were found here and there that belonged to a primate.  also from Demon38,

No homonid has a tail.

ok, so where did ours come from, if in fact we did have one?  i know you will say hominid ancestors, but that assumes we evolved from monkeys and apes.  yes, some monkeys have tails and some don’t.  but it is only assumed that we evolved from monkey/apelike ancestors.  and now you will say…look at all the evidence and fossils blah blah blah, but all that has been found are “neandertals” and some other bogus fossils like the hoaxed pilt down man.  and i know there are some fossils of australopithecines and and various other “primitive humanlike” organisms and what not, and i know they have been discovered, but who says they were entirely monkeys, or were “human like” or a link between the two?  sometimes fossilization can do things to the organism being fossilized that alter the shape of the bones.  also, bones are crushed and put together based on what the person putting the bones back together thinks they should fit or look like.  and I know that scientists know how to put certain bones together based on what kind of bone it may be or comparative anatomy.  but how do you put together bones that are crushed into tiny fragments and come up with a structure that resembles an actual animal without using some kind of biased judgment?  by that i mean, if a scientist is looking for the missing link and finds a bunch of crushed bones alongside some intact bones, wouldn’t he/she put together the bones based on what he is expecting the animal to look like or to fulfill his/her hunt for a missing link?  he/she finds a humanlike or apelike femur and a bunch of crushed bones and comes up with a complete skeleton including a skull that shows a link between both apes and humans.  i’m actually referring to how lucy was found and put together, although i’m not sure exactly what bones were found intact and what bones were crushed and i had even heard rumors that the bones weren’t even found in the same exact location but actually found over a few square miles.  a lot of bones are found this way.  and i know some are found fully intact.  but where’s the missing link?  Someone show me please.  

science can’t be biased can it?  well, maybe not science, but a scientist surely could be.



there is no proof that humans evolved from apes or ever had a tailbone.  but it doesnt take a rocket scientist to conclude that the theory is extremely likely, and if not, then extremely coincidental that we share so many characteristics with our primate companions.

the DNA we share with chimpanzees is an astounding 97%.  3% of a DNA strand is all the difference it takes for a cell to become either a man or a chimp.

i ask you to please read some of my posts, i believe i have touched on some of the subjects you are asking about.  i only try to shed some light on the subject.

as for science being biased...
well everything that humans do is biased so yes, science is biased, but it is less biased than anything that humanity has ever done before.  that is why it is so respected and rational.


 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 10:20 PM on September 26, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you have to realize that i had been on the road for 31 hours straight fleeing hurricane rita

Hope you recover quickly from Rita and your losses were minimal.

the point i was trying to get across with my opening statement of my previous posting is that if you look at a rabbit's appendix there will be differences in comparison to that of a human appendix.

Yes there are differences.  In herbivore mammals the appendix serves a function, a pouch where tough cellulose can be digested longer.  But humans are omnivores, we don't eat much cellulose.  Why do we even have an appendix then?  Evolution explains this nicely, it's a vestigial organ inherited from a distant ancestor.  It's a part of the digestive system that serves no digestive function in humans. I don't think I said it definitely did have a function.  I've heard some creationists claim it has some immunological function.  Modern science says it has no function and the fact that it is routinely removed and this removal has no ill effects supports this.  The point is, whether it now has some minor function or not, it clearly is part of the digestive system, it doesn't do anything in humans to aid in digestion, this makes it vestigial.  What other explaination is there for it?

it serves under both the endocrine/immune system and the digestive system.

There are no glands in the appendix, so it is not part of the endocrine system.  It does nothing in the digestive systems of humans.

but show me where this organ hasn't always functioned the way it does
currently.


Look at herbivores that have a functioning appendix.

how long ago did human appendixes lose their primary function?

Since humans have always been omnivorous, it never had a function in humans.

when did it adapt a new function?

Although structures can be co-opted in evolution, the appendix isn't one of them.
From here:
Appendix
"the appendix
has no known physiological function but probably represents a degenerated portion of the cecum that, in ancestral forms, aided in cellulose digestion."

This is what medical science tells us, the appendix has no known function.  Any claims that it is important to the immune system are highly speculative.  It still acts as a chamber for longer digestion of cellulose in mammals feed on it, it's still part of our digestive system and it does nothing to aid in digestion.

so we look at one animal to determine its relatedness based on similar characteristics.  but if you notice, modern science has the alligator/crocodile in the reptile family, and birds in the bird family.  one’s warm blooded and the other cold; one has wings, the other tiny little legs; the differences are numerous, but modern science says alligators are both more closely related to birds than other reptiles yet keeps them in the reptile class while birds remain in the bird class.  why aren’t they grouped in the same class if they are more closely related?

This goes to your ignorance of evolution.  Classifications like reptile, bird, mammal are man made classifications.  Birds are classified as birds because we define the characteristics, feathers and warm bloodedness are what we use to define 'birds'.  Crocs are classified as reptiles because they are cold blooded.  But they are man made groups.  The only classification that matters in evolution is species.  And if evolution is correct, we would expect to find these transitional species.  yes we talked about beta keratin and you failed to see that the pattern of beta keratins in crocodilians is more similar to birds than other reptiles.  You also failed to comment on the fact that crocs have an avian 4 chambered heart, not a reptilian 3 chambered heart.  That crocs have skeletons, eyes and ears more similar to birds than other reptiles.  Crocs are genetically more similar to birds than other reptiles.  As I said, evolution predicts that we will find these transitional that are difficult to classify because they have traits of 2 different classes.  Just look at the platypus or the lungfish.  Examples like these contradict creationism, creationists can't explain them, they have characteristics from 2 different "kinds".  But evolution predicts that we will see them, and we do, living and in the fossil record.

now to the tailbone issue…no one has yet to show proof that we, humans, used to have a tailbone.  all i have read is a bunch of quotes from people who just say we had one, but no proof.

Humans never had tales.  What do you want as proof?  You have been shown atavistic tails in humans, how do you explain them?  Modern biology says the cocyx is vestigial, it's main function in other mammals with tails is to provide an anchor for the tail.  Every medical text states the same thing:
"The coccyx is all that is left of the tailbone of animals we evolved (changed into over time) from in the past. "
Where is your evidence that the coccyx is not vestigial?

ok, that’s an opinion, now where’s the proof?

That's not an opinion, it's the conclusion drawn by comparative anatomy and is accpeted by virtually every biologist in the world.  Again, what evidence do you have that it's not?

Demon38 told me to look up euprimates and i did, but found no proof of a tail, just a few skulls were found here and there that belonged to a primate.

Didn't look very hard did you....From here:
Euprimates
"The earliest true primates, called euprimates, first appear in the fossil record 55 million years ago in North America, Asia, and Europe. Euprimates as a group includes humans, monkeys, and apes. The question is what happened during the 10-million-year stretch between the extinction of the dinosaurs, roughly 65 million years ago, and the first appearance of primates.
The nearly complete fossil skeleton of a Carpolestes simpsoni, found in the Clarks Fork Basin of Wyoming, may begin to answer some of those questions."

So there are almost complete fossil skeletons of euprimates...
I don't know what your point is, we have fossils of euprimates with tails and they occur in the fossil record before primates without tails.

also from Demon38, No homonid has a tail.
ok, so where did ours come from, if in fact we did have one?


Our tailbone is vestigial, euprimates, our ancestors, had them.

i know you will say hominid ancestors, but that assumes we evolved from monkeys and apes.

This isn't an assumption, it's a conclusion based on evidence, fossil evidence, comparative anatomy, genetics.  Where is your refutation of this evidence?

yes, some monkeys have tails and some don’t.  but it is only assumed that we evolved from monkey/apelike ancestors.  and now you will say…look at all the evidence and fossils blah blah blah, but all that has been found are “neandertals” and some other bogus fossils like the hoaxed pilt down man.

Nope, completely wrong.  You apparently haven't done any real research on human evolution.  Neandertal man was not our direct ancestor.  Piltdown man was a hoax and it was shown to be a hoax by real scientists.  What else do you have?  how do you explain the thousands of other homonid fossils we do have?  And fossil evidence is just the tip of the iceberg.  We can look at human and chimp genomes now and compare them, actually see what mutations seperate us and when they occurred.  From here:
HumanChimp
"The researchers said the results confirmed the common evolutionary origin of humans and chimpanzees. Out of the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA coding for chimps and humans, about 35 million show single-base differences, and another 5 million DNA sites are different because of insertions or deletions of genetic code. Waterston estimated that 1 million of those coding changes are responsible for the functional differences between humans and chimps — thus defining our humanness."

Human ancestry from primates, confirmed.  Read the whole article, I'd love to hear your reaction to it.

science can’t be biased can it?  well, maybe not science, but a scientist surely could
be.


But thankfully the scientific method is the most un biased method of examining the natural world.  Evoltuion is one of the strongest theories in science, all the evidence supports it and the more we learn, the more evolution is supported.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:50 PM on September 26, 2005 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
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.