Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[6days]

Who'd 'ave guessed? 6Days is quoting a dodgy passage from a Wiki page that had been edited by a creationist using info from a site with a 'statement of faith'.

Haha.... I am quoting a dodgy secular Wikipedia site?

GC... Attacking the source of a claim, rather than attacking the argument is ad hominem. Greg seemed to think goose bumps were totally useless and evidence for common ancestry. That is similar to many of the other "useless" claims of evolutionists, such as useless appendix, useless "flotsam" junk DNA, useless 'pseudogenes' ETC.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That is similar to many of the other "useless" claims of evolutionists, such as useless appendix, useless "flotsam" junk DNA, useless 'pseudogenes' ETC.

*cough* Eugenie Scott *cough*

 

[The Barbarian]

(Creationism claims there are no useless organs)

Barbarian observes:
Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
On some islands, there are species of beetles with perfectly-formed wings that are locked under fused elytra the hard wing covers that beetles have. What is the use of those wings?

6days changes direction:

If the wings are truly useless... they are useless. Lost function is consistent with a corrupted creation, and God's Word.

Which is why people notice that creationism can be bent to cover anything including evolution (most creationist organizations now admit the fact of new species evolving).

Barbarian observes:
BTW, "vestigial" does not mean "useless."

The definition is useless.

No, that's never been the definition. Darwin himself noted that vestigial organs often had new uses.

Barbarian observes:
The appendix, for example, does not serve to digest plant material, as it does in other organisms.

Evolutionists at one time claimed our appendix was useless.

Nope. Over a half-century ago, scientists were talking about the functions of the appendix. You've been misled about that.

Science has surprised creationists and by showing that the appendix has purpose and function. Of course, before scientists did that, creationists just played a different tune and said that it was a sign of "corrupted creation."

Creationists simply make up a new story to fit whatever they want it to be.

In general, a completely useless organ will go away after a time like the eyes of cave fish the cervical ribs of mammals teeth of birds and so on.

But no matter what happens, creationists will change their story to fit whatever they want it to be.

 

[iouae]

Try Googling "first flying insect" and you are in for the runaround.

Obviously the origin of flight would be a landmark evolutionary event. And insect flight is supposed to be the first flight in the world, ever.

There are lots of insects, so a flying one is likely to get fossilised. And wings are quite sturdy structures, so not unlikely to get fossilised.

It is obvious to me after an hour of frustration trying to find the first flying anything, is that nobody knows.
Below is a typical example of paleontological hubris, the all-hogs-to-the-trough stampede to be the first, to have the first, to have bragging rights to the first flying insect. And what a disappointment when one reads the evidence such as the below...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...ossil-was-first-creature-on-Earth-to-fly.html

If this article had substance, it would be saying the very first insect came with wings and flew - proof of creation.

But they have nothing. Not a clue. No wings, just, it looks like it might have flown. Yet trotted out as some great discovery.

This should not be a mystery. Insects cover the earth, now and yesterday. If anything could get fossilised, it should be an insect with its hard exoskeleton and wings.

But I think we are just being given the runaround.

Insects were created flying.

I cannot find anything suggesting insect's wings evolved, say, as swimming limbs.

Flying is different to anything else on earth. It needs a brain to control the flight, huge amounts of energy, an efficient respiratory system, flight control etc. These all need to arise almost simultaneously.

Yet, from my admittedly limited research, evolutionists have hype, speculation, and little else.

All the fossil evidence points to insects as having been created with wings and all it takes to fly, with no slow evolution of porto-wings.

There is no known "missing link" between flightless invertebrates, and flying invertebrates.

 

[6days]

(Creationism claims there are no useless organs)

You made that up.

God's Word tells us that all creation groans, so a loss of pre-existing function is consistent with God's Word. Where evolutionists have failed is dismissing functional organs and DNA as useless based on their false belief system.

 

[Jonahdog]

You made that up.

God's Word tells us that all creation groans, so a loss of pre-existing function is consistent with God's Word. Where evolutionists have failed is dismissing functional organs and DNA as useless based on their false belief system.

Since you start with special creation in a week 6000+/- years ago, you are incapable any rational discussion of science

 

[Jonahdog]

There is no known "missing link" between flightless invertebrates, and flying invertebrates.

When does your paper come out in Science or perhaps Nature?

 

[gcthomas]

You made that up.

God's Word tells us that all creation groans, so a loss of pre-existing function is consistent with God's Word. Where evolutionists have failed is dismissing functional organs and DNA as useless based on their false belief system.

So functionless DNA is such a threat you make every effort to point out functions in small parts of junk DNA, thereby proving creation, but true functionless organs also prove creation?

Well, that's a rather weak argument you have there.

 

[6days]

So functionless DNA is such a threat you make every effort to point out functions in small parts of junk DNA,

Nope..... you have misunderstood. What has been objected to is that evolutionists dismissed 98% of our DNA as junk based on a false belief system. This caused many scientists to ignore searching for purpose nd function. Science is still in the process of discovering that most... perhaps all of our DNA serves purpose and is part of a highly sophisticated information system. The Biblical model is that we should expect to find intelligently designed systems that have purpose and function, and which might have suffered some degradation due to several thousand years of mutations.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Since you start with special creation in a week 6000+/- years ago, you are incapable any rational discussion of science

See, that's called the "pooh-pooh" fallacy. You can't just dismiss the argument because you deem it unworthy of consideration.

So either discuss with us and show why "special creation" is not valid, or get out of here.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So functionless DNA is such a threat you make every effort to point out functions in small parts of junk DNA, thereby proving creation, but true functionless organs also prove creation?

Well, that's a rather weak argument you have there.

From the Washington Post (2012):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...296720-f772-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_story.html

From NYT (2012):

Far From ‘Junk,’ DNA Dark Matter Proves Crucial to Health https://nyti.ms/OTFJo8

From Time (2012):

http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/

From Scientific American (2012):

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hidden-treasures-in-junk-dna/#

"Junk" DNA isn't junk.

----

Name one truly functionless organ.

 

[The Barbarian]

You made that up.

Creationists that I know do not deny that there are organs in man that have lost some of their functionality.
https://answersingenesis.org/human-...ting-the-record-straight-on-vestigial-organs/

(my emphasis)

But AIG has added the clause you mentioned, "Even if this organ turned out to be functionless, this would only demonstrate that the function was lost in the human lineage. It would not prove common ancestry between man and animals."

In other words, if vestigial organs have a function, they argue that this is proof of creastionism. And they argue that if vestigial organs don't have a function, this is proof of creationism.

Honesty is not a common virtue among the professional creationists.

God's Word tells us that all creation groans, so a loss of pre-existing function is consistent with God's Word.

You're trying to pack a lot of new stuff into one word, um? As you learned, from Darwin on, scientists acknowledged that vestigial organs (he called them "rudimentary") often retain or evolve a function after losing their original one.

A strong and direct evidence for common descent comes from vestigial structures. Rudimentary body parts, those that are smaller and simpler in structure than corresponding parts in the ancestral species, are called vestigial organs. They are usually degenerated or underdeveloped. The existence of vestigial organs can be explained in terms of changes in the environment or modes of life of the species. Those organs are typically functional in the ancestral species but are now either nonfunctional or re-purposed. Examples are the pelvic girdles of whales, haltere (hind wings) of flies and mosquitos, wings of flightless birds such as ostriches, and the leaves of some xerophytes (e.g. cactus) and parasitic plants (e.g. dodder). However, vestigial structures may have their original function replaced with another. For example, the halteres in dipterists help balance the insect while in flight and the wings of ostriches are used in mating rituals.
http://www.darwinwasright.org/vestigial_structures.html

Where evolutionists have failed is dismissing functional organs and DNA as useless based on their false belief system.

See above. That is not an honest representation of evolutionary theory. It's never been like that.

 

[gcthomas]

"Junk" DNA isn't junk.

----

Name one truly functionless organ.

You don't get it do you? Even a non functioning eye in a cave dweller might turn out to have evolved a minor ad-hoc use for the stupid thing. Evolution works with what there is, not to a plan, so you'd expect stuff to be repurposed. But that doesn't mean it is not vestigial or that it is important. I am sure you can tell me that humans having individual toes might be useful for something minor, but in general they are a bloody nuisnance, causing all sorts of problems, breaking and straining and catching on hard objects. They are vestigial remains of grasping appendages that would have been very useful in trees, but don't do much for ground bipedalism.

Your links mention the ENCODE project, the one that found that between 9 and 80 percent of DNA is biologicallly active. Let's assume that 'biologically active' actually translates as 'has an essential bioloigcal function rather than just being ignored by the body. That still leaves 20 to 92% of actually non-functinonal DNA. That is useless, isn't it? The repeating and inverted sections of DNA, the viral insertions (HERVs that make up perhaps a tenth of our DNA), the copies of functioning genes from elsewhere in the genome but with mutations that stop them expressing.

No, you are grasping at straws here. There is a whole load of junk in the genome, it is just that evolution has found minor roles for some of it just as if I chuck out old clothes from the window and find mice living there later. An ecological use, yes, but minor and non-essential, and it is still junk.

 

[Jonahdog]

See, that's called the "pooh-pooh" fallacy. You can't just dismiss the argument because you deem it unworthy of consideration.

So either discuss with us and show why "special creation" is not valid, or get out of here.

Because there is no real world evidence for special creation in a week 6000 years ago.

 

[6days]

Creationism claims there are no useless organise

Dishonest

Creationists that I know do not deny that there are organs in man that have lost some of their functionality.

True... much better than your earlier statement.

...if vestigial organs have a function, they argue that this is proof of creastionism. And they argue that if vestigial organs don't have a function, this is proof of creationism.

Dishonest. Only evolutionists believe in "vestigial organs".

from Darwin on, scientists acknowledged that vestigial organs ...often retain or evolve a function after losing their original one.

Evolutionists argue that functionality and non functionality are evidence for their beliefs. They also argue good design and bad design support them. It is a non falsifiable / non scientific belief.

That is not an honest representation of evolutionary theory.

I didn't mention evolutionary theory. What I said was "Where evolutionists have failed is dismissing functional organs and DNA as useless based on their false belief system.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Because there is no real world evidence for special creation in a week 6000 years ago.

There is plenty of "real world" evidence for special creation.

The fact that the universe exists is evidence.

It could not have created itself, because in order to create anything something must first exist. Therefore it is logically impossible for the universe to create itself. And if it had always existed, then the universe should be cold and dark, yet we see stars, planets, galaxies. The universe is neither cold nor dead. Therefore, the only remaining possibility is that it was created by something supernatural, something outside of the universe.

Information is evidence of a Creator.

Life, more than being carbon based, is information based. Information only comes from other information. Therefore, any "information" in the DNA would have to have a source. That source would have to be without beginning.

Carbon-14 everywhere it shouldn't be is evidence of a young (less than 70,000 year old) Earth.

Carbon 14 can be found in diamonds, dinosaur bones, marble, coal, oil, and natural gas. Carbon-14 only lasts thousands of years (it's half-life is only 5,730 years), and C-14 dating can measure how old something is (up to 50,000 years). A grant was offered to Jack Horner to date his soft-tissue T. rex. He refused.

Shall I go on?

 

[6days]

There is a whole load of junk in the genome

That is what evolutionists used to say about much of the genome that is now known to be functional. Lack of knowledge re function, does not always mean there is no function.

it is just that evolution has found minor roles for some of it

Science continues to discover the purpose in non coding DNA;... DNA that evolutionists in the past dismissed as garbage evolutionary leftovers.

 

[The Barbarian]

Dishonest

It's very true. Notice the most creationists will say is that some organs may have lost some of their function.

True...

You should have admitted it the first time.

Barbarian observes:
But AIG has added the clause you mentioned, "Even if this organ turned out to be functionless, this would only demonstrate that the function was lost in the human lineage. It would not prove common ancestry between man and animals."

In other words, if vestigial organs have a function, they argue that this is proof of creastionism. And they argue that if vestigial organs don't have a function, this is proof of creationism.

Honesty is not a common virtue among the professional creationists.

Dishonest.

Of course it is. They want to have it both ways. "If it is, it proves creationism; if it isn't, it proves creationism."

Only evolutionists believe in "vestigial organs".

Nope. You're wrong:
Before addressing the specific organs that are covered in her article, it is necessary to clarify how creationists should view vestigial organs. The classic definition of a vestigial organ is an organ or structure in an organism that is not functional, but is derived from an ancestor that had a use for that organ or structure. Creationists understand that there has been degeneration and mutation since the Fall.
https://answersingenesis.org/human-...ting-the-record-straight-on-vestigial-organs/

Evolutionists argue that functionality and non functionality are evidence for their beliefs.

From Darwin's time on, they have noted that some vestigial organs have no function (like those wings under fused elytra) but many other have other functions besides the one that was lost. You know this. Why pretend otherwise?

They also argue good design and bad design support them.

Nope. "Design" is what limited beings do. No once can find anything "designed" in nature.

"Design" in living things is a non falsifiable / non scientific belief.

I didn't mention evolutionary theory.

Of course not. Because evolutionary theory doesn't say any of those things.

What I said was "Where evolutionists have failed is dismissing functional organs and DNA

Which is like saying "where creationists have asserted that black people are inferior to other people." It's true, but it would be dishonest to say that was what creationism is about. You should have the integrity to avoid doing that to science.

as useless based on their false belief system.

A half-century ago, I was reading about the functions of non-coding DNA in the literature, so you're way out of line there. And a quick search of the literature turns up an article on the functions of the appendix that was published when I was a sophomore in high school. So that's false, too.

Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1962 Oct 30;98:1322-6.
Appendix: rhythmic functions in the living system.

 

[6days]

Notice the most creationists will say is that some organs may have lost some of their function.

That is true and consistent with the evidence.

But AIG has added the clause you mentioned, "Even if this organ turned out to be functionless, this would only demonstrate that the function was lost in the human lineage. It would not prove common ancestry between man and animals.

True. Science helps confirm the truth of God's Word.

Only evolutionists believe in "vestigial organs"

"Creationists understand that there has been degeneration and mutation since the Fall."(quote from AIG)

Correct; loss of pre-existing function is consistent with God's Word. Vestigial arguments by evolutionists are useless remnants of a failing belief system.

Evolutionists argue that functionality and non functionality are evidence for their beliefs.

From Darwin's time on, they have noted that some vestigial organs have no function ... other have other functions besides the one that was lost.

As I said..."Evolutionists argue that functionality and non functionality are evidence for their beliefs." It is a non falsifiable belief system.

"Design" is what limited beings do. No one can find anything "designed" in nature.

"Design" in living things is a non falsifiable / non scientific belief.

You can argue that with the evolutionists who use the word "design" for things in nature. As a Christian, I know God designed things. For example...I am designed; His Word says "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works"

I didn't mention evolutionary theory.

Of course not....

IOW...You knowingly created a straw man.

"What I said was "Where evolutionists have failed is dismissing functional organs and DNA as useless based on their false belief system."

Which is like saying "where creationists have asserted that black people are inferior to other people."

Any creationists who might have said such a thing did fail. Sad, that you can't admit failures of your belief system and seem to defend it even when you know you are wrong. Evolutionists failed by dismissing functional organs and DNA as useless based on their false belief system.

A half-century ago, I was reading about the functions of non-coding DNA in the literature...

50 years ago science was beginning to show evolutionists were wrong about 'Junk DNA'. Evolutionists (like yourself) to this day are still reluctant to admit they were wrong. Most evolutionists still cling to the hope that most of our non coding DNA is junk.

...a quick search of the literature turns up an article on the functions of the appendix that was published when I was a sophomore in high school.

Even though science started to discover that the appendix was functional, most evolutionists continued to falsely teach that it was a useless vestige; therefore evidence of common ancestry.


BTW...Science has moved far beyond your high school days. Evolutionists now claim the appendix is so important...and so different from other creatures that it must have evolved independently a few dozen times. You likely don't see the humor in that.

 

[The Barbarian]

6days writes:
What I said was "Where evolutionists have failed is dismissing functional organs and DNA as useless based on their false belief system."

Barbarian observes:
Which is like saying "where creationists have asserted that black people are inferior to other people."

Any creationists who might have said such a thing did fail.

Likewise, any "evolutionists" who dismissed DNA or all vestigial organs as useless failed, since evolutionary theory shows the opposite. Your double standard is showing.

Sad, that you can't admit failures of your belief system and seem to defend it even when you know you are wrong. Creationists failed by asserting the supposed inferiority of black people, based on their false belief system.

Barbarian, regarding the false claim that scientists thought non-coding DNA was useless:
A half-century ago, I was reading about the functions of non-coding DNA in the literature...

50 years ago science was beginning to show evolutionists were wrong about 'Junk DNA'.

Nope. Pretty much as soon as non-coding DNA was discovered, scientists were finding functions it had. You've been misled about that.

Creationists still cling to that faked story, but as you see, shortly after DNA's role in protein synthesis was discovered, non-coding DNA was found, and then functions for it were discovered. Most creationists are still peddling their story, even though they know it's false.

Barbarian regarding the false story that scientists thought the appendix was useless:
...a quick search of the literature turns up an article on the functions of the appendix that was published when I was a sophomore in high school.

Even though science showed that the appendix was functional, most creationists continued to falsely teach that they thought it was useless. As Darwin showed, vestigial organs show common descent, even if they retain some other use or evolve a new one.

BTW...Science has moved far beyond your high school days.

Their findings are still valid. I'd be pleased to see your evidence that the appendix has no functions. What have you got?

Evolutionists now claim the appendix is so important...and so different from other creatures that it must have evolved independently a few dozen times.

As you just learned, a long time ago, evolutionists figured out that the appendix has functions. The fact that it has evolved in wide variety of mammals confirms the theory. Creationists had assumed it had no function. They are now hoping to claim the findings of evolutionary scientists.

You likely don't see the humor in that.

It is pretty funny.