It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution in Action

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 06:14 AM
link   
I found this link at work, which strongly implies humans are still changing.

discovermagazine.com...:int=1&-C=

Do you still have your palmaris muscle?

I am apparently one of the 84%(ish) that do.




posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Apparently the link is not working. Here ya go:
Click here



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Hmm, it worked for me, but thanks!



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Not evidence whatsoever.... all of these so-called evidences involve losing something over time...

Example: The Palmaris Muscle... we had... now some dont have... this is the opposite of evolution... nothing is evolving, its devolving.

or maybe its just that some poeple dont have one due to a loss of genetic imformation... it happens. just like in computers, data is lost and file become currupt... doesnt mean that anything is evolving.

poor example of evidence for evolution.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I see you're on good form, meth.

Evolution is just change over time. Doesn't matter if it means gaining a trait (e.g., big brain) or losing a trait (e.g., tail).



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   
yeah but the problem with that statement is, losing things or having things fall apart over time is support for creation, not evolution. the bible even says thats the way its supposed to happen.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
yeah but the problem with that statement is, losing things or having things fall apart over time is support for creation, not evolution. the bible even says thats the way its supposed to happen.


But a species losing a particular trait isn't really 'falling apart'.

How is an ape losing a tail compared to a monkey 'falling apart'?



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
Not evidence whatsoever.... all of these so-called evidences involve losing something over time...

Example: The Palmaris Muscle... we had... now some dont have... this is the opposite of evolution... nothing is evolving, its devolving.

or maybe its just that some poeple dont have one due to a loss of genetic imformation... it happens. just like in computers, data is lost and file become currupt... doesnt mean that anything is evolving.

poor example of evidence for evolution.


I'd say "shake those jowels like an eighteenth century scientist" but Melatonin beat me to it.

This is infact ideal proof that evolution is happening. The human species is slowly but surely undergoing a gradual change. That is evolution.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   
perhaps a reverse of what you are trying to prove... I have no argument against losing things... this supports creation/the bible. but this in no way supports the forward motion of evolution (things becoming complex, gaining etc)



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   
So, meth, you essentially accept evolution when it shows the loss of a trait, but deny evolution when it shows the gain of a trait.

Sounds like a great example of confirmation bias.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Time out gentlemen! Meth actually has a point doesn't he? Single Cell to multicellular organisms to small number of tissues to organs to organ systems to large numbers of organ systems. Isn't this how humans arrived on the scene? It seems that greater complexity is the order of the day for human development. Human genetic variation will always turn out genetic mutants. That is not an argument for saying that these previously had a function - it is just a genetically rare event.

The fact that humans still have an appendix is a teleologically significant
event. Its removal does not have deleterious effects on health but is that not the case for a kidney or an eye or an ear? It may have a biololgical function that is not fully characterised but it may be a 'stand by' organ.

God seems to have given us the gift of bilateral symmetry which ensures survival in a hostile environment. The Law of Natural selection is another gift. It's imperfection and throw-off's are meant to be a lesson to us just as much as perfection.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I don't really see the point of what you're saying, hero.

The appendix most likely does have some function. And? It's a vestigial feature because it no longer acts as a cellulose-digesting caecum, it is a vestige of such an organ. Just like your middle ear bones are a vestige of jaw bones.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 

I admit the argument is weak melatonin but I was just wondering is there was a use for the appendix in particular. For example, just a wiki search revealed the following:

Loren G. Martin, a professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University, argues that the appendix has a function in fetuses and adults.[5] Endocrine cells have been found in the appendix of 11 week old fetuses that contribute to "biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms." In adults, Martin argues that the appendix acts as a lymphatic organ. The appendix is experimentally verified as being rich in infection-fighting lymphoid cells, suggesting that it might play a role in the immune system. A. Zahid[6] suggests that it plays a role in both manufacturing hormones in fetal development as well as functioning to 'train' the immune system, exposing the body to antigens in order that it can produce antibodies. He notes that doctors in the last decade have stopped removing the appendix during other surgical procedures as a routine precaution, because it can be successfully transplanted into the urinary tract to rebuild a sphincter muscle and reconstruct a functional bladder.


So maybe it isn't vestigial after all...?



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   
But vestigial doesn't mean it has no function, just that it's a vestige. As I said, even your middle ear bones are vestigial, but they do have a function.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   


But vestigial doesn't mean it has no function, just that it's a vestige. As I said, even your middle ear bones are vestigial, but they do have a function.


and thats where you are wrong.... Vestigial structures/organs by definition are considered to be useless parts..... The human body has none of these whatsoever..

The appendix, its part of the immune system.... yes you can live without it, but that doesnt mean you dont need it.

Again, even if there were vestigial structures in the body, that wouldnt be proof for evolution. Evolution in the textbook implies that organisms are evolving and becoming more complex, gaining abilities and becoming more intelligent. Vestigial structures is the opposite of this.

I understand that some things are grown out of place like a useless tail, but thats just information copied to the wrong location of the body and yes it useless, but this is due to scrambling/copying already existing information.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
and thats where you are wrong.... Vestigial structures/organs by definition are considered to be useless parts..... The human body has none of these whatsoever..


I think you would like that to be the case. Unfortunately, it isn't.

You don't get to have your own definitions. Just look up what vestige means, it might help a tad. Almost 100 years ago they knew what vestigial means, it's mainly creationists that have an issue with it:


The vermiform appendage—in which some recent medical writers have vainly endeavoured to find a utility—is the shrunken remainder of a large and normal intestine of a remote ancestor. This interpretation of it would stand even if it were found to have a certain use in the human body. Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost.

Joseph McCabe
The Story of Evolution (1912)

They can be functionless, but need not be.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Some of us don't have a problem with evolution so much as we do for the mechanism of evolution. We're told random genetic mutations are the driving force of evolution. But that's not what we see though. For example on another board somebody mentioned there are people being born without wisdom teeth (some people have theirs pulled because they cause problems). But there's nothing random about the very teeth we don't need being the very same ones that some random genetic mutation just happened to cause not to grow in the first place. Random gene mutations regarding teeth should have people being born without other teeth too, or being born with too many teeth, or a different number on top and on the bottom, or molars in the front of the mouth and cutting teeth in the back, or teeth growing out of other places on your body, or teeth made out of the wrong material, etc. Natural selection would then weed out all the mistakes and only the fit would survive, but as you can see there is no natural selection going on and there are no mistakes that need to be filtered out. Darwinism doesn't seem to be the answer.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join