The Grandest Conspiracy Ever Known. The New Age Religion of the Unproven Speculation (theory) of Evo

page: 22
14
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Why do we have hair anywhere? Why just womens armpits concern you? You are just demonstrating how you think people should look according to your own cultural filter.
edit on 18-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees


The vestigial organ thing has already been addressed and dismissed. Every part has a purpose. I know you were probably taught in school that they do not but that part of the indoctrination has been proven false. You can google it if you like.



The concept of vestigiality applies to genetically determined structures or attributes that have apparently lost most or all of its ancestral function in a given species. Assessment of the vestigial status must generally rely on comparison with homologous features in related species. The emergence of vestigiality occurs by normal evolutionary processes, typically by loss of function of a feature that is no longer subject to positive selection pressures when it loses its value in a changing environment. More urgently the feature may be selected against when its function becomes definitely harmful. Typical examples of both types occur in the loss of flying capability in island-dwelling species.


By the very definition, you are incorrect. Please learn to cut your losses. Arguing when you are continuously shown to be wrong just makes you look even sillier.
edit on 12-18-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


I have been proven wrong about nothing. Again I suggest you see the difference between proof and evidence.

Show me one example of a vestigial organ in any species that you can prove (not speculate) has no purpose whatsoever.

Your rebuttal is just a recitation of theory.
edit on 18-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees
reply to post by paradox
 


I have been proven wrong about nothing. Again I suggest you see the difference between proof and evidence.

Show me one example of a vestigial organ in any species that you can prove (not speculate) has no purpose whatsoever.

Your rebuttal is just a recitation of theory.
edit on 18-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)


Here you are proven wrong. There are many more examples, but as you have shown, you are not interested in researching, but rather name calling when shown to be wrong.



Fake Sex in Virgin Whiptail Lizards (Vestigial Behavior)

Only females exist in several species of the lizards of the genus Cnemidophorus, which might seem like a problem when it comes time to propagate the species. The females don't need the males though, they reproduce by parthenogenesis, a form of reproduction in which an unfertilized egg develops into a new individual. So basically, the females don't need the males; they just produce clones of themselves as a form of reproduction. Despite the fact that it is unnecessary and futile to attempt copulation with each other, the lizards still like to try, and occasionally one of the females will start to "act like a male" by attempting to copulate with another female. The lizards evolved from a sexual species and the behavior to copulate like a male -- to engage in fake sex -- is a vestigial behavior; that is, a behavior present in a species, but is expressed in an imperfect form, which in this case, is useless.



The Sexual Organs of Dandelions

Dandelions, like all flowers, have the proper organs (stamen and pistil) necessary for sexual reproduction, but do not use them. Dandelions reproduce without fertilization; they basically clone themselves, and they are quite successful at it. Look at any lawn for the proof. If dandelions were to revert to sexual reproduction, they might not retain whatever traits they have that allow them to be pests to gardeners everywhere. If flowers can begin reproducing in this manner, does that mean animals, even humans could too? Asexual reproduction can be a good strategy in an environment that is constant if a species is well suited to those conditions. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that humans wouldn't last long if the condition set forth was no sexual contact with others. Therefore, the human sexual organs are probably in no danger of becoming vestigial.



Wisdom Teeth in Humans

With all of the pain, time, and money that are put into dealing with wisdom teeth, humans have become just a little more than tired of these remnants from their large jawed ancestors. But regardless of how much they are despised, the wisdom teeth remain, and force their way into mouths regardless of the pain inflicted. There are two possible reasons why the wisdom teeth have become vestigial. The first is that the human jaw has become smaller than its ancestors -and the wisdom teeth are trying to grow into a jaw that is much too small. The second reason may have to do with dental hygiene. A few thousand years ago, it might be common for an 18 year old man to have lost several, probably most, of his teeth, and the incoming wisdom teeth would prove useful. Now that humans brush their teeth twice a day, it's possible to keep one's teeth for a lifetime. The drawback is that the wisdom teeth still want to come in, and when they do, they usually need to be extracted to prevent any serious pain.



The Blind Fish Astyanax Mexicanus

In an experiment designed by nature, the species of fish known as Astyanax mexicanus, dwelling in caves deep underground off the coast of Mexico, cannot see. The pale fish has eyes, but as it is developing in the egg, the eyes begin to degenerate, and the fish is born with a collapsed remnant of an eye covered by flap of skin. These vestigial eyes probably formed after hundreds or even thousands of years of living in total darkness. As for the experiment, a control is needed; and luckily for us, fish of the same species live right above, near the surface, where there is plenty of light, and these fish have fully functioning eyes. To test if the eyes of the blind mexicanus could function if given the right environment, scientists removed the lens from the eye of the surface-dwelling fish and implanted it into the eye of the blind fish. It was observed that within eight days an eye started to develop beneath the skin, and after two months the fish had developed a large functioning eye with a pupil, cornea, and iris. The fish were blind, but now they see.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Again, for the reading impaired.


The concept of vestigiality applies to genetically determined structures or attributes that have apparently lost most or all of its ancestral function in a given species. Assessment of the vestigial status must generally rely on comparison with homologous features in related species. The emergence of vestigiality occurs by normal evolutionary processes, typically by loss of function of a feature that is no longer subject to positive selection pressures when it loses its value in a changing environment. More urgently the feature may be selected against when its function becomes definitely harmful. Typical examples of both types occur in the loss of flying capability in island-dwelling species.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


Ah, I am seeing a pattern of how you run away when faced with proper argument. Can't handle it?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

1proof noun \ˈprüf\

Definition of PROOF

1
a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


You are absolutely right, you have proven without a doubt that your brain is a vestigial organ.

What are teeth for? chewing. Some people actually use their wisdom teeth to chew of course.

Animals that live in the dark go blind, just like people who don't work lose muscle mass, just like people who don't think lose mental cognitive ability.

You have proven nothing. You are demonstrating variation. If the fish swims out of the cave, a few generations later the eyes will regain their strength.

Just because someone states an opinion (wisdom teeth are remnants of our ancestors) does not make it true it is pure conjecture. That is the point of this thread. I have thoroughly demonstrated that people like you believe all speculations that agree with your point of view are true fact.
edit on 18-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
"One of the theory of evolution's important deceptions is its claim regarding "vestigial organs." Evolutionists claim that some organs in living things lose their original function over time, and that such organs then disappear. Taking that as a starting point, they then try to send out the message, "If the living body had really been created, it would have no functionless organs in it."

Evolutionist publications at the start of the twentieth century announced that the human body contained up to a hundred organs that no longer served any purpose, including the appendix, the coccyx, the tonsils, the pineal gland, the external ear, the thymus, and wisdom teeth. However, the decades that followed saw major advances in medical science. Our knowledge of the organs and systems in the human body increased. As a result of this, it was seen that the idea of vestigial organs was just a superstition. The long list drawn up by evolutionists rapidly shrank. It was discovered that the thymus is an organ which produces important immune system cells, and that the pineal gland is responsible for the production of important hormones. It also emerged that the coccyx supports the bones around the pelvis, and that the external ear plays an important role in identifying where sounds come from. In short, it emerged that ignorance was the only foundation on which the idea of "vestigial organs" rested.

Wisdom tooth problems stem from the contemporary diet, not because they are vestigial organs


Modern science has many times demonstrated the error of the concept of such organs. Yet some evolutionists still try to make use of this claim. Although medical science has proved that almost all of the organs that evolutionists claim are vestigial actually serve a purpose, evolutionary speculation still surrounds one or two organs.

The most noteworthy of these is our wisdom teeth. The claim that these teeth are a part of the human body that has lost all purpose still appears in evolutionist sources. As evidence for this, it is stated that these teeth give a great many people a lot of trouble, and that chewing is not impaired when they are surgically removed.

Many dentists, influenced by the evolutionists' claim that wisdom teeth serve no purpose, have come to see their extraction as a routine matter, and do not make the same kind of effort to protect them as they do for other teeth.53 However, research in recent years has shown that wisdom teeth have the same chewing function as other teeth. Studies have also been carried out to show that the belief that wisdom teeth damage the position of other teeth in the mouth is completely unfounded.54 Scientific criticism is now amassing ways in which problems with wisdom teeth which could be solved in other ways are instead solved by extracting them.55 In fact, the scientific consensus is that wisdom teeth have a chewing function just like all the others, and that there is no scientific justification for the belief that they serve no purpose.

So, why do wisdom teeth cause a substantial number of people problems? Scientists who have researched the subject have discovered that wisdom tooth difficulties have manifested themselves in different ways among human communities at different times. It is now understood that the problem was seldom seen in pre-industrial societies. It has been discovered that the way in which soft foodstuffs have come to be preferred to harder ones, over the last few hundred years in particular, has negatively affected the way the human jaw develops. It has thus been realised that most wisdom tooth troubles emerge as a result of jaw development problems relating to dietary habits.

It is also known that society's nutritional habits also have negative effects on our other teeth. For instance, the increasing consumption of foodstuffs high in sugar and acid has increased the rate that other teeth decay. However, that fact does not make us think that all our teeth have somehow "atrophied." The same principle applies to wisdom teeth. Problems with these teeth stem from contemporary dietary customs, not from any evolutionary "atrophy.""



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I get speculation after speculation being presented as proof.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees
reply to post by paradox
 


You are absolutely right, you have proven without a doubt that your brain is a vestigial organ.


Of course, throw in a couple more ad hominems and then try to call me a troll.


You asked to show an example of one species, I gave you quite a few. You nitpicked the ones you think you can argue against, but ignore the ones that you can not. So silly! You just would love to be correct about everything, but your superiority complex prevents you from admitting any of your faults. Anyone who shows you to be wrong is just "indoctrinated" or "trolling," right? haha! You just can not stand being shown up, which is why you continuously reply after your threats of never responding again. Hurts your ego, doesn't it?!




You have proven nothing. You are demonstrating variation. If the fish swims out of the cave, a few generations later the eyes will regain their strength.


You must not read very well!

"The pale fish has eyes, but as it is developing in the egg, the eyes begin to degenerate, and the fish is born with a collapsed remnant of an eye covered by flap of skin"

lmao. Just lmao. Let's take a look here:


Evolution
Definition

noun, plural: evolutions

(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

(2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.




Variation
Definition

noun, plural: variations

(1) A difference or deviation (e.g. in structure, form, function) from the recognized norm or standard.

(2) A modification in structure, form or function in an organism, deviating from other organisms of the same species or group.

(3) Mutant; an organism possessing characteristic(s) as a result of mutation.



Evolution REQUIRES variation

evolution.berkeley.edu...


Without genetic variation, some of the basic mechanisms of evolutionary change cannot operate.

There are three primary sources of genetic variation, which we will learn more about:

Mutations are changes in the DNA. A single mutation can have a large effect, but in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations.

Gene flow is any movement of genes from one population to another and is an important source of genetic variation.

Sex can introduce new gene combinations into a population. This genetic shuffling is another important source of genetic variation.


I suggest you take a look. You seem to be having trouble. You are both agreeing with evolution and attempting to deny it at the same time. It would be painful if it wasn't so amusing to watch.
edit on 12-18-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-18-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
*ATTENTION*

Stop the name calling !!! We're not here to call members Trolls.

Posting Bans are next.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


Your responses are all irrelevant, this has never been about climate vs. weather. You just keep on changing the subject and posting theory claiming it is somehow proof. Enough is enough already.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


Explain how any of my responses are irrelevant to the topic of evolution.

Hint: they are not.

The climate comment was only brought up once you claimed that there can be no external factor in evolution, which is disturbingly incorrect.

Besides, the post you just responded to mentioned neither climate or weather. You are bringing up something from a page or two ago. Why?
edit on 12-18-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   

The statement of the truth of a theory has essentially the same meaning as that of a simple factual judgment: we refer to some experience which justifies, or will justify, the decision-making on the basis of this statement. When this experience is in the past we say that the truth is established. When it is expected in the future we say it is hypothetical. There is no difference of principle between factual statements and theories: both are varieties of models of reality which we use to make decisions. A fact may turn out to be an illusion, or hallucination, or a fraud, or a misconception. On the other side, a well-established theory can be taken for a fact. And we should accept critically both facts and theories, and re-examine them whenever necessary. The differences between facts and theories are only quantitative: the length of the path from the statement to the production of predictions.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


Weather vs climate. That is completely irrelevant. You want to call weather or climate an external force. by that logic nothing is natural and everything is an external force. You said it is all nature. I agree, it is all nature and therefore all internal, not external.

I don't want to waste my life explaining the obvious to you or anyone else. That's all. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when all you seem interested in is mocking and arguing just for the sake of argument.






top topics



 
14
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join