Science Disproves Evolution

Vestigial Organs

Some structures in humans were once thought to have no function but to
have been derived from functioning organs in claimed evolutionary
ancestors (a). They were called vestigial organs. As medical knowledge
has increased, at least some function has been discovered for all
alleged vestigial organs (b). For example, the human appendix was once
considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix
seems to play a role in antibody production and protects part of the
intestine from infections and tumor growths (c). Indeed, the absence
of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened.

a.	The existence of functionless vestigial organs was presented by
Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of
the evidence for evolution. ... An analysis of the difficulties in
unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of
the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that vestigial
organs provide no evidence for evolutionary theory. S. R. Scadding,
Do Vestigial Organs Provide Evidence for Evolution? Evolutionary
Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3, May 1981, p. 173.

b.	Jerry Bergman and George Howe, Vestigial Organs Are Fully
Functional (Terre Haute, Indiana: Creation Research Society Books,
1990).

c.	The appendix is not generally credited with substantial function.
However, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic
mechanism. Gordon McHardy, The Appendix, Gastroenterology, Vol. 4,
editor J. Edward Berk (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1985), p.
2609.

Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as
a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the
appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the
bodys immune system.  N. Roberts, Does the Appendix Serve a Purpose
in Any Animal? Scientific American, Vol. 285, November 2001, p. 96.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences22.html#wp1616566

date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:52:47 -0700 (PDT) author: Pahu

Re: S'more Palu Bullcrap

(0)

date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:28:29 -0700 (PDT) author: Ken

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

Pahu wrote:
> Vestigial Organs
> 
> Some structures in humans were once thought to have no function but to
> have been derived from functioning organs in claimed evolutionary
> ancestors (a). They were called vestigial organs. As medical knowledge
> has increased, at least some function has been discovered for all
> alleged vestigial organs (b). For example, the human appendix was once
> considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix
> seems to play a role in antibody production and protects part of the
> intestine from infections and tumor growths (c). Indeed, the absence
> of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened.

Your information is wrong and you have a completely false 
conclusion. In fact, there is no reason to suspect that evolution 
wouldn't make multiple use of parts (it is what you'd expect to see):

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html

This is what Wikipedia says about the appendix:

"Given the appendix's propensity to cause death via infection, and 
the general good health of people who have had their appendix 
removed, the purpose of the appendix has mystified scientists for 
some time. There have been cases of people who have been found, 
usually on laparoscopy or laparotomy, to have a congenital absence 
of an appendix. There have been no reports of impaired immune or 
gastrointestinal function in these people."

So, not a good candidate for an argument from design, is it?

Maybe you'd like to let us know what function vestigial eyes in 
blind cave fish perform? Maybe winking at the opposite sex?

If this is the best you can do Pahu, an exercise is self delusion, 
then it really is time to give up!

regards, Ian

date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:41:32 +0100 author: Ian Smith

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

On Sep 25, 4:41 pm, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> Pahu wrote:
> > Vestigial Organs
>
> > Some structures in humans were once thought to have no function but to
> > have been derived from functioning organs in claimed evolutionary
> > ancestors (a). They were called vestigial organs. As medical knowledge
> > has increased, at least some function has been discovered for all
> > alleged vestigial organs (b). For example, the human appendix was once
> > considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix
> > seems to play a role in antibody production and protects part of the
> > intestine from infections and tumor growths (c). Indeed, the absence
> > of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened.
>
> Your information is wrong and you have a completely false
> conclusion. In fact, there is no reason to suspect that evolution
> wouldn't make multiple use of parts (it is what you'd expect to see):
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html
>
> This is what Wikipedia says about the appendix:
>
> "Given the appendix's propensity to cause death via infection, and
> the general good health of people who have had their appendix
> removed, the purpose of the appendix has mystified scientists for
> some time. There have been cases of people who have been found,
> usually on laparoscopy or laparotomy, to have a congenital absence
> of an appendix. There have been no reports of impaired immune or
> gastrointestinal function in these people."
>
> So, not a good candidate for an argument from design, is it?
>
> Maybe you'd like to let us know what function vestigial eyes in
> blind cave fish perform? Maybe winking at the opposite sex?
>
> If this is the best you can do Pahu, an exercise is self delusion,
> then it really is time to give up!
>
> regards, Ian

REPLY: If you care to do a google on this issue , youll find plenty
of  facts that there are no vestiginal 'left over' organs/parts from
'macro evolution' ;   you shouldnt even be talking about macro
evolution as real the way you do until you can first PROVE
abiogenesis .  Science disproved spontaneous generation last century,
modern world reknown ATHEIST scientists say it is utterly impossible
based on what we know now, and...to force oneself to believe that a
human being is nothing more than glorified Pond Scum  is about as
ludicrous and desperate as it comes (all for the expressed purpose of
living the atheist lifestyle ;  and we all know what that entails dont
we ?).  You may think you have enough faith to be an atheist, but you
do not . In fact, there is not a true atheist who ever lived .. only
self labeled people .

date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:59:10 -0700 (PDT) author: unknown

Warning to the unwary - read this before posting

Dave is an evangelical fundamentalist, based in the US. He will not 
listen to reasoned argument and will continue to post the same 
invalid materials no matter how many times their falsehood is 
pointed out.

His typical posting consists of material copied from creationist 
websites - mainly pseudo science and frequently quotations from 
credible scientists (2) that have been edited to indicate the 
opposite of what the author intended.

If you are fired up with anger and feel compelled to respond (Dave 
frequently makes a series of increasing unsupportable allegations 
designed to provoke), the regulars here can't stop you, but please 
understand that you will simply initiate an endless stream of posts 
attempting to preach to anyone who is gullible enough to listen.

Notes:
1 If you wish to understand the truth about evolution and the 
science of our origins, and the erroneous nature of Dave's 
arguments, then this is a good starting point:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
2. A recent example asserts Francis Crick (who discovered DNA) 
making statements about the sheer improbability of the natural 
origins of life. The quotes actually come from Fred Hoyle, an 
astronomer, but Dave's source is a creationist site that has 
(accidentally or deliberately) mixed up the references. Dave can't 
bring himself to even acknowledge the error, let alone apologise for it.

date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 08:27:45 +0100 author: Ian Smith