… well you could say it was the result of the Genesis Curse. There are ways of “wiggle room” here.
Good design points to Instantaneous Creation.
Bad design points to Curse.
-Tim
No, that would just be bad science.
It’s hard to convey over text, but I was being sarcastic, Patrick.
-Tim
I smiled when I read it. 
1 Like
I’m never sure. 
1 Like
hey tim and joao.
first, i see this comment about this shark:
“I have see this web-foot shark in my studies - I study now the sea fish for plus 30 years. In Malaysia we call this shark pho minyak, or in English I believe this mean “marathon shark”. We have many time encounter this shark running across sea floor when view from submarine. It is not surprise that it is rare because this species can simply run away from the fish net or hook. Therefore no one catching them and only occasional we see the dead one. On 5 occasion now we take research trip to study offshore fish community and bathymetry when we see this shark. In the dark, the submarine light stun the shark and we can see clearly them standing on legs looking at us.”
so if its true it can be that female also have this. so or so- the main point according to the evolution is that if its look like a tail–>its a tail. but this example show that it isnt true.
i also gave the gills example and i have another one: evolutionists use to claim that whale have a small bone that its look like a vestigial leg. but a new paper show its actually a part of the reproductive system:
by the way- the claim about pseudogene (gulo) doesnt hold water either.
I went to the link of the unborn babies and looked close but saw NO tail in any pictures! the "tail idea is made up malarky by evolutionist and has NO basis in truth! the one photo with the tail is not a normal thing, just extra skin! Not really a tail at all! I have investigated that issue before,just skin and NO bones! The coccyx is used to hold our rear muscles together! It can be removed but with a price, do not doubt that!
Tim
I have no dispute over common descent, or even with suggesting that the coccyx provides some evidence for it because of homology or embryology. But I do have a problem with arguments from inadequate function, whether used to deny creation or to show the inefficiency of evolution (which in Evolutionary Creation ought to amount to the same thing, n’est-ce pas?).
To say, for example, that the coccyx is functionless because it can be removed surgically without harm is (speaking as someone with professional surgical experience) a non sequitur - we surgeons remove all kinds of useful things and people still survive, usually.
I treated many cases of coccydynia, and the coccyx undoubtedly has functions.
The coccyx serves as an attachment site for tendons, ligaments, and muscles. It also functions as an insertion point of some of the muscles of the pelvic floor. The coccyx also functions to support and stabilize a person while he or she is in a sitting position.
That’s lifted from healthline.com - not a Creationist organisation. To say those functions are “vestigial” in the sense of being inadequate to outweigh the disadvantages is a value judgement, not a scientific one. Applied against creation, including evolutionary creation, it’s a theological value judgement, not a scientific one.
Evolutionarily speaking, it’s saying that one knows better than the adaptive mechanisms of selection (which would have eliminated the organ if it were seriously disadvantageous). And that would be fine if one had a clear idea of what evolutionary path has occurred, and why, in terms of adaptaion, drift and so on.
As it is (because no such knowledge of the evolutionary priorities exists) it’s a purely subjective judgement: “a properly organised adaptive process wouldn’t have done it that way”, which is of the same form as “a proper God wouldn’t have done it that way”. In either case, it’s really saying, “I’d have done it differently” - which isn’t a particularly scientific argument.
Conversely, any reason one could give why natural selection has retained the coccyx would be an equally strong argument for why God would retain it in creation. But that’s a bit academic as nobody can put functional chapter and verse to such reasons.
Tim,
You will enjoy this video by paleontologist donald prothero
Once again you’re right, Jon. It is rather subjective to say what is functional and non-functional … On what grounds are we making these judgements. Still, I wonder how one could argue for a vestigial organ withOUT arguing from “inadequate function”…? I believe that all of the human body is purposeful, but some things are obviously more purposeful than others. The tonsils and appendix have function … But they aren’t as important as say your stomach or your heart. Sometimes I think an organs usefulness is overblown when one attacks the idea of vestigial organs … Seeing as your a surgeon you probably know more about it.
I understand you’re emotional, Martin. But it would be helpful to refrain from phrases like “evolutionist melarchy” and instead try to engage in the conversation.
The embryonic tail is very apparent when you compare to the picture of a human embryo to that of a cat embryo. The same tail structure exists, only in the cat it becomes a full grown tail. In the case for the human the tail gets digested by the immune system, early on, before it fully develops. The process is called apoptosis.
The article made mention that some human tails (that is babies born with tails) included vertebrae and reacted to muscle spasms. @Jon_Garvey as a surgeon what do you make of these claims? Is there any validity in tails with vertebrae or reacting to muscles? I know it’s rare, but the article made claims that it appears in the medical literature, and also made the distinction between “pseudo-tails” and “real tails”. Martin — what you may be referring to is a pseudo-tail. As far as the coccyx goes the argument that I made wasn’t that “vestigial means completely pointless” … Indeed that’s not even the definition of vestigial. But rather it’s something that either appears to have lost function, or appears to be designed for something it isn’t capable of doing — a common example is the ostrich wing.
Jon, makes the point, however, that making judgement calls on “functional”, “non-functional” and “inadequate function” are all subjective. And while I agree with him to a certain extent, I find myself scratching my head at certain perplexities in Nature. Take the ostrich wing and put it on a smaller, more aerodynamic creature, and they’d be perfect for flight.
But then again … I do find it humorous how in the book of Job it makes mention of the ostriches foolish tactic of hiding her eggs beneath the sand, unaware that a creature may step on them and break them. The reason? God hath not granted the ostrich with wisdom.
In today’s world we place a demand on God that everything must be 100% purposeful, when it comes to His creation … And yet the ancients seem perfectly okay with admitting certain “flaws” and calling some of His creatures stupid.
But in any case … I digress.
-Tim
I very much enjoyed the video — thank you. I appreciated the speaker, Donald Pothertos, (initial … Not so much in the end) attitude was more science-based than attacking people of faith.
Couple things I’d like to point out.
The analogy of a “bush” rather than a “ladder” is very helpful. One of my first corrected misconceptions was, “if humans evolved from apes why do we still have apes.” <<< this misconception can easily be corrected by replacing the ladder notion. It was humorous the way the speaker mentioned “If Adam was made from dirt why do we stil have dirt?”
19:08 — in this section it was talking about “hydraulic sorting” as discussed by flood geology. Early on I accepted this to a certain extent — however I did not know much about the fossil record, and didn’t imagine too hard what that would look like: smarter more experienced animals getting to higher ground before the floodwaters came. The speaker said that the fossil record is much more complex and that in some areas where creatures like clams and turtles ABOVE dinosaurs, mammals and birds. The “hydraulic sorting” (though it doesn’t have much validity to begin with) makes even less sense in this scenario… How would turtles and clams best dinosaurs and birds in running away from floodwaters?
HOWEVER, his statement still perplexed me, because he clearly stated that clams are not supposed to be above dinosaurs and mammals (and implied, though not explicating stated, those kinds of creature should be found below these creatures with things like crustaceans etc.,) … So while hydraulic sorting is definitely out of the ballpark, what do you do with clams being above dinosaurs and mammals?
38:38 — this is just something odd that I noticed. The fossil in the lower right corner looks very much like a mythical dragon. Four legs, sharp teeth, and wings that are ABOVE the creature and not actually part of the legs. Another site I visited made note that, “no such creature that has wings that are separate from it’s legs have ever been discovered.”
The origins of flood geology are pretty interesting actually … They are first documented historically in the works of George McCready Price, in his notable book called The New Geology, in the 1920s. His radically different ideas about the fossil record weren’t popular until they were resurrected in 1961 with Morris’ & Whitcomb’s famous book, The Genesis Flood. To my knowledge, in the beginning, Morris and Whitcomb make no mention of their inspiration from Price. This partly has to so with the Price’s association with the Seventh Day Adventist church which many people in that day believed to be more of a cult … Morris and Whitcomb however, made similar arguments (though a bit updated) under a bigger Christian umbrella. They did not belong to the SDA denomination, and thus their borrowed ideas became much more palitable to the Christian world at large. It’s only later, once the movement got rolling, that Morris admits where he got his ideas from.
Back to the clip… Though I believed the video was quite informative, my least favorite section was in the last 20 minutes, where the topic became much more political, talking about socialism, abortion, etc., but that aside.
Joshua Moritz (as well as others) have made note that many people in the early days of quote-unquote “evolution denialism” had largely to do with conservative Christian types huge distrust in the (now outdated) idea of eugenics, which was very popular at the time. Like it or not evolutionary theory was connected to the idea of eugenics and selective breeding of people to acquire “preferred results”. William Jennings Bryon, who was apart of the Scopes Trial affair disliked evolutionary theory (where humans were concerned) for his own religous reasons AND reasons against the unethical practice of eugenics (and rightly so). Eugenics is a rather embarrassing aspect of evolution’s teaching history … And while no one holds to those outdated ideas now (well at least most people) they were still a big part of the early culture. It’s disengenous to characterize early “evolution deniers” as rejecting the idea solely on the basis of biblic literalism, when unethical practices (such as sterilization, and separating bad breeders from the good ones) were taking place in the name of the theory.
That being said. Because eugenics was false it does not mean evolution is false. But it is something I think ought to be acknowledged.
-Tim
1 Like
Tim, I like your reference to Job and the ostrich! It has to do with the concept that science has long abandoned, “final causality”. According to Job it’s not that the ostrich’s nature was purposeless, but that God had reasons (not passed on to Job, even then!) for making it thus.
Science rightly decided it had no business trying to guess God’s motivations, limiting itself to easily identifiable “functions” (though even they, metaphysically speaking, are “final causes” - drawing the line is yet another subjective value judgement).
Biologists can usefully comment on the ostrich’s wings, mind you - last week I read that the dinosaur Ornithomimus has been found to have feathers in roughly the same configuration as ostrich - predating wings, so definitionally not vestigial. So useful function will probably be in there unless one believes wings arose by a completely neutral evolutionary route, which would be just another word for “miracle”.
But if we are Christians, let alone theistic evolutionists, we have no business denying final causes, because they are the very heart of the “theistic” side of the equation. We need to understand that, though God might create through evolutionary processes, evolutionary processes do not provide a complete explanation of creation. Confusing that seems to be a trap that evolutionary creation proponents constantly fall into.
If that leaves us wondering how we can then argue for a vestigial organ, then I have a suggested solution - we could abandon the whole concept as a misleading theological argument that has no place in science, no place in theology and, therefore, no place in “evolutionary creation.” Everybody wins, except anti-creationists.
2 Likes
Jon — I’m still going back and forth in my beliefs here, but when I read your some of your thoughtful comments concerning these matters, it helps in keeping my theology more closely aligned with the Bible.
While reading the scientific literature, one can’t avoid the frequent appearance of vestigial organs, where biology is concerned — and it can suck you in if you’re not careful. One has to divide between reasonable conclusions from the data and subjective judgments based on pre-conceived world-views. It’s the difference between theistic evolution and evolutionISM.
-Tim
just a small note about the tail veretrbrate. im not shure its ave rtebrate but it may be a bones. even so- its just longer version of the regular vertebral column.
about the wings of the ostrich- it can be use for balance or for beauty. not for flight. like the picok. by the way- the feathers phylogeny contradict the evolution prediction. Ornithomimus have feathers but more advance species dont have.
i also found this coment about the ostrich wings:
http://www.creationresearch.net/items%20subjects/Vestigial-Organs.html
" I have kept ostriches for 18 years and can testify otherwise.” He goes on to describe how ostriches use their wings for many important functions: thermoregulation; providing stability when running and enabling rapid right angle turns; courtship displays and stability while mating; warning signals and other communication; nest building; and providing shade and shelter for young. ("New Scientist letters 21 Jun 2008, p24
The human tail bone holds the top of the humans rear end muscles together! It curves under because we sit! however I do NOT believe the tail bone ever was tail like a cat has or a dog! Evolutionist love to claim that after years of “evolution” we lost our tail and it was like a monkey tail! If you look in a medical book about it that is NOT pro-evolution it will clear up any confusion you may have about the tail bone! I believe the tail bone has existed Exactly as it always has in humans! One of the problems we have had is that we attempt to ride the fence between evolution and creation on bio-logos and say both are correct,however not to be testy however I must say I in my heart of hearts can NOT believe that to be true. I must be more pro creation than evolution because I personally see too many flaws with evolution. God created us or he did not.Attempting to put both together for me is a challenge indeed.
even more, here is a “walking” shark:
so again- according to the evolution logic- we need to believe that this shark have a land history.
very simply, clams have not died out they are still alive today. So where clam fossils are found above dinosaurs, it means that at some time after 66 million years ago, there was a sea in the location where these dinosaurs died before.
Agree the last 20 minutes of the video was not useful to me either.
Hey Martin.
In regards to the medical literature I’m not sure what you mean? To me medical books are just medical books…
I asked earlier how it is you define a “kind” in the biblical sense and the scientific sense … I’d like to know what you think about this. You seem very confident that wolves are distinct kinds from dog and yet it’s possible to have a half-dog, half-wolf breed. Ken Ham and Kent Hovind don’t even argue about wolves and dogs being distinct kinds … And they are deeply involved in young earth creationism. Even llamas and camels are the same “kind” under Ken Ham’s view.
I think part of our confusion / disagreement is in the way we define creation. I call myself creationist because I believe that God created all things. You define a creationist as someone who believes God created all things, in their exact form, instantaneously. In Genesis 6 God says that he will destroy man whom he has created. However, every person alive at the point was not created instantaneously. They were created in their mother’s womb via procreation. God says that he forms and makes us in the womb … Yet that’s not an instantaneous event. It’s a 9 month process give or take a month. The distinction between God’s direct and indirect action regarding process-creation and instantaneous-creation is an unbiblical dichotomy.
Whether you are a YEC, OEC, or EC — each group agrees with some form of evolution e.g., micro-evolution. Which does not fit with the idea that God created everything as is. The same proposed mechanisms that guide micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same.
-Tim
Hello Guy.
You seem incredibly interested in the topic of walking sharks. I did a Google search on, “Did sharks used to walk on land.” I read all the relevant articles on the issue (just on the first page) and what I found was this:
Only two articles, one from Creation Ministries International, made the conclusion that you made that “walking sharks” were problematic for evolutionary theory. The other one at Answers.com didn’t agree with evolutionary theory, but made no comment regarding the specifics of “walking sharks”.
The other articles I went too, the Epaulette Shark and Walking Fish pieces at Wikipedia, the “Walking shark species found in Indonesia”, and Fish Evolution page at Arizona State University, made no mention of this being a problem for evolutionary theory. It even made mention of the mudskippers, as a possible connection to how fish came to be on land — though of course there’s a lot of we don’t know seeing how we don’t have the entire tape of history at our fingertips.
Once I’m able to post a topic on the issue, I’ll do so, so we can discuss it further — but I have to wait several hours first.
-Tim
hi tim. i doesnt claim that shark use to walk on land. i just show that if we consider the suposse tail as a real one- then we most to conclude that shark also use to walk once(something that it isnt true according to the evolution).