Cricket
New member
Sounded completely false to me.That's a very minor prediction and it's one that had a good likelihood of being correct. I'm not sure the evidence is such that it's truly *wrong*.
tt
Sounded completely false to me.That's a very minor prediction and it's one that had a good likelihood of being correct. I'm not sure the evidence is such that it's truly *wrong*.
Sounded completely false to me.
tt
Uhh no. Especially not in this case. It's obvious what fish use their fins for, evolution or no. A small fin with very little area to guide water that most fish do perfectly well without is easy to pick out as "probably not very important". And you could do that without accepting evolution at all. But evolution explains why it might still be there.you can not use vestigial organs as proof since it assumes the very thing you are trying to prove, which is evolution.
Nope. Vestigial traits are things that are LOST or reduced during evolution. If evolution were only loss there would be no complex animals.one can conclude that all organs are vestigal when compared to the proto cell or any supposed ancestor that we supposedly evloved from. thus rendering the word vestigial completely meaningless within evolutionary biology.
Failed predictions are an indicator of a weak theory.
tt
It is almost certainly vestigial, since it no longer serves its original function,
but apparently has evolved into a sensory organ.
Jefferson;2958580 [b said:* Dinosaur Death Pose[/b]: Fossils of dinosaurs all over the world are found with their heads turned backwards. Experiments show that birds buried in a watery graves also have their heads turned backwards in the same manner. This is more evidence of a global flood. Bob would like to see if any friends of BEL would be interested in replicating experiments like the ones discussed during the program.
Failed predictions are an indicator of a weak theory.
tt
Best examples are loss of limbs in whales, snakes, manatees etc. Most of these animals retain parts of pelvises or reduced legs. Again, evolution explains WHY the remnants are there. Why would God create some whales from scratch with bits of pelvis inside?
What evidence do you have that it ever served any other function?
Apparently... in light of the assumption that evolution is true to begin with. It doesn't seem so apparent to those who don't hold the same assumptions.
nope, vestigial refers to the original function(circular reasoning) being loss or reduced. like i said before the coccyx is considered vestigial in 'apes'. not because it lacks function or has reduced function but that it lost its original function.Nope. Vestigial traits are things that are LOST or reduced during evolution. If evolution were only loss there would be no complex animals.
To confuse darwinist like you who use circular arguments against Him.Best examples are loss of limbs in whales, snakes, manatees etc. Most of these animals retain parts of pelvises or reduced legs. Again, evolution explains WHY the remnants are there. Why would God create some whales from scratch with bits of pelvis inside?
wiki:
Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms that have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution
talkorgins:
A vestigial character is reduced and rudimentary compared to the same complex structure in other organisms
so Barbarian will you go on record and admit that talkorgins is wrong on vestigial organs.
the coccyx is considered vestigial even though apes do not have tails.
so its considered vetigial to the supposed ape ancestors. so using that criteria, one can conclude that all organs are vestigal when compared to the proto cell or any supposed ancestor
you can not use vestigial organs as proof since it assumes the very thing you are trying to prove, which is evolution.
What evidence do you have that it ever served any other function?
Consistent with speculations in the literature, our results show that the adipose fin may function to control vortices enveloping the caudal fin during swimming or, alternatively, function as a passive precaudal sensor of turbulent flow. Phylogenetic persistence of this trait among multiple groups of early bony fishes is probably due to its hydrodynamic attributes rather than developmental constraints, and the current widespread practice in fisheries of removing the adipose fin as a marking technique may have significant biological costs.
Apparently... in light of the assumption that evolution is true to begin with.
It doesn't seem so apparent to those who don't hold the same assumptions.
Apes do not have tails. the application of vestigial could apply to the entire body, therefore rendering the word completely useless in evolutionary biology.We have tails. They are just vestigial. Same bones, muscles, nerves, etc. as in primates that have prehensile/balancing tails.
we lost the original function of the Broca's area in the human species unless you believe that humans have same speech patterns to the other apes. Humans don't have hooves, So I don't see your point on that one.Nope. Broca's area, for example. Or hooves. Or any of a million other things.
:rotfl:Nope. In fact, vestigial organs were one of the reasons evolutionary theory was first developed. You have it backwards. They were examined by people who didn't accept evolution, and were one of the reasons they came to realize evolution had happened. You might want to look up "homologous" to learn why this is so.
It seems it minimized drag, but now the evidence indicates that it works to sense the environment, to allow fish to swim more efficiently.
Again, the evidence is what matters, and I don't buy your postmodern idea that the truth is whatever you want to make of it.
no wonder that I have a hard time communicating with Darwinists. Thanks for clearing up that misconception :thumb:Broca's area?
Yes, Jeff, I do think that we have the same speech patterns as other apes.
Apes don't use speech as we do, therefore vestigial.That's why they can use our sign language and understand our symbols.
The idea was that the fin had no function. That idea was shown to be false.If it's not doing the normal function of a fin, it's vestigial. Plus, given the relatively small impact of it's removal can probably still be considered vestigial from that perspective
The idea was that the fin had no function. That idea was shown to be false.
tt
Science really has no issue with determining that what it suggested earlier was incorrect based on new information. As opposed to those who must accept the oral tradition of Bronze Age shepherds or risk mythical hell fire.
I don't understand what you mean. Are you aware that an evolutionary prediction was just shown false? Are you going to keep holding as strongly to the theory or has the theory been weakened?
tt