Posted on 10/23/2005 12:06:32 AM PDT by GretchenM
Darwin theorized that what may appear to be useless organs may eventually become useful. The implication would be that at some future time in human history, the appendix will be important. I guess time will tell.
Can you make a dollar too? I need more change:).
LOL!!!
From Darwin -
"Instances could be given of similar varieties being produced from the same species under external conditions of life as different as can well be conceived; and, on the other hand, of dissimilar varieties being produced under apparently the same external conditions. Again, innumerable instances are known to every naturalist, of species keeping true, or not varying at all, although living under the most opposite climates. Such considerations as these incline me to lay less weight on the direct action of the surrounding conditions, than on a tendency to vary, due to causes of which we are quite ignorant."
Even he admits there is a lot he doesn't understand and of course weakens his theory.
Thanks - will ping the list later.
The poll did not ask enough questions. There is also a significant number of people who do not believe in evolution but also may not believe in strict Biblical creation either. The religion of evolution has many secret non-believers!
Darwin theorized that what may appear to be useless organs may eventually become useful....
What about that little tail I have growing out?:)
Just keep it covered until you find a use for it!
I searched for a Biblical position on subatomic particles.
Sadly, the Bible doesn't support a unit of measurement below the cubit.
"Darwin theorized that what may appear to be useless organs may eventually become useful. The implication would be that at some future time in human history, the appendix will be important. I guess time will tell."
That isn't what Darwin or evolutionists in general mean when they speak of vestigial organs. A vestigial organ is one that isn't doing what it's original function was; it may have no detectable function now, but that isn't a requirement to be vestigial. The appendix can have a function now involving the immune system, but it's original function was the digestion of cellulose in ancestral organisms. Another obvious example are the wings of flightless birds. They no longer function for flight but have a use in balancing the bird and so on. They are still by Darwin's definition vestigial. Darwin specifically said that a vestigial organ can have a function now; it doesn't haven't to be useless at all.
Just keep it covered until you find a use for it!
Guess I can't hang around then:).
Amen!
A vestigial organ is one that isn't doing what it's original function was.
Aaaahhhh, finally a reason why I'm not as smart as I used to be. :)
I happen to believe that the answers, if we ever get any here in this life, will come from physicists and not geneticists. All the biologists can demonstrate absolutely is a kind of progressive interrelatedness of life. Then they draw all kinds of unjustified conclusions from that interrelatedness. The trouble with biologists is that they can't be satisfied with the useful thing they've accomplished, and want to play priest. But once you start thinking about time and Who masters it--none of the other stuff matters.
But once you start thinking about time and Who masters it--none of the other stuff matters.
You have good points. Yes, who masters it matters. The "how" of the process is something that nobody can explain fully.
Thanks.
Because, of course, truth is determined by polls...
Well, at least the creationists think it is, they keep turning to polls to "prove" that they must be right.
Scientists, on the other hand, think that truth is better determined by a careful examination of the vast amounts of evidence from the real world, and countless validation tests performed in every conceivable way in order to find out which explanations actually fit the facts and actually work when applied in reality.
Who's more likely to actually find truth?
It has been shown that people without the appendex have a much higher infection rate. So it is not as useless as we guessed.
Just because we do not understand something does not make it useless, it just makes the ameoba that invented it smarter than the evolutionist.
Imagine a flower "evolving" an appendage that matches the female parts of a bug that is not otherwise interested in the flower, when it does not have eyes to see the bug.
Now that takes faith...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.