R
royboy
Guest
Sorry if this has been done,
Does this tail like bone, show a relationship between man and beast?
Does this tail like bone, show a relationship between man and beast?
there are also completely useless muscles like the extensor coccyxiswarp981 said:Some people say that this bone is vestigial to a monkey, although the coccyx is an important bone in the body. It has some very important muscles attached to it. (C'mon men, you know the muscles I'm talking about). If your tailbone was removed, you would have much difficulty standing up. Also, you'de be rendered impotent!!
and an incompetent designer.there are alot of flaws that cannot be explained unless you have an incompetent designer or a blind algorithm.Michali said:Most species also have rib cages and back bones. Eyeballs and mouths. An evolutionist can see a common ancestory in this. A creationist can see a basic mold.
Wrong. Some people are born without coccyxes, and other than that they are perfectly normal. No difficulty standing up, no impotence. The muscles that usually attach to the coccyx attach to the hip bones instead.warp981 said:Some people say that this bone is vestigial to a monkey, although the coccyx is an important bone in the body. It has some very important muscles attached to it. (C'mon men, you know the muscles I'm talking about). If your tailbone was removed, you would have much difficulty standing up. Also, you'de be rendered impotent!!
Most? Depends on what you are considering I suppose.Michali said:Most species also have rib cages and back bones. Eyeballs and mouths. An evolutionist can see a common ancestory in this. A creationist can see a basic mold.
Go to www.coccyx.com and read the personal experiences. They refute your statements, particularly about standing. Your comment comes from the occasional baby born without a coccyx. Many of those have coincidental other birth defects affecting continence and impotence. That is, the same developmental defect that causes sacral anagenesis (the technical term) also separately screws up the muscles of the pelvic floor.warp981 said:Some people say that this bone is vestigial to a monkey, although the coccyx is an important bone in the body. It has some very important muscles attached to it. (C'mon men, you know the muscles I'm talking about). If your tailbone was removed, you would have much difficulty standing up. Also, you'de be rendered impotent!!
When humans design paddles, wings, backhoes, and walking appendages, do we use a "basic mold" for each of these? No, we design them from scratch to best perform the task. So why didn't God?Michali said:Most species also have rib cages and back bones. Eyeballs and mouths. An evolutionist can see a common ancestory in this. A creationist can see a basic mold.
I love it when you say that!Jet Black said:there are also completely useless muscles like the extensor coccyxis
Eh? What about simple animals, like some sponges, that exhibit radial symmetry?Michali said:But anyway, there is a basic mold of a nuclei section and appendages.
Only cephalopods have this characteristic.There is also a central area of sensors in most life-forms.
What kind of "basic list" did you have in mind?They could have been created from a basic list. Like: "Ok this one's gonna fly across the ocean, so let's give him wings like a bird, but lets extend them very far for long flights. Let's give him the basic organs and a rib-cage for their protection. We'll give him the bird's eye, but make it able to see reflections of fish under water..." -- So on, and so forth.
No -- this comes right from evolution's PR department.Does this tail like bone, show a relationship between man and beast?
No -- this comes right from evolution's PR department.
It is an attempt to assign animal parts to us, in an attempt to keep the philosophy of evolution looking credible.
"Higher" academia might "see" a relationship between man and beast with this; but just because a nut can fit more than one bolt, doesn't mean everything came from the same hardware store.
No -- this comes right from evolution's PR department.
It is an attempt to assign animal parts to us, in an attempt to keep the philosophy of evolution looking credible.
"Higher" academia might "see" a relationship between man and beast with this; but just because a nut can fit more than one bolt, doesn't mean everything came from the same hardware store.
No it doesn't. Neither does a backache.Sorry if this has been done,
Does this tail like bone, show a relationship between man and beast?
No it doesn't. Neither does a backache.
For one, we are discovering functions for every proposed form of vestigial structures. Even at the molecular level. Scientific progress has been made regarding this one.
And two bacteria remain bacteria.
An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose; and remain perfectly efficient for the other. ... Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object.
Charles Darwin: The Origin of Species: Chapter XIII-MUTUAL AFFINITIES OF ORGANIC BEINGS:MORPHOLOGY:EMBRYOLOGY:RUDIMENTARY ORGANS - Free Online Library