(October 29, 2012 at 5:29 pm)Undeceived Wrote: The appendix is a safehouse for good bacteria--helps fight off diseases. The spleen helps filter out old blood cells as well as keeping reserves of blood cells and monocytes.
Neither is necessary and a person can live a perfectly normal life without either. Both functions are carried out adequately by other bodily functions. Worse, neither act as a redundancy to the system they 'support'.
Quote:Jaw sizes have decreased over generations, but wisdom teeth were indeed helpful to earlier humans (we only need to go back a couple hundred years for this to be the case).
Hello and welcome to the concept called 'evolution'.
Quote:The coccyx has a host of functions (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/tailbone.html ). Above all, it is a bone used for support. Nothing about the coccyx screams ‘tail’ except its location and shape. Bottom line, a bone needs to sit in the cavity beneath our vertebrae and the coccyx fits the bill.
Your explanation is 'it is there because it has to be there'? Your all-powerful God could not make it all work without adding a useless appendage?
Quote:Male nipples are an example of design economy. A female’s breast tissue is just as useless as male’s until puberty, meaning the embryonic stage is not the diverging point. This is crucial because it requires random evolutionary processes to develop the nipple before milk came along. Moreover, human evolutionary history claims male and female divergence occurred first in reptiles. Nipples would then require an additional divergence in humans, eliminating males from breastfeeding for no seemingly reason at all. In short, the topic of nipples poses a bigger problem for evolution than it does for an omniscient creator.
Does it? Because I have to say, I do not remember where, in the Bible, it says that humans evolved from reptiles.
It is a crucial problem for the 'omniscient creator' because he put something there, in males, which is of no use whatsoever.
Quote:The question that should be asked is why we don’t find any vestigial DNA—remnants of codes for tissues/organs we do not exhibit on our bodies. The fact we have not suggests humans have always had what current phenotypes show and nothing else. New uses are constantly being discovered. For a long time, 98% of the human genome was pronounced “junk” by over-anxious scientists. Recently, 80% has been discovered to have a use (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/jun...64001.html ) and scientists have no reason to believe the rest does not. The 80% includes over 4 million ‘gene switches.’ Scientists now know that any functioning mutation needs not only the initial mutation but a mutation for the gene switch to turn that new function on. A self-professed rule of science: restrict judgment until the all information comes in. For some reason, evolutionists talking about vestigial organs have ignored it.
Oh come on, a quick peek at Wikipedia explains what should be obvious:
Quote:Similar concepts apply at the molecular level — some nucleic acid sequences in eukaryotic genomes have no known biological function; some of them may be "junk DNA", but it is a difficult matter to demonstrate that a particular sequence in a particular region of a given genome is truly nonfunctional. The simple fact that it is noncoding DNA does not establish that it is functionless. Furthermore, even if an extant DNA sequence is functionless, it does not follow that it has descended from an ancestral sequence of functional DNA. Logically such DNA would not be vestigial in the sense of being the vestige of a functional structure. In contrast pseudogenes have lost their protein-coding ability or are otherwise no longer expressed in the cell. Whether they have any extant function or not, they have lost their former function and in that sense they do fit the definition of vestigiality.
In other words, macroscopic organs can serve no crucial purpose even though its constituent DNA might be vital to this or any number of functions.
