Man created in god's image

[Undeceived]

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'.

Now you're arguing for just partial uselessness. Where do you draw the line? Just how useful does God have to make every organ? "I think if an organism can live without it God wouldn't have made it." By that logic I don't need my pinkie finger, or hair on my arms, or a tongue that can discern sweetness. In the cases of the appendix and spleen I think you neglected to do your research. Read this: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/...96277.html . Tell me a sixteenth-century cholera sufferer would not have appreciated their appendix. And this: https://csb.mgh.harvard.edu/highlights/t...d-function . 1.2 million people having heart attacks in the next year could benefit from their spleen.

Now I ask, why would evolution develop such refined healing systems? What could they have been before humans supposedly "evolved"? Speculators say the appendix is the remnant of the larger cecum. But if it is the case that the appendix is merely a degraded digestive system, why do 70% of all primate and rodent groups have the organ in the approximately same stage of degradation? Either they miraculously lost the same portions of the cecum DNA all at the same time or evolution has kept around a useless organ for tens of millions of years. And if the organ has been kept so consistently--70% of all these species--why can we find so few other vestigial organs? On an even deeper level, why does every 'vestigial' organ have a use (though you may not consider it significant)? Where are the vestigial organs with absolutely no use whatsoever?

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'.

You helped me see an error in my research. Jaw sizes might not have shrunk--it would even be anti-evolutionary progress for them to do so. The concept I describe is microevolution/adaptation. If involves using the genes already present and reducing the genetic information in the gene pool over time. Everyone agrees this is an active process. What you argue for is macroevolution, or the expanding of the gene pool via random mutations. The shrinking of the jaw--if it had shrunk--would be a result of the elimination of alleles for larger jaws, keeping only the alleles for a smaller jaw. An analogy is people seemingly shrinking over generations. What's really happening is that tall people are having a hard time surviving long enough to pass their genes to their offspring (just an analogy, may not be true). In any development like this, information is lost from the gene pool. 

So we're still left with the question of wisdom teeth. Well, they have their obvious uses when they fit. Why don't they always fit? There are several hypotheses. One blames western diet and habits--we cook our food tender so we don't need them, and our body has responded to the change. Another cites poor nutrition and hygiene--since the problem is not too many teeth, it is how they grow in. Also, orthodontist Jack Cuozzo has presented evidence that humans may be maturing faster today than they used to, not allowing facial bones enough time to develop before the wisdom teeth come in. 

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?

It's not useless, it does everything it needs to. What evidence do you have that the coccyx used to be a tailbone (other than looks)?

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.

It is a crucial problem for the 'omniscient creator' because he put something there, in males, which is of no use whatsoever.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask, what would a male look like without pecs? Why would God make males and females look more different than they have to? Humans like familiarity. The mamillae also provide sexual stimulation, as they have nerves unlike any others in the body. In short, the uses are aesthetic. Which brings up the question: why might evolution randomly develop things 'beautiful' to our eyes?