Just A Little Something To Piss Off Creationist Morons

[Cinjin]

You are wasting your time Cain

I know ... but just in case someone else is curious:

Many organisms show features of appallingly bad design. This is because evolution via natural selection cannot construct traits from scratch; new traits must be modifications of previously existing traits. This is called historical constraint. A few examples of bad design imposed by historical constraint:

In parthenogenetic lizards of the genus Cnemdophorus, only females exist. Fertility in these lizards is increased when another lizard engages in pseudomale behavior and attempts to copulate with the first lizard. These lizards evolved from a sexual species so this behaviour makes some sense. The hormones for reproduction were likely originally stimulated by sexual behaviour. Now, although they are parthenogenetic, simulated sexual behaviour increases fertility. Fake sex in a parthenogenetic species doesn't sound like good design to me.

In African locust, the nerve cells that connect to the wings originate in the abdomen, even though the wings are in the thorax. This strange "wiring" is the result of the abdomen nerves being co-opted for use in flight. A good designer would not have flight nerves travel down the ventral nerve cord past their target, then backtrack through the organism to where they are needed. Using more materials than necessary is not good design.

In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better.

Perhaps one of the most famous examples of how evolution does not produced designed, but "jury-rigged" traits is the panda's thumb. If you count the digits on a panda's paw you will count six. Five curl around and the "thumb" is an opposable digit. The five fingers are made of the same bones our (humans and most other vertebrates) fingers are made of. The thumb is constructed by enlarging a few bones that form the wrist in other species. The muscles that operate it are "rerouted" muscles present in the hand of vertabrates (see S.J. Gould book "The Panda's Thumb" for an engaging discussion of this case). Again, this is not good design.

There you go RDK ... and I can list a multitude of sources ... not just one book full of absurdities, fairy tales, and contradictions.

[RDK]

Even if you could argue that complete workable systems could randomly occur, they do the function for which they were designed. The nerve network is complete. The connections to the brain are there. And did I fail to mention that DNA sequencing has to follow this newly constructed body part, so that it is not just a one off mistake, it can make duplicates of itself in the reproductive tract. Just because it appears stupid that there are animals with variety, it should not surprise you that there are oddities in all forms of life. You just pointed them out. Also, this myth that it takes millions of years for adaptations to occur could never make easier the idea that an animal would have to wait a long time for newly forming parts to become totally useful. How often do you observe animals with all kinds of experimental parts hanging all over them waiting for miilions of years for them to become active functional body parts. Notice that the parts that animals have are used from the outset. Each one forms some useful function for the benefit of the animal. Do not give me rare exceptions to this rule. Most all animals have the capacity to use every part appointed to them.

[Cinjin]

Even if you could argue that complete workable systems could randomly occur, they do the function for which they were designed. The nerve network is complete. The connections to the brain are there. And did I fail to mention that DNA sequencing has to follow this newly constructed body part, so that it is not just a one off mistake, it can make duplicates of itself in the reproductive tract. Just because it appears stupid that there are animals with variety, it should not surprise you that there are oddities in all forms of life. You just pointed them out. Also, this myth that it takes millions of years for adaptations to occur could never make easier the idea that an animal would have to wait a long time for newly forming parts to become totally useful. How often do you observe animals with all kinds of experimental parts hanging all over them waiting for miilions of years for them to become active functional body parts. Notice that the parts that animals have are used from the outset. Each one forms some useful function for the benefit of the animal. Do not give me rare exceptions to this rule. Most all animals have the capacity to use every part appointed to them.

Even if these were the only "rare exceptions" (which of course they are not - the human body itself is flawedhttp://www.health24.com/Man/General/748-771,40085.asp) they still serve to disprove your unsubstantiated ideas. I see a lot of feux-science in that rebuttal of yours and I'm beginning to think this is going to be a massive effort in futility.

Should've listened to you rev jer.

[wanglung88]

you guys wanna see adaptation of environment. this is the real adaptation of environment guys... the real stuff

http://www.ranker.com/list/the-absolute-...an-gilmore

[Zen Badger]

It is an interesting thing about the idea of evolution. Each new part that each animal creates for itself does not know in advance that it is even needed at all, much less be connected completly with billions of cells organizing themselves into order to produce something that the animal doesn't even know that it needs. Then when this item magically appears, it fits perfectly into the structure of the animal with full function and beauty. Oh, were not done yet. This new apparatus has just learned how to reproduce itself so that more of these accidental occurances can happen. Wow! And you atheists were telling me about preaching insane concepts. Trying to get me to believe that there was accidental organized creation. Want to carry the absurd any further? I love to talk on this subject.

From the content of this post it is clear that you've gotten your (mis)understanding of how Evolution works from cretinist websites like AIG etc.
Since it is patently obvious that you are,
A) utterly ignorant of how Evolution really works, and
B) completely uninterested in discovering how it really works.

I consider it a complete waste of my time debating it with you.

So go and read some REAL books on the subject and then come back and talk to us.

[lilphil1989]

Even if you could argue that complete workable systems could randomly occur, they do the function for which they were designed. The nerve network is complete. The connections to the brain are there.

No-one has ever claimed that there was once a nerveless organism that gave birth to an organism with a fully functional nervous system such as we see in modern mammals. You're right that such a claim would be silly, but that is not what is claimed by the theory of natural selection.

Also, this myth that it takes millions of years for adaptations to occur could never make easier the idea that an animal would have to wait a long time for newly forming parts to become totally useful.

Are a few light-sensing molecules selectively advantageous? Yes.
Are a lot of light-sensing molecules more advantageous? Yes.
Is the ability to form a basic image in the brain more advantageous? Yes.
Is a modern day eye even more so? Yes

At every step in the evolutionary process the precursors to modern-day organs must have given their possessors an advantage over their peers, otherwise they wouldn't have been selected for.

And the idea of "forming organs" is erroneous, because natural selection is not working to a blueprint. So no-one is claiming that organisms carry "parts" that might happen to be useful in a few million years.
If something doesn't give an increased chance of survival or reproduction right now, it won't be selected for.

Notice that the parts that animals have are used from the outset. Each one forms some useful function for the benefit of the animal. Do not give me rare exceptions to this rule. Most all animals have the capacity to use every part appointed to them.

No, not always. The mutations that are useful are the ones that propagate throught the population. The ones that are not useful are not selected for. And those that are harmful are selected against, and tend to die out.

[Gawdzilla]

So, have we pissed off at least one creationist?

[Thor]

Notice that the parts that animals have are used from the outset. Each one forms some useful function for the benefit of the animal. Do not give me rare exceptions to this rule. Most all animals have the capacity to use every part appointed to them.

Okay, smart guy. Explain why men have nipples. Why would your "brilliant" creator put nipples on men? They serve absolutely no functional purpose. And while you're at it, try explaining why we get goose bumps when we're cold or frightened. Evolution can explain both of these things. Can you?

[Gawdzilla]

Notice that the parts that animals have are used from the outset. Each one forms some useful function for the benefit of the animal. Do not give me rare exceptions to this rule. Most all animals have the capacity to use every part appointed to them.

Okay, smart guy. Explain why men have nipples. Why would your "brilliant" creator put nipples on men? They serve absolutely no functional purpose. And while you're at it, try explaining why we get goose bumps when we're cold or frightened. Evolution can explain both of these things. Can you?

Foreskin? Testicles? Uterus? Ovaries? Not really useful at birth.

[Thor]

Foreskin?

Why would a supposedly brilliant being put foreskin on a male's penis and then give instructions that the foreskin is to be cut off shortly after birth? What is the sense in that?