The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 07-11-2012, 01:30 PM
Sitnam Sitnam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by John DiFool View Post
Has this thread jumped the (reef) shark yet?
I hope not. There are moments on the SD when someone is so wrong it is epic, this is one of those times.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #252  
Old 07-11-2012, 01:30 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 40,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sitnam View Post
If I infringe on the copyright of the Bible, who will sue me?
Funny you should ask: From Wiki
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki
The Authorized Version is in the public domain in most of the world. However, in the United Kingdom, it is protected under perpetual Crown Copyright. The rights are held by the British Crown, which licenses publishers to reproduce it under letters patent. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the letters patent are held by the Queen's Printer, and in Scotland by the Scottish Bible Board. The office of Queen's Printer has been associated with the right to reproduce the Bible for centuries, the earliest known reference coming in 1577. In the 18th century all surviving interests in the monopoly were bought out by John Baskett. The Baskett rights descended through a number of printers and, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Queen's Printer is now Cambridge University Press, who inherited the right when they took over the firm of Eyre & Spottiswoode in 1990.[135]

Other royal charters of similar antiquity grant Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press the right to produce the Authorized Version independently of the Queen's Printer. In Scotland the Authorized Version is published by Collins under licence from the Scottish Bible Board. The terms of the letters patent prohibit any other than the holders, or those authorized by the holders, from printing, publishing or importing the Authorized Version into the United Kingdom. The protection that the Authorized Version, and also the Book of Common Prayer, enjoy is the last remnant of the time when the Crown held a monopoly over all printing and publishing in the United Kingdom.
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 07-11-2012, 01:31 PM
simster simster is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by reef shark View Post
If you dont believe me, translate the KJV back into greek and then hebrew yourself. The proof is there, dont believe anybody based on word of mouth alone.
Have you done this? What is your background in translation?
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 07-11-2012, 01:33 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
I'll cop to being annoyed for about five minutes, but the main point of my objection to the "are there apes in your ancestry?" thing is that one, it's wrong; two, it's a stupid thing to say for several different reasons; and three, if reef shark is going to blame evolution for an increase in crime, being 'un-Christian' about it contradicts his point even though he was also wrong about crime statistics and the start date for the teaching of evolution in schools, not to mention the logic behind the entire proposition.
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 07-11-2012, 01:39 PM
Latro Latro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral Rejection View Post
Why did God wait until 1611 for the "closest translation?" Couldn't he have divinely inspired someone a little quicker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by reef shark View Post
Closest translation into ENGLISH. It took a genius that spoke 8 languages (William Tyndale) to do it.
That doesn't answer the question.
Why did he have to wait for a genius to come along?
Why are earlier translations, like the Wycliff bible, or later translations, not perfect?

IOW what is preventig the Almighty God from writing clearly?

Last edited by Latro; 07-11-2012 at 01:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 07-11-2012, 01:41 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latro View Post
IOW what is preventig the Almighty God from writing clearly?
Bad grades in penmanship?
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 07-11-2012, 01:46 PM
Gagundathar Gagundathar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Come on, y'all. You know very well that YHWH didn't actually 'write' anything.
He inspired humans to do it.
And it was sort of like the parlor game, Telephone, from that point onward.
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 07-11-2012, 01:52 PM
Astral Rejection Astral Rejection is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
reef shark, I'm going to take a stab at demonstrating evolution in a fairly visible way, because you seem unmoved by genetic evidence. I expect you'll dismiss this as you did the evidence for whales and horses earlier, but I'm talking about something that interests me, so it'll be fun to try to persuade you.

Back in the Cenezoic, there were a group of birds called the Phorusrhacids, which are more awesomely known as "Terror Birds." These large, carnivorous birds stood about 10 feet tall and lived somewhere between 30 and 1.8 million years ago, with some evidence suggesting they may have lived even longer. One such Terror Bird had an eagle-shaped skull and is possibly the largest bird ever discovered. They represent an extinct class of birds, and are most closely related to Falcons, Parrots, and Passerines (song birds).

These Terror Birds, and especially Titanus Walleri, were the apex predators of their time. The fossil record shows the Phorusrhacids increasing in size as the years tick on, with new off-shoot species appearing. I trust you know enough about how animals work to realize that between most species, interbreeding isn't possible. As new Phorusrhacids appear in the fossil record over the millions of years, we've finally arrived at my question to you: without evolution, where did all of these new, distinct, increasingly-massive bird species come from?
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 07-11-2012, 01:55 PM
Latro Latro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by reef shark View Post
Do you know how fossils are even formed? By burial. Hence a flood.
Or floods, plural.
Floods are quite a regular occurence, here on earth.

Or an animal can sink to the bottom of some lake or river or sea and become buried in the mud.

So, I'm sorry, but fossils are by no means indicative of some worldwide flood, as described in your jewish mythbook.
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 07-11-2012, 01:56 PM
Lobohan Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagundathar View Post
Come on, y'all. You know very well that YHWH didn't actually 'write' anything.
Quote:
He inspired humans to do it.
Yeah, about that, I hate to bring it up… but I think He might not have done that either.
Reply With Quote
  #261  
Old 07-11-2012, 01:59 PM
Gagundathar Gagundathar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
Yeah, about that, I hate to bring it up… but I think He might not have done that either.
What?
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:10 PM
CurtC CurtC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral Rejection View Post
As new Phorusrhacids appear in the fossil record over the millions of years, we've finally arrived at my question to you: without evolution, where did all of these new, distinct, increasingly-massive bird species come from?
Which is closely related to my question. If you look at the animals that were around some time ago, it's a different set of species from what we have now, and for each time interval that you go back, you get yet a different set of animals that were alive.

Did God create, then wipe out, then create again, and again and again? But he changed his design only in small steps each time! It's as though God has been tweaking his designs, making small changes at each step, as he learns what works better and what's not so good.

Is your explanation something like that, reef shark?
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:19 PM
Latro Latro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by CurtC View Post
Did God create, then wipe out, then create again, and again and again? But he changed his design only in small steps each time! It's as though God has been tweaking his designs, making small changes at each step, as he learns what works better and what's not so good.
But then the mistery grows.

Dinosaurs/birds are better designed than mammals. Better eyes, better bones, better oxygen-to-muscle systems.
Which stands to reason as they were created after mammals.

Why then would God (nearly) wipe out the later, better design to let the older mammal design repopulate earth?
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:24 PM
Rubixcube Rubixcube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latro View Post
But then the mistery grows.

Dinosaurs/birds are better designed than mammals. Better eyes, better bones, better oxygen-to-muscle systems.
Which stands to reason as they were created after mammals.

Why then would God (nearly) wipe out the later, better design to let the older mammal design repopulate earth?
Those raptors were just too clever for their own good, they kept kept flanking him, it made him mad.

Last edited by Rubixcube; 07-11-2012 at 02:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:25 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by reef shark View Post
Isnt that just a shark?

Once again, it is marked as a transitional creature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils

And once again, it is not only that one, it is clear that you still think there are no transitional fossils so I think you are not here to see the evidence but only to proselytize.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 07-11-2012 at 02:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:25 PM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
I've never forked over $$$ for pay-per-view, but if they're going to show Illuminati v. Jesus it might be worth the money.
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:28 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 9,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latro View Post
But then the mistery grows.

Dinosaurs/birds are better designed than mammals. Better eyes, better bones, better oxygen-to-muscle systems.
Which stands to reason as they were created after mammals.

Why then would God (nearly) wipe out the later, better design to let the older mammal design repopulate earth?
Don't we mammals have better noses and better reproductive systems, at least? Are there any other advantages for mammals? The placenta has got to count for something.
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:30 PM
Gagundathar Gagundathar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Sunday, SUNDAY, SUNDAY
In the Arena!
A Cage Match!!
Two Entities Enter, ONLY ONE Exits!

Illuminati vs. Jesus!!!
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:31 PM
Astral Rejection Astral Rejection is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagundathar View Post
Sunday, SUNDAY, SUNDAY
In the Arena!
A Cage Match!!
Two Entities Enter, ONLY ONE Exits!

Illuminati vs. Jesus!!!
"You paid for the whole seat but you'll only need the edge!
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:39 PM
Deeg Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,097
6 pages in one day? I think this thread counts as a post-bumping exercise. =P
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:43 PM
Latro Latro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Don't we mammals have better noses and better reproductive systems, at least?
Do we?
Vultures, for instance, have excellent smell.
Have you ever seen birds copulate? It's over in a second.

Quote:
Are there any other advantages for mammals? The placenta has got to count for something.
What exactly is the huge advantage of long pregnancy + live-birth + care for young over short pregnancy + care for eggs + care for young?

I think a lot of women would rather lay an egg that came out more easily than a baby.
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:45 PM
mlees mlees is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Antibob View Post
The "accurate" translation of any text from any other language is a rather subjective thing at best, anyway. Direct, literal translation of many phrases often don't make sense in other languages, so translators need to have some freedom to interpret intent as well, which is itself dependent on social and cultural norms.
Joshua, when the walls fell.
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:51 PM
Inner Stickler Inner Stickler is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latro View Post

What exactly is the huge advantage of long pregnancy + live-birth + care for young over short pregnancy + care for eggs + care for young?
Laying eggs is less stressful on the mother but giving birth to live young means less danger from predators and weather. If you'd like to read more about it, I found this article on the subject.
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:56 PM
CurtC CurtC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latro View Post
Do we?
Vultures, for instance, have excellent smell.
Have you ever seen birds copulate? It's over in a second.
But that's a disadvantage. The pumping action with humans serves the function of removing sperm from other males, therefore giving a better chance of passing on the genes of the male who does the pumping.

Plus, it's kinda nice.
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:59 PM
Revtim Revtim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latro View Post
That doesn't answer the question.
Why did he have to wait for a genius to come along?
Why are earlier translations, like the Wycliff bible, or later translations, not perfect?

IOW what is preventig the Almighty God from writing clearly?
Hell, if an omnipotent god actually created us and wanted us to know of its existence and what it wants from us, I don't see why we wouldn't simply be born with that knowledge.
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 07-11-2012, 03:08 PM
Great Antibob Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlees View Post
Joshua, when the walls fell.
Gilgamesh and Enkidu, at Uruk.
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 07-11-2012, 03:17 PM
Latro Latro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inner Stickler View Post
Laying eggs is less stressful on the mother but giving birth to live young means less danger from predators and weather. If you'd like to read more about it, I found this article on the subject.
Interesting, thanks.

But the article itself is not so sure about the advantages of live birth.
The one convincing advantage is , as you mentioned, temperature control.
A womb can keep a more regular temperature than an egg in the cold or heat.

I don't see how protection from predators is easier. Both still need a nest/denn and protection by the parents. In the case of eggs both parents can protect the eggs. The highly pregnant mammal female would be at a disadvantage, I would say.
Although she is still more mobile than an egg, to get away from danger.

What the article seems to be saying is that it just kind of happens. Sometimes eggs stay inside longer and longer.

Last edited by Latro; 07-11-2012 at 03:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 07-11-2012, 03:27 PM
Inner Stickler Inner Stickler is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Well, if one were clearly advantageous over the other, you'd think the disadvantaged form would go extinct, no?
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 07-11-2012, 03:32 PM
Latro Latro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inner Stickler View Post
Well, if one were clearly advantageous over the other, you'd think the disadvantaged form would go extinct, no?
No, why would it?

Only if they were in direct competition over sources, in an area they couldn't escape.

There are still plenty of 'lower' lifeforms around, despite there being vastly more efficient creatures.



Oh, hang on. I interpreted that wrongly, I think.

You're saying there isn't a clear advantage.

Last edited by Latro; 07-11-2012 at 03:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 07-11-2012, 03:38 PM
Latro Latro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Anyway, isn't this vastly more interesting than: "And on the fifth day god created birds."
Reply With Quote
  #281  
Old 07-11-2012, 03:40 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: 847 mi. from Cecil
Posts: 29,073
It's threads like this that make me wish Dio was still here.
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 07-11-2012, 03:50 PM
Filbert Filbert is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latro View Post
That doesn't answer the question.
Why did he have to wait for a genius to come along?
Why are earlier translations, like the Wycliff bible, or later translations, not perfect?

IOW what is preventig the Almighty God from writing clearly?
Well, obviously, He wanted many versions of the Bible, all slightly different, and some more successful than others...
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 07-11-2012, 03:51 PM
Astral Rejection Astral Rejection is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latro View Post
Anyway, isn't this vastly more interesting than: "And on the fifth day god created birds."
I can't wait to here about how "And on the 2,190,000,000,000th day, God created Terror Birds..."
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 07-11-2012, 04:01 PM
Drunky Smurf Drunky Smurf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
It's threads like this that make me wish Dio was still here.
Ah, hell no. This thread would be up to 48 pages by now and 98% of that would be them two going back and forth.

Besides the people responding here have done a great job explaining evolution to reef shark he is just refusing to listen or learn.
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 07-11-2012, 04:03 PM
Latro Latro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral Rejection View Post
I can't wait to here about how "And on the 2,190,000,000,000th day, God created Terror Birds..."
and on the 2,190,000,001,204th day they all drowned in the flood.

Which reminds me.

If so many species became extinct during the flood...
What is the creationist's "explanation" that apparently not all kinds of animals were taken on board the ark?
Doesn't the bible state that specimens from each animal were brought on board?
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 07-11-2012, 04:06 PM
Smapti Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 6,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral Rejection View Post
So far, we have the textbook manufacturers, several presidents, school districts around the globe, individual teachers and administrators, 9/11 airline pilots, military personnel, WW2-era pearl harbor survivors, the entire government of Japan, the illuminati and the masons, scientists, "evolutionists," Jews, Muslims, the papacy, and probably many, many more, and all of them are involved in a centuries-spanning global conspiracy to hide the truth of Jesus and creationism.
Yo dawg, I heard you like conspiracies, so I put a conspiracy in your conspiracy so you can theorize while you theorize.

Last edited by Smapti; 07-11-2012 at 04:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 07-11-2012, 04:07 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 35,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Antibob View Post
Gilgamesh and Enkidu, at Uruk.
Darrow and Bryan, in the courtroom.
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 07-11-2012, 04:07 PM
Latro Latro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.
hmm, I guess it does..


NIV, of course, God's latest edition.

Last edited by Latro; 07-11-2012 at 04:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 07-11-2012, 04:10 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 35,118
I ain't reading this entire thread, but anyone doubting the existence of transitional species should pop on over to Ano Nuevo California to catch the elephant seals.
They can only eat in the water, and breed on land, so cows have to store up food for their entire breeding period. Piss poor design there, God, but makes sense if they are in transition from the land to the sea.

BTW, the Flood may be originally Jewish, but when I learned the Bible in Hebrew school my teachers were smart enough not to even pretend it really happened. And they read Hebrew and didn't need a translation, unlike some other Bible lovers I can name.
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 07-11-2012, 04:15 PM
Latro Latro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
BTW, the Flood may be originally Jewish.
Except, it isn't.
You lot nicked it from the Babylonians, probably during your little stay there.

Last edited by Latro; 07-11-2012 at 04:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 07-11-2012, 04:23 PM
DrFidelius DrFidelius is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by reef shark View Post
It has to be worded differently in order to obtain a copyright. Or else they would be sued.

To everyone: sorry if i made you angry, that wasnt my intention. I need to take a break from this, but i will be back later. All the best to you.
Angry? Yes, but not with you. I am absolutely furious with whomever convinced you that you need to ignore the subtle complexities of Nature and the Universe in order to have a relationship with the Almighty.
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 07-11-2012, 04:40 PM
x-ray vision x-ray vision is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: N.J.
Posts: 4,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Whales have floating, unattached tiny hip-bones that do nothing- pretty much the definition of a vestigial structure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reef shark View Post
Those two tiny bones are used for reproduction.
Can you provide evidence for this claim, please?
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 07-11-2012, 05:09 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 9,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray vision View Post
Can you provide evidence for this claim, please?
He's thinking of snakes. In whales, those tiny bones are undetectable unless one dissects a dead whale- there is no protuberance in the skin. But it's exactly what one would expect had whales evolved from four-legged mammals.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-11-2012 at 05:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 07-11-2012, 05:12 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: 847 mi. from Cecil
Posts: 29,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray vision View Post
Can you provide evidence for this claim, please?
I doubt he's coming back, but he only has one cite anyway:

http://www.godandscience.org/

it's in there somewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 07-11-2012, 05:31 PM
Der Trihs Der Trihs is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latro View Post
But the article itself is not so sure about the advantages of live birth.
The one convincing advantage is , as you mentioned, temperature control.
A womb can keep a more regular temperature than an egg in the cold or heat.

I don't see how protection from predators is easier. Both still need a nest/denn and protection by the parents. In the case of eggs both parents can protect the eggs. The highly pregnant mammal female would be at a disadvantage, I would say.
Although she is still more mobile than an egg, to get away from danger.
She can also fight back or call for help, while an egg is passive. A small animal that could break through the shell of a "human egg" and eat the contents would find itself smashed with the nearest heavy object if it tried that with a pregnant woman. And an egg isn't just immobile in itself; it immobilizes one or both parents. A pregnant animal is a lot more mobile than one tied to a nest. And that's not just good for avoiding danger; it also means that they can move on to better feeding grounds, or follow along with the rest of their nomadic herd/pack/tribe.

Last edited by Der Trihs; 07-11-2012 at 05:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 07-11-2012, 06:07 PM
Smeghead Smeghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
He's thinking of snakes. In whales, those tiny bones are undetectable unless one dissects a dead whale- there is no protuberance in the skin. But it's exactly what one would expect had whales evolved from four-legged mammals.
I've seen other creationists claim that in whales, the bones are used to strengthen the pelvic area during birth. I've never seen that claim made by actual scientists, but then I haven't gone looking for it.

Ultimately, it's irrelevant, because the structure is still vestigial regardless of whether or not it's picked up a new, secondary use. Ostrich wings are vestigial even though they're used for mating, because that's not the original, ancestral use for which they evolved. Our appendix is vestigial even though it's picked up a secondary purpose as a home for useful gut bacteria, for the same reason. Creationists, unsurprisingly, have never acknowledged this point that I've ever seen. Someone in their community has declared that "vestigial = useless", and they've just picked that up and run with it despite it being completely wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 07-11-2012, 06:19 PM
x-ray vision x-ray vision is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: N.J.
Posts: 4,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeghead View Post
Ultimately, it's irrelevant, because the structure is still vestigial regardless of whether or not it's picked up a new, secondary use. Ostrich wings are vestigial even though they're used for mating, because that's not the original, ancestral use for which they evolved.
But the creationist will claim that is the current purposes are the only purposes and that the "evolutionist" has failed to prove vestigiality (adding new word to Firefox dictionary). Either that or "but it's still a bird- it's macroevolution I don't accept."
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 07-11-2012, 06:56 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 9,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeghead View Post
I've seen other creationists claim that in whales, the bones are used to strengthen the pelvic area during birth. I've never seen that claim made by actual scientists, but then I haven't gone looking for it.

Ultimately, it's irrelevant, because the structure is still vestigial regardless of whether or not it's picked up a new, secondary use. Ostrich wings are vestigial even though they're used for mating, because that's not the original, ancestral use for which they evolved. Our appendix is vestigial even though it's picked up a secondary purpose as a home for useful gut bacteria, for the same reason. Creationists, unsurprisingly, have never acknowledged this point that I've ever seen. Someone in their community has declared that "vestigial = useless", and they've just picked that up and run with it despite it being completely wrong.
Sure, but he's also wrong about any function for whale's hip bones- and I think it's important to point out the many facts he's got wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 07-11-2012, 06:58 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 35,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latro View Post
Except, it isn't.
You lot nicked it from the Babylonians, probably during your little stay there.
Gilgamesh and Enkidu, glug, glug, glug.
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 07-11-2012, 07:01 PM
DrFidelius DrFidelius is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Gilgamesh and Enkidu, glug, glug, glug.
Utnapishtim, as the waters rose.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.