Started By
Message
re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
Posted on 4/7/14 at 4:45 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Posted on 4/7/14 at 4:45 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:As far as I know, we don't actually grow "tails" in the womb. The "tail" is the coccyx that will eventually be surrounded by legs and such as the embryo develops. But please correct me if I'm wrong about that. It's been a while since I took a biology class.
Why do you think we grow tails in the womb? Why do you think we have a tailbone? This is a legitimate question.
The coccyx, from my understanding, is quite functional. Aside from assisting with defecation and continence, it is a hub where many muscles, tendons, and ligaments are attached and is useful for us when we sit down.
3
Posted on 4/7/14 at 4:53 pm to FooManChoo
Why do men have nipples? That's what I wanna know. 
Posted on 4/7/14 at 4:55 pm to FooManChoo
he coccyx, or tailbone, is the remnant of a lost tail. All mammals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis.[14] This tail is most prominent in human embryos 31–35 days old.[15] The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, has lost its original function in assisting balance and mobility, though it still serves some secondary functions, such as being an attachment point for muscles, which explains why it has not degraded further.
In rare cases congenital defect results in a short tail-like structure being present at birth. Twenty-three cases of human babies born with such a structure have been reported in the medical literature since 1884.[16][17]
I will ask again: Why do you think we grow a tail? People have literally had tails when they were born, it's not an extension or something that protrudes between the legs during the embryonic or fetal stage.
In rare cases congenital defect results in a short tail-like structure being present at birth. Twenty-three cases of human babies born with such a structure have been reported in the medical literature since 1884.[16][17]
I will ask again: Why do you think we grow a tail? People have literally had tails when they were born, it's not an extension or something that protrudes between the legs during the embryonic or fetal stage.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:06 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
As far as I know, we don't actually grow "tails" in the womb. The "tail" is the coccyx that will eventually be surrounded by legs and such as the embryo develops. But please correct me if I'm wrong about that. It's been a while since I took a biology class.
We do have tails in the womb. We also briefly have gills. In evolution, genes are never lost. They are merely turned off. All of us carry a lot of junk DNA throughout our life.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:10 pm to NATidefan
quote:
Why do men have nipples? That's what I wanna know.
Because every human embryo starts out as female. Deep inside your urethra, there's a vestigial clitoris. You're only male because your Y chromosome was triggered to create one very early in your development in the womb.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:20 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Because every human embryo starts out as female. Deep inside your urethra, there's a vestigial clitoris. You're only male because your Y chromosome was triggered to create one very early in your development in the womb.
No, I mean I need the religious reason.
You know, since god made man first... Why'd he give him nipples?Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:22 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:If the "tail" doesn't "go away" as the embryo develops, but turns into the coccyx, then is it really a tail? If the brain developed outside of the head and then became surrounded by the skull, later on, would we say we were all born with a unicorn horn?
I will ask again: Why do you think we grow a tail? People have literally had tails when they were born, it's not an extension or something that protrudes between the legs during the embryonic or fetal stage.
I think we all grow a coccyx as part of our normal development inside the womb. Since it assists with multiple functions in humans, I'm glad it is part of the growth process.
I've heard of several examples where babies are born with a fatty protrusion, a tumor of sorts, or simply additional vertebrae, but I see that as a genetic "mistake" rather than an evidence of evolution.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:22 pm to NATidefan
Sorry, I'm not religious so I can't offer anything in that area.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:23 pm to NATidefan
quote:Who said that Adam had nipples? didn't see that when I was reading through Genesis.
No, I mean I need the religious reason. You know, since god made man first... Why'd he give him nipples?
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:25 pm to FooManChoo
quote:Wait... are you saying man evolved to have nipples?
Who said that Adam had nipples?
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 5:27 pm
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:28 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I've heard of several examples where babies are born with a fatty protrusion, a tumor of sorts, or simply additional vertebrae, but I see that as a genetic "mistake" rather than an evidence of evolution.
You see what you want to see but that only changes perceived reality for you, not for more objective observers.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:31 pm to NATidefan
Of course we did. That is why they don't really do much yet. But just you wait in a couple thousand years I bet our nips start shooting lasers or something awesome like that.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:34 pm to NATidefan
quote:Not at all. I was just addressing the assumption that Adam was created with nipples.
Wait... are you saying man evolved to have nipples?
Nipples tend to be quite sensitive and can be a source for sexual stimulation for males, so I'm not sure they are "useless" as people like to say. But even if they didn't serve a practical purpose today, that doesn't mean it is a proof of evolution.
In fact, Christians who believe "the fall" affected the entire creation could easily say the devolution of creation (loss of genetic information or loss of use/functionality of particular organs or features in organisms) should be expected.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:35 pm to Kentucker
quote:If you think you or anyone else is "objective", then you are fooling yourself.
You see what you want to see but that only changes perceived reality for you, not for more objective observers
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:38 pm to FooManChoo
Don't tell me you believe in the ark as well, to where literally the whole world was flooded.
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 5:40 pm
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:42 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
In fact, Christians who believe "the fall" affected the entire creation could easily say the devolution of creation (loss of genetic information or loss of use/functionality of particular organs or features in organisms) should be expected.
So it's ok for us to have devolved at some point, but not to evolve?
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:43 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Don't tell me you believe in the ark as well, to where literally the whole world was flooded.
Oooo, wait... I wanna bet first.. I say he does.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:48 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If you think you or anyone else is "objective", then you are fooling yourself.
No, you're the one fooling yourself, and others if they listen to you. I adhere to the scientific method. You rely on beliefs.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:59 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If the "tail" doesn't "go away" as the embryo develops, but turns into the coccyx, then is it really a tail? If the brain developed outside of the head and then became surrounded by the skull, later on, would we say we were all born with a unicorn horn?
You obviously haven't seen the Cosmos episode about how the eye evolved. You probably would refuse to watch it because it would reveal how stupid this sounds.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 6:05 pm to TeLeFaWx
"If evolution is real, why are there still monkeys?"
Sounds just about as dumb as that.
Sounds just about as dumb as that.
Page 11 of 49
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News