Are you sick of atheists using tailbones and appendixes to try and dis-prove creationism?

Question

tail bones

Your muscles for going to the 'washroom' are attached there, if you did not have your tail bone, you would not be able to 'take a number 2' if you know what I mean.

and appendixes?

Part of the immune system, without which you would be far more likely to get a large host of sicknessess

Answer 1

What of bad backs, tooth shapes, genital hair, & male nipples?

Why are animals that are isolated on islands largely different from animals that can migrate more easily to a different territory (marsupials on Australia, for instance)?

Why do chimpanzees have so many chromosomes that are so close to human chromosomes, and yet different from bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans?

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 2

The fact that a body part is vestigial does not mean that it cannot be adapted to serve a new function. Our rudimentary (vestigial) tails are prominent during embryological development, and the muscles attach there in humans because of the modifications in the pelvis necessary for upright walking.

As for the appendix, it was once part of a large pouch for fermenting cellulose, the cecum. Like the rest of the intestine, it has numerous clusters of immune cells. Our recent diet made the pouch meaningless, but a small remnant with a high concentration of immune cells remained. Despite your assertion, the appendix provides only a slight advantage with intestinal ailments.

Answer 3

The appendix is part of the digestive system, not the immune system. It's a vestigial form of the cecum that we no longer use for digesting plant material (as a horse or a bird does .. they have huge one).. since we consume meat as well. All vertebrates have (or once had) post-anal tails. It's a defining character of the Class of Animals.

That said, I'm not an atheist. I believe in the Creator and that the Creator DID create the entire universe. Science shows us how it works. It's ok to believe evidence when it's there. To ignore it is silly. But that doesn't mean one must demand evidence to understand everything. That's the realm of faith.

Answer 4

I think the point you are missing is that there are organs such as the appendix and tonsils that may have a function but are not necessary for us to live. Our body does not NEED these organs in order to function.

As far as the tailbone...You've lost me there.

Answer 5

How does tailbones and appendixes disprove Creationism? I have never heard such a stupid idea.

Answer 6

The appendix is part of the immune system?? After 3 college-level biology classes and 1 year of medical assistant training I have NEVER heard that! Sources, please?

Answer 7

You're right. There is no need to use tailbones as proof.

Genesis disproves Genesis. Cain found a wife in Nod.

Our ape-like predecessors kept their stout figures for 2 million years because having short legs ironically gave them the upper hand in male-to-male combat for access to mates, finds a new study.

Early hominins in the genus Australopithecus, which lived from 4 million to 2 million years ago, are considered immediate predecessors of the human genus Homo, and had heights of around 3 feet 9 inches for females and 4 feet 6 inches for males.

Until now, the squat physiques of australopiths and other human predecessors were considered an adaptation for climbing in tree canopies.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2585...



NAUTILUS SHELL: Designed or evolved?
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.

Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.


GALÁPAGOS FINCHES show adaptive beak shapes.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the Galápagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991].

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa013&articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2

Answer 8

There is an overwhelming mass of evidence against creationism, not just tailbones and appendixes.

Answer 9

There are way better arguments to disprove creationism than tailbones and appendixes.

Answer 10

Sometimes you must look deeper into these theories before posting a question like this.