jonbellion:
lol

KingEbukaNaija:
Can these atheists focus on the Op ?

Dalaman claims that he does not support evolution , does he support the OP ?

damogul:


Did you know that in the 1900s there were about 180 assumed vestigial organs before the number began being trimmed down when they discovered their functions?

Now we have just 5 and even those 5 are still being trimmed down because the Appendix and the coccyx are almost as good as out of that list of 5.

There is no absolute empirical data backing up atavism...merely assumptions and speculations. If the evolutionary link between mans ancestors and man are still speculative then where did the fact that the tail bone being a vestigial organ come from?

Can you show me this empirical truthful link data?

cc seun

the embryonic human tail is in reality the developing coccyx or tail bone a vitally important, fully human feature

Tails are the rear end of an animal's body; in general , the term refers to a distinct, flexible appendage to the torso. It is the part of the body that corresponds roughly to the sacrum and coccyx in mammals, reptiles, and birds.

MrMontella:
Im quite busy..
Well..Im not suprised by the nonsense im seeing here...

that has no importance to my statement...
Stop this red herring..

red herring..
And what do you mean by 5?
5 vestiges in humans or an all-round encompassing figure..?


Here's well respected scientific Journals advocating atavism..as proof of evolution..
Nature.com:Atavism and Human Tails


[url=www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(10)00858-4]Cell.com:Atavism[/url]
[color=red]copy the second link;cell.com to your browser if you intend visiting it...it refused hyperlinking...



[url=onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajmg.a.36234/full]Various Atavism Cases[/url]


Here's a text from a Top creationist website;ICR on the human embryonic Tail..

https://www.icr.org/article/1068

It is this embroyonic tail which fails to regress sometimes that expresses itself as a phenotype..
Hence the human tails in new born babies

so...the embroyonic tail is a developing coccyx...and

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail

---

images of atavistic human tails can be found here


let it sink sire!...take your time and study evolution..
Cheers!

damogul:



Let what sink? Were the initial 180 vestigial organs not debunked to 5?

Is the apendix not about to be removed from that list?

If they are then atavism is an assumption as the other alleged vestigial organs will also be crossed off shortly.

Take your time to understand and sponge this up...EVOLUTION IS A FARCE AND FULL OF ASSUMPTIONS!

damogul:



[s]Let what sink? Were the initial 180 vestigial organs not debunked to 5?

Is the apendix not about to be removed from that list?

If they are they atavism is an assumption as the other alleged vestigial organs will also be crossed off shortly.

Take your time to understand and sponge this up...EVOLUTION IS A FARCE AND FULL OF ASSUMPTIONS![/s]

jonbellion:
lol Your thread has been trashed Sorry

damogul:
was it not the same atavism that gave a seal of approval that man had 180 vestigial organs? What then happened to 175?

If those were debunked then atavism is still an assumption...simple as ABC.

If it was fact then they would not have been debunked. Same way the rest would soon be crossed off just like the apendix was also authoritatively spoken of but is now off that list.

Am I lying?

MrMontella:
Im quite busy..
Well..Im not suprised by the nonsense im seeing here...

that has no importance to my statement...
Stop this red herring..

red herring..
And what do you mean by 5?
5 vestiges in humans or an all-round encompassing figure..?


Here's well respected scientific Journals advocating atavism..as proof of evolution..
Nature.com:Atavism and Human Tails


www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(10)00858-4]Cell.com:Atavism

copy the second link;cell.com to your browser if you intend visiting it...it refused hyperlinking...



[url=onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajmg.a.36234/full]Atavism And Various Atavism Cases[/url]


Here's a text from a Top creationist website;ICR on the human embryonic Tail..

https://www.icr.org/article/1068

It is this embroyonic tail which fails to regress sometimes that expresses itself as a phenotype..
Hence the human tails in new born babies

so...the embroyonic tail is a developing coccyx...and

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail

---

images of atavistic human tails can be found here


let it sink sire!...take your time and study evolution....not these uninformed rambles..
Cheers!

MrMontella:

@the bolded Nope!
Clearly you have no idea what im talking about!

---

also...
Please provide proof of this fabled seal of approval...

If what a person/scientist publishes in his own book is what you call a seal of approval or scientifically reviewed and approved fact...
Then clearly you're lost on a lot of things...

damogul:



I am surprised you dodged replying to doctoraliens debunking of your claims.

damogul:



on the contrary, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Who laid claims to 180 vestigial organs initially was it not Atavism? Yes or no

Who included thr apendix as a vestigial organ was it not atavism? Yes or no

MrMontella:


No and No..
Atavism is the re-appearance of traits lost during our evolutionary journey oga..

damogul:


Were the 180 vestigial organs inclusive of the appendix not seen as traits lost or rendered useless during our evolutionary journey?

damogul:
MrMontella are these people from the same family or are they related?

MrMontella:

how are they my concern pls?

damogul:
[s]This is what you and science are doing...

[b]Hasty Generalization: A little sample is used to arrive at a grand conclusion. Lets assume your local Motorcycle seller sells Bajaj bikes; a hasty generalization is to conclude that all motorcycle sellers in Nigeria only sell Bajaj Motorcycles.

Begging the Question or circular logic. An assumption is used as the basis to prove a conclusion; in turn, that conclusion is used as a basis to prove the original assumption.[/s]

Simply because you noticed a similarity you ASSUME we share the same ancestor (if such is even possible).

Similarity does not prove anything same way the pictures above do not prove those people are related or share the same family tree because THEY DO NOT!

Those are actually identical UNRELATED LOOK ALIKES. You would think they are related but they are not. Genetics may seem similar simply because we are all human but they would not be the same to prove relationship.

[s]
Same way a 70% or alleged 90% or whatever percentage DNA similarity between man and bonobos or chimps do not prove ancestry.

ALL WE HAVE ARE ASSUMPTIONS. PERIOD!

I have made this very simple for you[/s]

MrMontella:

rubbish


when i made my comment i clearly said ''some form of common ancestor''
maybe the translation may be lost to you...
2)Maybe you forgot the post i quoted had to do with ''bible creationism'' i.e man as distinct from animals with no direct links
of which atavism disproves...

3) unlike you...im open to the possibility of an evolutionary designer(s)..the images of atavism i got are even from a Top christian evolutionist site,citing the biological journal

ehya..but my stance is not on look-alike..so i dont know what you're saying...


yes..the same way elements which have seven electrons in their outermost shells always form negative ions etc are hastily called halogens..and is an assumption not a fact right?

damogul:

Red Herring! We are on atavism pls.
Answer my question!

MrMontella:

what question?

damogul:


Of course they wouldnt be your concern especially when your vestigial organ argument has fallen on its face

Who is Robert Wiedersheim? Look him up. Below is an extract from wikipedia

He picked up on Darwin’s concept of “rudimentary” organs such as listed in the The Descent of Man:


Although Wiedersheim's originally published list contains 86 items later interpretations enlarged his list to 180 vestiges.

damogul:


What happened to 175 of the 180 originally declared vestigial organs?