Evolution is a Fact #37 - Testicles

by cofty 47 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Esse quam videri

  Evolution is a fact #37.

  '...The evidence is irrefutable. The tetes took a wrong turn and passed the wrong side of the ureter - the tube that carries urine from the kidneys to the bladder. In future generations there was no option other than for the vas deferens to just keep getting longer so that it now travels from the scrotum up through the pelvis over the ureter, over the pubic bone and back down through the pelvis to the penis...'

  That's it? That's evidence of evolution?

  From Evidence #11 Tiktaalik to Evidence #37 Testicles.

  Tiktaalik to Testicles.

  Oookaaay.
  
• 

  cofty

  That's it? That's evidence of evolution? - EQV

  Yes it is very strong evidence for common ancestry.

  When I present really detailed proof of evolution such as DNA functional redundancy, transitional fossils, biogeography and faunal succession the creationists ignore all the facts and respond with personal attacks and insults.

  Sometimes I throw in a much simpler example of evidence for common ancestry such as your bollocks and you ignore that it is number 37 in a series that contains a mountain of hard evidence.

  Lurkers, please observe the intellectual dishonesty of theism.

  Can you explain why a creator looped your vas deferens up over your pubic bone and urethra? Evolution explains it perfectly. Then when you have answered that you could answer the other 36 threads.

  Since you edited your post to include Tiktaalik perhaps you could explain the fact that a perfect transition from sea to land existed 365 MYA at precisely the time evolution predicted.
• 

  Esse quam videri

  When I present really detailed proof of evolution such as DNA functional redundancy, transitional fossils, biogeography and faunal succession the creationists ignore all the facts and respond with personal attacks and insults.

  Sometimes I throw in a much simpler example of evidence for common ancestry such as your bollocks and you ignore that it is number 37 in a series that contains a mountain of hard evidence.

  Lurkers, please observe the intellectual dishonesty of theism.

  Excuse me. Where is the personal attack? Where is the insult? Where is the dishonesty?

  A touch sensitive are we? You seem to have a special way of interpreting things.
  
• 

  Vidqun

  No Cofty, as I said before, if you believe this you believe anything. This huge "blunder" by the Creator actually works very well, as the existence of over six billion people testifies. Talking of dishonesty, the title of all your "Evolution is a fact"-threads are dishonest. There's a book by Stephen Jay Gould called "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory." He discusses the process as a theory. So, no, evolution is not a fact, its a theory. And by the way, Gould was Professor of Zoology at Harvard. Above work was published in 2002.

  What you have been discussing, is "adaptation" and "natural selection," e.g., Lenski's E.coli experiments. Everything you describe screams design of extraordinary brilliance. Also, Darwin never described his theory as evolution. He spoke of "descent with modification." At the time the word evolution was used to describe Haller's embryology theory. Haller chose the term carefully, for Latin evolvere means to unroll. Later the term was expropriated from the vernacular, and embodied the concept of progressive development.
• 

  cofty

  Excuse me. Where is the personal attack? Where is the insult? Where is the dishonesty? - EQV

  There are dozens of examples in the 37 threads of my Evolution is a Fact series.
  
  
• 

  cofty

  This huge "blunder" by the Creator actually works very well, as the existence of over six billion people testifies. - Vidqun

  I didn't say it didn't work. If it didn't work our species would be extinct. You have totally missed the point. It is a classic example of suboptimal design. There are many examples of where evolution has produced poor design because it is unable to undo moves it made earlier.

  The RLN is a very good example and the vas deferens is another. You still have all your work to do to explain it.

  Talking of dishonesty, the title of all your "Evolution is a fact"-threads are dishonest.

  No it isn't. Evolution is a theory in the special scientific sense of the word. It is also a fact. I have posted numerous references to support this earlier in the series.
  
  Here is one from the National Academies of Science...

  However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

  It doesn't get any more authoritative than the National Academy. So no I am not being dishonest.

  What you have been discussing, is "adaptation" and "natural selection,"

  No I have been describing evolution. In other words how every living thing evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years. Natural selection is the primary means by which life achieves increases in complexity.

  Darwin never described his theory as evolution. He spoke of "descent with modification

  Yes that's right. The word had a connotation of progress in Victorian England. It is a common misunderstanding that evolution is a ladder of progress with white males at the top. Darwin was right to avoid that.
  
• 

  Vidqun

  Cofty, imagine your illustration of the TV entertainment centre developing by itself over millions of years. Even if it did develop by itself, do you think the wires would be able to plug themselves into the correct sockets for it to work. Impossible you might say. Well what you are discussing is infinitesimaly more complex. Do you really believe the reproductive system of living things came about by itself and then merged to improve itself? Now this concept needs a huge leap of faith. By the way, man with the most advanced laboratories, cannot replicate a sperm or egg cell, much less a gonad. If they could, the need for fertility clinics would become something of the past.
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "Do you really believe the reproductive system of living things came about by itself and then merged to improve itself?" - Vidqun

  Nobody believes that. Except creationists of course.

  "By the way, man with the most advanced laboratories, cannot replicate a sperm or egg cell, much less a gonad. If they could, the need for fertility clinics would become something of the past" - Vidqun

  What has that got to do with this discussion? Evolution is not reliant on what humans can or cannot do. That should be obvious really...

  
  
• 

  Vidqun

  Its called the concept of design. Its simple. A house needs an architect and a builder. It doesn't appear out of the blue. It was designed by somebody. It was built by somebody. That's not to complicated, is it? A living cell is much more complex. It also needs a designer and a builder. I know, evolutionists struggle with the concept. Sorry about that.
• 

  cofty

  imagine your illustration of the TV entertainment centre developing by itself over millions of years

  Electronic devices don't self-replicate.

  99% of creationist arguments are varieties of this basic fallacy.

  Do you really believe the reproductive system of living things came about by itself and then merged to improve itself?

  I don't know what you mean by "merged to improve itself". Can you explain?

  Do you understand the simple origins of sexual reproduction? Do you know the basic difference between male and female? Spoiler - It has nothing to do with having a penis.
  

  You just need to stop with the feigned incredulity and do some actual research. The answers are all there. Perhaps you could tell me which books that present the scientific evidence for evolution you have read?

  Can you explain why your vas deferens loops up into your pelvis, over your pubic bone, around your urethra and back down through your pelvis to your penis? How does this suggest intelligent design?