Atavisms

Jeremy · Not So Newbie Joined: 29 Jul 2006 Posts: 9

so it sounds like ativism basically shows that a species that looses a trait can sometimes spiratically get it back.

It seems to me this makes evolution even harder to prove. It means that the earwig born with wings that actually work (according to wikipedia they normally just have membranous wings folded underneath short leathery forewing, useless for flight) would more likely be labeled as having gained something back that it lost rather than actually developing something new.

It seems like fossils would be a better avenue to take in arguing macro evolution. Ativism just seems to show a species can loose traits.

P1234567890 · Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:38 am Post subject:

Jeremy · Not So Newbie Joined: 29 Jul 2006 Posts: 9

FFT · Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:37 pm Post subject:

K.

When did humans have tails, or long hair covering their entire bodies?

P1234567890 · Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:35 pm Post subject:

Jeremy · Not So Newbie Joined: 29 Jul 2006 Posts: 9

I think you just have a more liberal definition of macro evolution than me. I am not debating whether or not horses used to have toes. I am just saying that it does not prove you can carry that further along. An ativistic trait showing that horses used to have toes ONLY shows that horses used to have toes. It does not prove that the human mind, or lungs, or any other thing did occure because of mutation. I'm just saying the atavistic traits do not show any more than the actual trait change that they show.

Ana · Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:57 pm Post subject:

Trinity1 · Emperor of the World Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 3123

P1234567890 · Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:37 pm Post subject:

P1234567890 · Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:56 am Post subject:

I've been discussing this over in the JW thread, but really this thread is much more appropriate.

Anyways, here is the original 1920s paper about a whale with hind legs that was caught off of Vancouver Island on the West Coast:

http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/2246/4849/1/N0009.pdf

Here is a picture of one of its legs:

This atavism is clear evidence for evolution and clear evidence against literal Biblical creationism.

Why? Because it shows that whales evolved from land animals, just like biologists have been saying FOR YEARS. And also, if God designed the whale's genome, then WHY ON EARTH would He have given it hind legs??? Certainly an omniscient, omnipotent God would not screw up like that.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Trinity1 · Emperor of the World Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 3123

P1234567890 · Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:51 am Post subject:

P1234567890 · Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:58 am Post subject:

I wanted to dust off this old thread because atavisms are extremely important to the whole evolution 'debate'. I wrote a little something in one of the other threads which would fit well here, so here goes the transplant:

The whole idea of DNA being a masterfully-designed blueprint for life has been completely refuted. DNA is a mess. There's no design apparent in it at all. Why does the amoeba have a genome more than half a trillion base pairs long? The vast majority of its genome codes for nothing which is expressed at all. Do you call that efficient? Why do chickens have DNA for teeth in their genomes? Why do we have DNA for tails? Why do whales have DNA for hind legs? Why do horses have DNA for tails? These are called atavisms.

And most importantly, EVERY single atavism ever found in any creature x is a trait which a creature y had, where y is a creature that evolutionists claimed beforehand is an ancestor of x. Why is that?

Why have we NEVER found, say, atavistic wings in a pig, or an atavistic stinger in a pig or something like that? Why is it ALWAYS traits from creatures which evolutionists and taxonomists have been claiming for centuries to be ancestors???

If you look at the Book of Genesis as a scientific hypothesis for explaining these phenomena, it doesn't even come close. But if you look at evolution as a hypothesis for explaining them, it fits PERFECTLY!

And that's how we determine which scientific hypothesis is right: The one which explains the evidence best.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

P1234567890 · Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:09 am Post subject:

By the way, in case anyone is interested, here's an x-ray showing a human being with an atavistic tail, including vertebrae and all:

The fact that we have DNA for a tail in our genomes (you have it too, it just isn't expressed!) is excellent evidence showing that we evolved from creatures with tails.

Here's another interesting one:

This is Apterocyclus honolulensis, a flightless beetle. It's wing covers are fused, so it can't open them, but underneath it has perfect little wings.

Wow, God really messed that one up! (Maybe they sinned, and God cursed them...)
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Pete · Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:51 pm Post subject: