« Ron Paul | Main | Corinthian Hall »

December 26, 2007

Evolution, the human body

Perhaps Dr. Mark Puglisi (12/22, Letters) needs to brush up on his medical journals before he dismisses the lowly appendix as a purely vestigial or useless organ and thus evidence against divine creation. It seems that just last October researchers at Duke University Medical School published a theory for the purpose of the appendix in historical times.

When science asserts that anything it cannot or does not understand and explain is nonexistent or unexplainable, then it ceases to be science and begins to be dogma. Hubris has no place in medicine or any other branch of science, Doc.

Mark Browning

Mark Puglisi Jr., MD, doesn’t know me but has pronounced me as scientifically illiterate for being in agreement with Darline Metsker regarding creation of the human body.

Then Clarence Edmondson Jr. declares that Darline has been poorly educated and that evolution explains creation.

These conclusions were based upon Darline’s questioning the latest revelation about proposed evolutionary development of special capabilities to prevent pregnant women from falling over.

Permit me to state that I am a well-educated scientist and retired university professor. I give zero credence to the theory of evolution. Further, creation doesn’t need a fabricated theory to explain its truth. Never has evolution been able to refute a single creative act by our Almighty God.

John B. Mulder
Author of Creation’s Sensible Sequence





Happy New Year as well Double J!

I will do a better job from now on staying on point.

Go KU!!!




I make a pretty mean eggnog!!!


ksskidude - maybe if you lay off the booze (or whatever your intoxicant of choice is) you will be able to produce a post that is on-topic, or at the least - coherent.


I wish when I die, that I live forever, and get everything I want. I never hurt, I am always happy, my family is there when I need them, that food is abundant, that warmth is garaunteed, that I get to have sex with whomever I want, just do whatever I want. Man that would be great!!!

ITS A FAIRY TALE! It just boggles the mind that people do not sit and truly contemplate the meaning of ETERNITY. IT NEVER STOPS!!!!
Are you honestly going to tell someone that you can live forever and not die of boredom. Heaven is a fairy tale for people who can not rectify that when they die, life is over. People are egomanical that they have to event scenerio's that have the living for all eternity, and that they somehow deserve this. Freud began to understand this, and realize that god and heaven are merely man's attempt to cope withour fates.

What happens when I widower remarries; Then dies and goes to heaven, only too find both spouses. Then poligamy is allowed in heaven, or if it's not, heaven ain't so heaven like because somebody is going to be upset.
What do you do?


zwolf - You just made my point. Unlike evolutionists, I admit that my conclusions are opinion, and cannot be completely verified by current scientific methods - but they cannot be refuted either.
The whole subject of vestigial wings, organs etc. fits better into a creationist point of view than an evolutionist.


JJ-so what sort of "extrapolation" did you use to determine that species are descended from a "perfect" gene pool?


"...[ostriches] share homogeneous structures with birds capable of flight..."

Congratulations. That is a scientific fact. Any further extrapolation is opinion as to why ostrich wings are the way they are.

Once again, vestigial organs don't prove evolution - but they could prove the opposite. It would make sense that the further descended from a perfect gene pool a species travels that some imperfections and loss of functions may show themselves.


Jungle Jack-
My statement that ostrich wings are vestigial structures are not a matter of opinion but supported by physical evidence-they share homogeneous structures with birds capable of flight but now are insufficient for flight. Also, traits are a result of gene expression. And gene expression can be altered though gene duplication, mutation, lateral transfer etc.
If gene expression is altered then new traits arise.


zwolf - Once again, this argument:
"The complexity of the wing structures are not comensurate with their function."
... is pure opinion - no matter whose opinion it is; and this opinion is no more valid than a creationist pointing out the unlikelihood that complex systems could have been the result of random mutations.

"Do you really not know hat "natural selection" is evolution?"

... how is natural selection evolution? The fact that some environments may dictate that a recessive trait acts as a natural advantage would naturally mean that those possessing this trait would be the ones to survive - and therefore pass on this trait until it becomes the norm.
These traits already existed, however and therefore no evolution occurred.


"Every example I've listened to or read shows nothing but natural selection, genetically designed adaptations or pure speculation." - That is scary...

What would "you" define as evidence? Do you really not know hat "natural selection" is evolution? Do you not understand that over millions and billions of years these "minor" changes can eventually lead to a new species? Do you deny the mounds (bad pun) of Geological evidence? Do you deny the tons of peer reviewed evidence of Macro, Micro, etc evolution that have been published over the last 100+ years?

Could it be that you are that ignorant or are you intentionally being that obtuse?

What would make you change your mind? What would it take to convince you? If I could take that reason and show you with a preponderance of evidence would you be convinced? If not then obviously you have decided that you do not want to learn and are one of the truly lost souls.


Jungle Jack--My claims re: ostrich wings does not come from what I say it is but from the fact that they are rudimentary wings that do not functions as wings. The complexity of the wing structures are not comensurate with their function. Also I've offered evidence in support of my claim that accumulated change in genotype resulting in a new isolated breeding population would constitute macroevolution, if you feel differently then I would like to know what evidence you're offering in support of that position. Also be aware that it is actually possible to prove a negative (although that's not what I'm asking you to do here).


cooker - I, for one, couldn't care less (except for the fate of your soul) if you believe in God or that he created the universe. I likewise don't wish to see ID taught in our schools. What I would like is a frank discussion of how little solid evidence there is for evolution.
Every example I've listened to or read shows nothing but natural selection, genetically designed adaptations or pure speculation.
The examples on this blog are no exception.

BTW - any true opposition to the standard evolutionary thinking is about as likely as seeing a "peer review" as you are getting a visit with the Pope.


The major arguments employed by creationists/IDists/etc are all variations on "evolution is wrong, so we must be right!" NO. You have to actually prove that you're right before you become right, not just prove the opponent wrong, unless you are literally arguing about a binary proposition where there are *only* two possibilities.

That is, of course, assuming that the errors you find are even *valid*. Which they are not in this case.


So you have a problem with calling the facts by their true name JJ? IF you had actualy taken some time to read the blog and the links you will find the peer reviewed information that totally debunks the AIG site.

I will always continue to rail against those that try and discredit science with fairy tales. If religion will put itself to the same tests that all science does then I might listen, but when every thing is god did it so you don't need to understand it... that is BS and if you don't know it you should.

The AIG site has so many wacko claims that I frankly find it astounding that you resorted to using them as a link. There is not a single claim of theirs that has not been debunked over and over.


It doesn't surprise me that cooker fox would link to a site that is SO scientifically based and high brow that it offers the following argument:

"...that claim is utter bullshit."

... great reasoning skills. And yet, CREATIONISTS are labeled as unreasonable and emotional.


And here is a great article debunking the AIG article.


And here is another one.


I sure wish you anti-evolution folks would at least get some new material.


BTW - here's a great article debunking the whole "evolving bacteria" myth:




My crude attempt to show the poor design of the body was not even mine to begin with. In fact the man that made that argument is Neil Degrasse Tyson of PBS Nova Science NOW. IT was part of a speech at the 2006 Beyond Belief http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/

He was merely pointing out that the human body is poorly desined, and I concur.
Agressive Child Lukemia, Sickle Cell Anemia, MS, Parkinson's, ALS, spinal cord injuries, vision loss with age, teeth fall out. The list of poor design goes on and on, or you could deduce that a designer with infinite wisdom, and an understanding of every ailment before it every occurred, would not have created such a poor design.

There may be a god, but no god would have failed so miserably as that.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright