Whales' hip bones and the Bible

It seems best to start a new thread, as the thread on praying in public has been diverted by evolutionary debate

Bubba said:
...they continue to argue that observable, testable science is false because of their insistence on a literal Genesis.

The literal Genesis account actually fits the observed scientific facts much better than Evolution does!

When I first became a Christian (while doing a Biological sciences degree) I believed in Evolution, not even thinking that maybe it conflicted with the Genesis account. Someone challenged me about it and my angry reaction (for no obvious "scientific" reason) made it clear that I'd been brainwashed.

From that time, when I began to think for myself, and soon realised that Evolution was totally unscientific and didn't even merit the title of "theory".

one of the best evidences for evolution are vestigial organs and bones. these are things like wings on the ostrich, which cannot fly. they once had usefulness but because of evolution, the animal has changed in such a manner that these are no longer useful. thus they atrophy.

I was reading an article just now. Here's a quote from it:
[color=990000]A CMI speaker visiting a cave in Australia was told by the guide about a blind shrimp which, in that lightless environment, had ‘evolved the ability not to see’.[/color]

Can't you see the stupidity of the guide's remark?

And almost all "vestigeal" organs in man have now been found to have very important functions. For example, the appendix, spleen, pineal and thymus glands and coccyx ("tail bone").

The ostrich's wings also have function - for example helping it to balance and make sharp turns when running, (a cheetah uses its tail for the same purpose).

When they first researched the human genome, (our DNA and how it fits together on the chromosomes) there was lots and lots of it that had no known function. Those who believed in Evolution [i][u]hindered[/u][/i] the discovery of its function by calling it "junk DNA" and (very unscientifically) [i][u]assuming[/u][/i], on no evidence whatsoever, that it was made of "evolutionary leftovers".

Now the same scientists are finding, (probably to their surprise) that a lot of the "junk" has many vital functions after all, such as controlling the activity of other genes, e.g. "switching" them on or off at the right times.

I mentioned the hip bones of the whale before. the whale is a mammal and its predecessors were clearly land animals. but they adapted, changed and now fit into a new ecological niche in the sea.

I looked it up to make sure. Here's a couple of quotes from an article:

[color=990000]...When a cow swats the flies from its back, it moves its tail generally from side to side. A whale, however, can’t do this. Not that it has to swat flies, but it does have to move its tail up and down in order to swim...

...Any land-dwelling mammal wishing to evolve into a whale could certainly practise moving its left-right tail in an up-down fashion, and there is no doubt that it could certainly improve up to a point. Maybe even learn to swim faster and catch more fish. But after that its tail movement would begin to crush its reproductive apparatus against its pelvis...

...Taken to extremes, this new tail movement would simply crush the whole pelvis. Such a transition would have no survival value whatsoever. The selective pressures of the environment, or natural selection, would work against any such change of tail on a land-dwelling mammal.

To make the claim as evolutionists do, that land-dwelling mammals evolved into sea-dwelling whales is to claim that there had to be simultaneous accidental genetic changes which allowed the tail to grow larger while the pelvis grew smaller. And all this ignores the problems caused as the ever shrinking pelvis or hip bones reached the point where they were far too small to support the creature’s weight on its hind legs, and yet still too large to let the animal move its tail up and down with any efficiency.[/color]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v7/i1/whaletail.asp

my point to Christian participants on this site is to get real. evolutionary and biological scientists are not out to void the Word or undermine your faith...

I disbelieve in Evolution on [i][u]scientific[/u][/i] grounds - even if it were true it would have no effect whatsoever on my faith.

I'm sure others on the forum would say the same.

Blessings

Jeannette

Have been doing a bit of research and found this article http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/whale_leg.asp

[color=000099]"I knew, of course, that some modern whales have a pair of bones embedded in their tissues, each of which [u]strengthens the pelvic wall and acts as an organ anchor[/u]. I knew that evolutionists generally claim that these small, yet purposeful structures are vestigial (‘left-over’) organs. They choose to believe that each bone of the pair is all that is left of the pelvic bone of the whale’s ancestor which, according to evolutionary doctrine, once walked and ran on land. [u]They believe this even though these strips of bone have a known function, differ in males and females, and are not even attached to the vertebral column[/u].[/color]

I think it's interesting anyway :-)

Jeannette

ccchhhrrriiisss,

a good post. we continue to learn about the make up and linkages of life and will continue to do so for a long time. i still believe that the fossil record supports evolution. thanks

bub

Phew Chris, a lot to consider here!

I try to call people foolish only those whom the Bible calls foolish, it's never anything personal.

The idea that Evolution is scientific and belief in the Genesis account is anti-science does make me angry. Not with the person who says it (as I said, I was brainwashed that way too), but with the scientific blindness of many scientists, (which is sceptical about everything but the fact that Evolution is bad science) and the devilish deception that can turn things on their head like that.

I argue against Evolution mainly from a [u][i]scientific[/i][/u] standpoint, having been interested in Biology from a child, and taken a degree in it. (Worms and spiders were so much more interesting than dolls! And I once, aged about 5, asked my mother "how is a crocodile made?", meaning how is it put together).

As you say, you don't believe in Evolution, but have expressed some common misunderstandings about it, that I will try to touch on in the next post.

Blessings

Jeannette

bubbaguy wrote:
...i still believe that the fossil record supports evolution.

When I realised I'd been brainwashed, I made it my business to try and look at the evidence objectively, and decide for myself if Evolution was a reasonable explanation for the observed facts. Even one of my lecturers, who made no claim to any faith at all, didn't believe in Evolution, on the basis of science alone.

Surely you owe it to yourself, and to your faith (whatever understanding of Genesis you have), to do the same?

You have accepted one very biased view without apparently any desire to question it. How about looking at the other (also biased - there's no such thing as true objectivity) and see which is a more likely interpretation of the facts.

Blessings

Jeannette

Cchhrriiss said

… most of the people who believe in evolution do not believe in it because they want to. They believe in it because they sincerely believe that it is either scientifically proven, or is a facet of science that most adequately explains the accepted science today

I don't buy into evolution. I understand the principles as they are taught by scientists. But I simply do not believe that "natural selection" exists.

To illustrate how it works:
Someone passes round a box of sweets (candy) of different kinds. You are asked to pick out the ones you like. You like the green ones, someone else chooses the red ones; another person likes the yellow ones. You are all making a [i][u][b]selection[/b][/u][/i]. Only purple and pink ones are left.

But what happens to the [u][b][i]variety[/b][/u][/i] of the sweets in the box? We started off with FIVE different kinds, we are left with only two. So there is far less variety than before. The ones each of us have taken out have even less variety – only one. That is the result of selection, and its effect (even if it gives an advantage) is a loss of information, a loss of some characteristics, from a population.

But Evolution requires a gain of information, not a loss. So it’s impossible for natural selection to bring about Evolution.

Blessings

Jeannette

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi LittleGift...

As you say, you don't believe in Evolution, but have expressed some common misunderstandings about it, that I will try to touch on in the next post.

Let me clarify: I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. I do [u]not[/u] believe in the theory of evolution. However, I do understand HOW people who do believe in the theory come to such a conclusion. We should be careful to not just dismiss their beliefs as silly conclusions based upon ignorance. Rather, we should explain the holes in the theory without insulting the intelligence of the listener.

Hope this helps clarify my position on the matter.

:-)

...So, do you think I'm "dismissing their beliefs as silly conclusions based upon ignorance"?

This has never been the intention.

Maybe it was because of stressing that I [i]do[/i] know what I'm talking about, and argue from the basis of science on this particular subject.

But Biblically, Evolution [u][i]is[/i][/u] foolish and a lie. God says so, not me, so why not agree with Him?!

Jeannette

Hi again Chris

You made an interesting point about epigenome changes happening quickly.

However, I'm not sure if this could (even in theory) be a mechanism for Evolution, any more than natural selection can. -And for the same reasons - no basic increase in genetic information, only changes in what is already present, or in the way certain genes are expressed.

I would be interested in what you think...

Although maybe this discussion is getting a bit too technical...? Even though your examples gave the general idea, most people won't have heard of epigenomes.

Jeannette