Real Science Friday: Old Birds and Fish Fins

[Jukia]

It is not what was predicted. It was cut off in the false belief that it had no function.

tt

And the paper suggests that evolutionary theory has a big hole in it? If so, please advise on what page.

 

[voltaire]

It's a common misconception that "vestigial" means "no function." And there are some vestigial organs like that. But it actually means that it doesn't serve the function for which it first evolved.

That is pure conjecture on your part. You have no idea that it served another purpose in the past.

And it's always been like that.

So you say with no proof.

Darwin discussed the adaption of vestigial organs to new uses, in The Origin of Species.

Darwin had a wild imagination.

 

[voltaire]

Buckland-Nicks seems to be a rather conventional evolutionist. Nothing at all about ID in any of his papers I can find.

When IDers try to present papers written by non-IDers as examples of ID work, you know they aren't getting anywhere on their own.

They aren't getting anywhere on there own as far as getting published in papers owned by atheists. Anything with a whiff of creation in it is rejected out of hand.

non-IDers present papers that have evidence for ID without knowing it. That is why IDers present papers written by them. The evidence is obtained by regular scientific means,and so it is taken to be credible. IDers just know intelligent design when they see it , and therefore they publish it.

 

[Jukia]

They aren't getting anywhere on there own as far as getting published in papers owned by atheists. Anything with a whiff of creation in it is rejected out of hand.

.

As is anything with a whiff of astrology or alchemy. Those are not science either.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian obsrves:
It's a common misconception that "vestigial" means "no function." And there are some vestigial organs like that. But it actually means that it doesn't serve the function for which it first evolved.

That is pure conjecture on your part.

Nope. The fin in primitive teleosts was larger, and functional as a hydrodynamic organ.

You have no idea that it served another purpose in the past.

Evidence. It matters.

Barbarian observes:
And it's always been like that.

So you say with no proof.

Darwin wrote about just that, in the chapter on rudimentary organs. Read it and learn.

Darwin discussed the adaption of vestigial organs to new uses, in The Origin of Species.

Darwin had a wild imagination.

He got it right. That's why he's so well regarded by scientists.

 

[The Barbarian]

They aren't getting anywhere on there own as far as getting published in papers owned by atheists. Anything with a whiff of creation in it is rejected out of hand.

They have their own journals, in which real science is banned. And there are no results in those, either.