sonickid01
Full Member
DO THE RIGHT THING
Posts: 174
|
Post by sonickid01 on Jun 4, 2010 23:54:45 GMT -5
Hritik Roshan has been my hero since I was little.
Anyway, my guess as to now is that these sort of mutations such as webbing are along the same lines as tails, meaning vestigial genes that just didn't shut up correctly. If anyone has any more evidence or anything on the subject, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jun 5, 2010 0:00:00 GMT -5
I don't want to sound too gay but Hritik is one good looking guy.
|
|
sonickid01
Full Member
DO THE RIGHT THING
Posts: 174
|
Post by sonickid01 on Jun 5, 2010 0:38:45 GMT -5
It's the Indian blood, all of us are that stunningly good looking and attractive, it's the norm for us.
But don't look in India, those are poor people so they don't count.
|
|
|
Post by kpunicorn on Jun 5, 2010 2:51:07 GMT -5
The evolution test is the worst. What do you mean which sex evolved first? Last time I checked, evolution says nothing about male apes living before female apes. Also, re-evolved really? Scientists actually think that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Even my neighbors, which are creationism's worst, don't believe dinosaurs just died, so what else could they have done? Disappeared, I think not.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jun 5, 2010 7:19:03 GMT -5
Hunted to extinction by humans, according to Jack Chick: www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1038/1038_01.aspFunny how they criticize us for not having some tiny little piece of the puzzle (as opposed to having fossil remains for every single species that ever lived), yet they'll pull all kinds of stories out of their asses, such as elaborate tales of water canopies and 'dragons' being hunted by humans, with zero scientific evidence.
|
|
sonickid01
Full Member
DO THE RIGHT THING
Posts: 174
|
Post by sonickid01 on Jun 5, 2010 8:19:22 GMT -5
The evolution test is the worst. I'm going to answer his pathetic questions to perhaps enlighten him to science. And for my own amusement.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jun 5, 2010 8:58:30 GMT -5
The evolution test is the worst. I'm going to answer his pathetic questions to perhaps enlighten him to science. And for my own amusement. Many have tried. It's difficult to pierce through that sort of ignorance. Plus, it'll also be time consuming, as you'll have to explain what evolution actually IS to him, before he'll really understand your answers. But if you want to give it a try, more power to you.
|
|
|
Post by FMG on Jun 5, 2010 14:26:04 GMT -5
[/li][li]the male nipple [/li][li]moles [/li][li]crotch hair [/li][li]loads of types of body hair, actually [/li][li]freckles [/li][li]birthmarks [/li][li]foreskin (which doesn't excuse cutting it off) [/li][li]clitoris hood (don't cut that off either) [/list] And that's just the external ones...[/quote] These are pretty much all meaningful. Male Nipples are part of human development and its because humans share the same genome with differences in specific activation of genes by Y chromosome. Some men lactate quite happily since the male body can do that. Moles are small tumours. They are a sign of skin damage Crotch hair is signalling. Only recently have we gotten into the trend of the "shaven" or waxed individuals. Body hair used to be a sign of virility since it is linked to testosterone production. It also helps in cooling the body by covering up skin. Freckles are melanin concentrations. Its the body attempting to tan. Birthmarks are a defect of development rather than fulfilling any function. There are many classifications as well medically from Port Wine stains (think Gorbachev to tiny ones) Male/Female foreskins are protective in nature and ablative in nature. They do have functions. Vestigial is a word used in colloquialisms. The best examples are our nictiating membrane and our appendix. They both still have functions in protecting our eyes and removing dirt and providing lymphatics but their true function is heavily reduced.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Jun 5, 2010 22:18:33 GMT -5
Male nipples serve no function or purpose. Yes, it's part of human development, but it isn't a completely necessary one. That's my point.
Moles are only sometimes indicative of skin damage. Loads of times, they're just randomly there, serving no purpose. Hell, tumors themselves serve no purpose. They just make you sick.
I know what freckles ARE, but that doesn't stop them from not serving an actual purpose.
You just agreed with me that birthmarks are useless.
Male/Female foreskins IN MODERN HUMANS are pointless. We're not IN nature anymore. We have clothes.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 5, 2010 23:41:29 GMT -5
Male nipples serve no function or purpose. Yes, it's part of human development, but it isn't a completely necessary one. That's my point. Yes, it is, it's necessary because they are needed in females so the precursor tissue for females needs to be in all fetuses. It's a quirk of development, not evolution. Not evolutionary, that's localized DNA damage that doesn't get passed on and wasn't passed on to the offspring. But they have to be evolutionary in order to count as vestigial. You're using the wrong definition. Vestigial does not mean useless. It has to be evolutionary, birth marks are not evolutionary, they're developmental. No, you are, not every human has been in recent history. A thousand years is pitiful on an evolutionary timescale. Quirks of culture are not biology. Quirks of culture don't make organs vestigial.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Jun 6, 2010 0:15:31 GMT -5
Ok, can we go back to my original post where I didn't call these things "vestigial" in the first place? I said "useless growths on the body". I never used the word you're accusing me of misusing.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jun 6, 2010 9:04:03 GMT -5
I think what Renae is saying is that moles and birth marks, both being imperfections, are evidence against the human body being designed and create as anything that a perfect, omnipotent god designs shouldn't have any errors. Likewise, nipple and breast tissue in males are a 'side-effect', for want of a better term, of an evolved trait for females, and while they make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, it's hard to believe that an omnipotent being wouldn't be able to find a better way for breasts/nipples to develop. It's also hard to see how sin could magically cause nipples to grow on males, since that would basically mean that sin completely rewrote the way we develop in the womb.
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Jun 6, 2010 11:48:46 GMT -5
I think what Renae is saying is that moles and birth marks, both being imperfections, are evidence against the human body being designed and create as anything that a perfect, omnipotent god designs shouldn't have any errors. Likewise, nipple and breast tissue in males are a 'side-effect', for want of a better term, of an evolved trait for females, and while they make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, it's hard to believe that an omnipotent being wouldn't be able to find a better way for breasts/nipples to develop. It's also hard to see how sin could magically cause nipples to grow on males, since that would basically mean that sin completely rewrote the way we develop in the womb. Yep - that must be it - sin made animals become carnivores and gave men nipples. NOW it all makes sense
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Jun 6, 2010 12:06:52 GMT -5
Sin is reality magic.
There I've said it.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jun 6, 2010 12:50:57 GMT -5
I was reading that site in school the other day when I should have been doing something productive. It's pretty funny. Admittedly, -I- don't really have an answer for how sexual selection evolved from asexual selection, but a lot of those questions were just plain stupid.
And I love how the animation of the flood "forming" the grand canyon looked more like it was just draining.
|
|