[_ Old Earth _] If humans evolved from apes, where is our tail?

[ChattyMute]

This was done automatically whether one had issues or not those organs were yanked, my tonsils are so large that they will show up on a panoramic dental xray, dentists always ask me that dont know my medical history are you sure you dont have a problem with that. I have a few bouts with tonsilits when i was a kid and i almost had them removed in the early 80's. My parents dont have them. They were removed for no reason other than what i stated. In your case some tonsils are a problem and are necessary to remove. I bet you hate getting the flu, and or have to take antibotics before dental surgeries ,ie pulling of teeth and so on. That region of the head is covered by the tonsils, i know that from well my wife getting an infection that was from a recent root canal. You could see the difference from one side of the neck to the other.

Yeah. Science makes mistakes, especially in medicine. You can't always be right. That being said it is possible that we didn't have the technology to discover that it's not so great to pull out tonsils and/or scientists just hadn't asked the right questions yet to get he ball rolling.

I've never had the flu. And I've taken antibiotics before any of my dental surgeries (which have been quite a few), and I've never gotten sick/headaches from any of them. I don't take any kind of medicine whatsoever unless I absolutely have to, and I've only had two minor colds in the past 6-7 years.
I suppose I have a really good natural immune system.

 

[ChattyMute]

The organ was completely unnecessary for me to have.

The French from 1789 thought the same about the head on some people and so surgically removed them. :crazy
??????????

Using today's methods of science to come to that conclusion? o_o

 

[jasoncran]

They didnt alot of foolish thing then, this the 50's and 60's not some century ago that i'm talking about.

for instance to deal with mental retardation lobomoty was used and or shock therapy.
as mentioned earlier tonsil removal
there's one more that i cant remember. I think that it was either arrogance or ignorance, hopefully the later. I say that is have read articles on the fact that some med schools then taught that human body was imperfect, it is, and needed to fixed, via removing some organs. I believe in the old addage if you dont understand that thing that your are working on, leave it alone and if it aint broke dont fix it.

 

[ChattyMute]

They didnt alot of foolish thing then, this the 50's and 60's not some century ago that i'm talking about.

for instance to deal with mental retardation lobomoty was used and or shock therapy.
as mentioned earlier tonsil removal
there's one more that i cant remember. I think that it was either arrogance or ignorance, hopefully the later. I say that is have read articles on the fact that some med schools then taught that human body was imperfect, it is, and needed to fixed, via removing some organs. I believe in the old addage if you dont understand that thing that your are working on, leave it alone and if it aint broke dont fix it.

40 years ago they didn't have the technology we do today. Science is always progressing moving towards a better understanding of the universe. Just because we got something wrong 40 years ago, does not necessarily mean it is completely wrong today.

If you don't understand something, you don't leave it alone. You question and find answers.

 

[VenomFangX]

Some people reject science and prefer "Earth Magic" and shamanism which can be a nice delusion like drugs I guess.
VFX

 

[Brokendoll]

They didnt alot of foolish thing then, this the 50's and 60's not some century ago that i'm talking about.

Oh, science (including the medical branch) has come a LONG way since the 60's.

for instance to deal with mental retardation lobomoty was used and or shock therapy.
as mentioned earlier tonsil removal

True, although it should be noted that shock theraphy is still in use today and has several beneficial effects, particularily on patients suffering from severe depressions and related illnesses and even then only if the patient is not responding to other forms of treatment. It is also only used after extensive counciling, and only with consent (either from the patient themselves or from next of kin). ECT (Electroconvulsion Theraphy) is a well established procedure, even though it remains somewhat controversial.

there's one more that i cant remember. I think that it was either arrogance or ignorance, hopefully the later. I say that is have read articles on the fact that some med schools then taught that human body was imperfect, it is, and needed to fixed, via removing some organs. I believe in the old addage if you dont understand that thing that your are working on, leave it alone and if it aint broke dont fix it.

Unecessary surgery is never a good thing since every operation carries with it an element of risk. Still, there are several organs we could live perfectly happy and health lives without, and which from time to time causes us harm. The Appendix is one such example. And infected appendix (Appendicitis) could, if not treated (usually be surgically removing it), kill you, and there are thousands of people who have their appendix removed with no ill effect.

As for your second point, experimental treatments take place every day, most prominently in relation to terminal diseases and illnesses. If your patient is going to die if you do nothing it might be just as well to try a treatment that is risky, but if successful might save you patients life. No-one is advocating human experiments in which we place people in harms way unless there is a very good reason for it (like if the patient is terminal and will die without the treatment).

 

[Crying Rock]

Airplanes, computers, cell-phones, cars, modern medicine, houses and buildings, clothes...even the food we eat owes a debt to the work of scientists and the scientific method. And seeing people blatantly discarding science while enjoying the fruits of it strikes me as quite dishonest.

What does any of this have to do with macroevolution?

I may be wrong, but I think the point was that YE creationists in particular have problems with particular aspects of science because it appears to conflict with ideas about the natural world they have derived from an idiosyncratic, selective interpretation of the Bible, but have no problems with other aspects that they suppose do not - even when they do.

Exactly.

Back to the point:

To what practical applications has the concept of macroevolution contributed?

It's just philosophy.

Just as is YEC.

Neither can prove nor disprove a designer.

And certainly neither have directly contributed to useful, practical inventions.

 

[jasoncran]

execellent point.

 

[lordkalvan]

[quote="Crying Rock":129zsvk2]What does any of this have to do with macroevolution?

I may be wrong, but I think the point was that YE creationists in particular have problems with particular aspects of science because it appears to conflict with ideas about the natural world they have derived from an idiosyncratic, selective interpretation of the Bible, but have no problems with other aspects that they suppose do not - even when they do.

Exactly.[/quote:129zsvk2]
The fact is indisputable; the question is Why?

Back to the point:

To what practical applications has the concept of macroevolution contributed?

I take it you agree, therefore, that microevolution as a concept has both validity and practical applications?

It's just philosophy.

No, it's an inference drawn from observed and measured evidence. It has limited practical application because of the extreme time scale in relation to individual lifespans.

Just as is YEC.

I wouldn't disagree.

Neither can prove nor disprove a designer.

Except that evolutionary sciences offer a lot of observed and measured evidence that support the idea of natural processes as causative agents. YEC offers nothing evidential at all.

And certainly neither have directly contributed to useful, practical inventions.

Evolutionary science has produced a great deal of practical use and value. Can you identify and offer evidence of a mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution?

 

[jasoncran]

I understand the need to expermient, but not just to yank organs out as they used to. I know that, you arent from the us. It was told to my parents and that generation that is would a good idea to have the tonsils removed. My aunt went into hiding as to avoid the lobomoty. She is able to function now, and i took therapy to get there.


It's one thing to ask a terminally ill patient to subject themselves to an experminental drug or surgery another to say well theres nothing wrong with this organ, but it tends to cause problems sooner or later and while we have the chance we want to remove it.
I remember when they used to admin ether during the delivery of a child. I was delivered that way and so was many there were born after that. Ether is used as starting fluid.That was a lesson learned and not done in arrogance.

 

[Crying Rock]

What does any of this have to do with macroevolution?

I may be wrong, but I think the point was that YE creationists in particular have problems with particular aspects of science because it appears to conflict with ideas about the natural world they have derived from an idiosyncratic, selective interpretation of the Bible, but have no problems with other aspects that they suppose do not - even when they do.[/quote]
Exactly.[/quote]

The fact is indisputable; the question is Why?

Back to the point:

To what practical applications has the concept of macroevolution contributed?

I take it you agree, therefore, that microevolution as a concept has both validity and practical applications?

It's just philosophy.

No, it's an inference drawn from observed and measured evidence. It has limited practical application because of the extreme time scale in relation to individual lifespans.

Just as is YEC.

I wouldn't disagree.

Neither can prove nor disprove a designer.

Except that evolutionary sciences offer a lot of observed and measured evidence that support the idea of natural processes as causative agents. YEC offers nothing evidential at all.

And certainly neither have directly contributed to useful, practical inventions.

Evolutionary science has produced a great deal of practical use and value. Can you identify and offer evidence of a mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution?[/quote]


"...I take it you agree, therefore, that microevolution as a concept has both validity and practical applications?.."

Yes, because it is observed regularly.

It's just philosophy.

Completely distorted quote. I contended that macroevolution is just a philosophy...not microevolution. Please don't deceive our younger ones here.

"...Except that evolutionary sciences offer a lot of observed and measured evidence that support the idea of natural processes as causative agents..."

Such as? And please, no conjecture.

"...YEC offers nothing evidential at all..."

Who are you arguing with?

 

[lordkalvan]

^ CR, I'm sorry, but the formatting of your reply is so difficult to follow that I find myself unable to readily discern the points you have made and what they are in response to in particular. Is it possible for you to repost with clearer formatting? Thanks in advance.