Appendix Evolved Over 30 Times, May Perform Useful Function, Researchers Say

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

  Don't know how this evolved to the topic of evolution (actually looking back I do) I see Luke making his post stating it doesn't exist. But anyway my point in making this thread is and was to show that everything that G-D made is useful even if some time ago their were those who did not see it that way. That is the message I am trying to bring forth. Soo there you go.

[syyuge]

Within the last decade, research has shown that this lymphatic tissue encourages the growth of some kinds of beneficial gut bacteria. What's more, careful anatomical study of other mammals has revealed that species as diverse as beavers, koalas, and porcupines also have a structure jutting off of their guts in exactly the same place as our appendix—in other words, the feature is much more common among mammals than once thought.

Tonsils too work as the forefront guards of body and they are the first to detect, face, and defend against the infection. In this process they get red and swollen but before that they inform through brain to all other requisite body parts to prepare the suitable anti bodies and fight coordinately against the spreading incoming infection. So without the tonsils the front guard post gets vacated and others are left to fight it out in somewhat haphazard manner.   

[angryChineseKahanist]

When I read genesis, I see 'the big bang', creation of the planets in our solar system, water and land, .....and then humans.
Its very general, but isn't that just what scientists say? Same as science.
Where does it say that humans just popped out of thin air?
Why can't we evolve?
Think evolve as adapt.
We do that right now.
Negros in the jungles are completely black. They move to the colder United States, they turn brown.
I was born overseas. When I came here I had to adapt to a new language and a new weather climate.

[Ephraim Ben Noach]

When I read genesis, I see 'the big bang', creation of the planets in our solar system, water and land, .....and then humans.
Its very general, but isn't that just what scientists say? Same as science.
Where does it say that humans just popped out of thin air?
Why can't we evolve?
Think evolve as adapt.
We do that right now.
Negros in the jungles are completely black. They move to the colder United States, they turn brown.
I was born overseas. When I came here I had to adapt to a new language and a new weather climate.

Exactly! I don't know if this is kosher or not... If you take a Cabernet Franc and cross it with a Concord grape, you get a grape that is closer in taste to a Cabernet, but is more resistant to cold weather etc.

[muman613]

Exactly! I don't know if this is kosher or not... If you take a Cabernet Franc and cross it with a Concord grape, you get a grape that is closer in taste to a Cabernet, but is more resistant to cold weather etc.

Adaptation and Evolution are two different topics though. Evolution involves one species evolving into another species. Adaptation only occur within one species...

[IsraelForever]

   Do you know how babies are formed? You think a baby is made by taking different mud and other substances and putting them together? NO it is a 1 cell that combines with an egg that produces a human being. Soo why is that not problematic for you then? Or maybe you do not agree to that process being true?

Sorry, I just don't see how human reproduction can be compared to having a one-celled organism in the primordial soup, as it were, on its own, with growth and with time, turning into a human being.   

[angryChineseKahanist]

Adaptation and Evolution are two different topics though. Evolution involves one species evolving into another species. Adaptation only occur within one species...

ok where does it say you are not allowed to evolve?

[cjd]

the appendix is useful until it is about to burst...then you remove and not worry about replacing it.  The same is true of tonsils and third molars.  But if they don't have to be removed, let them be.  I think that's the important point.

True... The fact that people have been having things like this that have become problematic removed for years and hardly notice a difference shows that they really don't do all that much towards keeping people alive.

[Dr. Dan]

How do we refute the proofs of the Evolutionists?  We need refute nothing, for they have produced not a single proof.  ---Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth, paragraph 24.

That's not proof. That's an opinion.

[zionlion1948]

"The mathematical improbability of accidental Evolution is staggering.  The improbability, even  if the possibility could exist, that a single cell could by chance develop into an ant, is of astronomical dimensions....Try to make a booklet from 15 loose sheets numbered one to 15.  Shuffle the sheets, and see what chances there are that they will fall upon each other in numerical order....The probability is one chance in 1,307,700,000,000....Suppose that your book has not 15, but one hundred loose pages, numbered.  To shuffle them by accident, so that they will fall into numerical order, would be one chance in billions x billions x billions.  The accidental development of one cell into an ant's leg requires hundreds of 1) various-sized and 2) various-shaped cells of 3) various materials, all precision-made and 4) all precisely positioned; and all must be 5) united by structure and by nerve and muscle connection to function as a unit.  This is equivalent to thousands of numbered pages which must fall in precise numerical order.  The improbability of such an accidental arrangement defies mathematical calculation.  But even this is but nothing compared to the human eye, which is immensely more complicated....It is easier to believe that a mountain, after millions of earthquakes, eruptions and hurricanes was finally shaped by accidenet into a tall skyscraper building with all details of steel framework, masonry, plumbing, ventilation, lighting, hardware, fixtures, furniture and communication---than to believe that a one-cell algae developed into an eye.  Compared to the eye, the building is as uncomplicated as a brick."  --Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth!  pp.10-12

[angryChineseKahanist]

I never found any answers in my quest to find where it says that we are not allowed to evolve.

[zionlion1948]

"Evolution has no witnesses, for nothing of the kind has transpired in the memory of Mankind; and the evidence of the fossils contradicts it sharply.  Creation, however, has witnesses, whose testimony is supported by historic tradition of the utmost reliability...If miracles of nature are to be ascribed to G-d, why protract these miracles over aeons of time instead of the six days of Creation?  Once they [the Evolutionists] admit the presence of the Lving G-d, the entire structure of Evolution topples over.  Their chief purpose in manufacturing this theory was to avoid the necessity of admitting the presence of G-d."  ---Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth, paragraphs 29-30

[Dr. Dan]

Precisely proof that Gd exists and that evolution was How He created our dominion. On the seventh day was rest.  Therefore no more evolution.

"The mathematical improbability of accidental Evolution is staggering.  The improbability, even  if the possibility could exist, that a single cell could by chance develop into an ant, is of astronomical dimensions....Try to make a booklet from 15 loose sheets numbered one to 15.  Shuffle the sheets, and see what chances there are that they will fall upon each other in numerical order....The probability is one chance in 1,307,700,000,000....Suppose that your book has not 15, but one hundred loose pages, numbered.  To shuffle them by accident, so that they will fall into numerical order, would be one chance in billions x billions x billions.  The accidental development of one cell into an ant's leg requires hundreds of 1) various-sized and 2) various-shaped cells of 3) various materials, all precision-made and 4) all precisely positioned; and all must be 5) united by structure and by nerve and muscle connection to function as a unit.  This is equivalent to thousands of numbered pages which must fall in precise numerical order.  The improbability of such an accidental arrangement defies mathematical calculation.  But even this is but nothing compared to the human eye, which is immensely more complicated....It is easier to believe that a mountain, after millions of earthquakes, eruptions and hurricanes was finally shaped by accidenet into a tall skyscraper building with all details of steel framework, masonry, plumbing, ventilation, lighting, hardware, fixtures, furniture and communication---than to believe that a one-cell algae developed into an eye.  Compared to the eye, the building is as uncomplicated as a brick."  --Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth!  pp.10-12

[zionlion1948]

"What about the fossils which the Evolutionists claim to be the remains of prehistoric men?....There are none, whatsoever.  Despite the sensational reports, which perennially crop up in the press, of new discoveries here and there, they have not found a single 'missing link' fossil.  They are either 1) outright apes, or 2)  ordinary contemporary-type humans or 3) deliberate hoaxes.  The fossil 'primate' Proconsul Africanus, which had been described as a progenitor of both apes and humans, was finally declared, at a London meeting of the Congress of Zoology (Time Magazine, 7/28/58), to be nothing more than an ape.  Thus, a long-established fable was finally demolished, after it had served for years as one of the 'proofs' of Evolution.  The entire proof had been based on a few bones, but no complete skeleton had been found.  But when the Proconsul's head and forearm were finally discovered, they revealed that the fossil was definitely that of an ape.  Another case:  The Neanderthal Man, a half-century established museum exhibit of a stooped; ape-like man, was at the same London conference revealed to be nothing more than a modern-type man (Time, ibid.)  The 'bent-kneed, stooped' posture, which had hitherto been construed as an ape-like stance, was finally declared to be nothing else than the effects of age and arthritis.  Thus, any old man today, stooped by arthritis and by the weight of his years, could have been pointed out by the Evolutionists as a missing-link; especially if he was posing naked, with a stone axe in his hand, and with a year's growth of hair and beard to make him more authentic.  This, then, is what is finally revealed after fifty years of citing these fossils as proofs."  ---Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth, pp.17-18

[Dr. Dan]

Btw, I love this explanation of how our universe was not just a happy accident.  It simply proves Gd's existence.  However, it doesn't disprove that evolution might have been one of Gd's methods of creating the universe before the seventh day of creation.

"The mathematical improbability of accidental Evolution is staggering.  The improbability, even  if the possibility could exist, that a single cell could by chance develop into an ant, is of astronomical dimensions....Try to make a booklet from 15 loose sheets numbered one to 15.  Shuffle the sheets, and see what chances there are that they will fall upon each other in numerical order....The probability is one chance in 1,307,700,000,000....Suppose that your book has not 15, but one hundred loose pages, numbered.  To shuffle them by accident, so that they will fall into numerical order, would be one chance in billions x billions x billions.  The accidental development of one cell into an ant's leg requires hundreds of 1) various-sized and 2) various-shaped cells of 3) various materials, all precision-made and 4) all precisely positioned; and all must be 5) united by structure and by nerve and muscle connection to function as a unit.  This is equivalent to thousands of numbered pages which must fall in precise numerical order.  The improbability of such an accidental arrangement defies mathematical calculation.  But even this is but nothing compared to the human eye, which is immensely more complicated....It is easier to believe that a mountain, after millions of earthquakes, eruptions and hurricanes was finally shaped by accidenet into a tall skyscraper building with all details of steel framework, masonry, plumbing, ventilation, lighting, hardware, fixtures, furniture and communication---than to believe that a one-cell algae developed into an eye.  Compared to the eye, the building is as uncomplicated as a brick."  --Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth!  pp.10-12

[Dr. Dan]

Again, this is just an opinion.  If I were to say, Gd forbid, that Gd doesn't exist and that things happened accidentally to create evolution and us..then the Rabbi would be 1000% correct.  But in my opinion, couldn't evolution be a method of how Gd came to create Man with a soul as well as all type of living things?  Right now, I think so.  Does it matter?   No.  Does it refute the Bible?  No.  Why?  Because the Bible is not a science book. It's a book on how to live morally and a history book and some things should be taken literally and other things not literally.  Which things?  The Talmud/Oral Torah is a good place to start.

"Evolution has no witnesses, for nothing of the kind has transpired in the memory of Mankind; and the evidence of the fossils contradicts it sharply.  Creation, however, has witnesses, whose testimony is supported by historic tradition of the utmost reliability...If miracles of nature are to be ascribed to G-d, why protract these miracles over aeons of time instead of the six days of Creation?  Once they [the Evolutionists] admit the presence of the Lving G-d, the entire structure of Evolution topples over.  Their chief purpose in manufacturing this theory was to avoid the necessity of admitting the presence of G-d."  ---Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth, paragraphs 29-30

[Dr. Dan]

And can you explain why the Mitochodria and Chloroplasts resemble prokaryotic cells?  There was a method to Gd's madness on how He created us.  Yes, Man and all living things were created from dust with His breath.  That is what we are made out of.  But to imagine a god that looks like a man with a mouth with oxygen to breath in our lungs, is idolatry.  Therefore, what we read from Genesis shouldn't be taken literally.  That perhaps dust means complex proteins and molecules and breath means electricity, heat, volcanic eruptions (all belonging to Gd's "fingers").  From there, perhaps that's where Gd began molding us into His "image".  And at this time, the best theory that explains the HOW is evolution.  It doesn't contradict anything and the claim you make that it does, shows your ignorance on the topic.  Without Gd's science and accepting its yolk, religion alone will do nothing but relying on miracles.  Take the time to learn about it open mindedly, and you will notice how wonderous Gd works.  Otherwise, put the duct tape over your eyes and mouth and shut up.

"What about the fossils which the Evolutionists claim to be the remains of prehistoric men?....There are none, whatsoever.  Despite the sensational reports, which perennially crop up in the press, of new discoveries here and there, they have not found a single 'missing link' fossil.  They are either 1) outright apes, or 2)  ordinary contemporary-type humans or 3) deliberate hoaxes.  The fossil 'primate' Proconsul Africanus, which had been described as a progenitor of both apes and humans, was finally declared, at a London meeting of the Congress of Zoology (Time Magazine, 7/28/58), to be nothing more than an ape.  Thus, a long-established fable was finally demolished, after it had served for years as one of the 'proofs' of Evolution.  The entire proof had been based on a few bones, but no complete skeleton had been found.  But when the Proconsul's head and forearm were finally discovered, they revealed that the fossil was definitely that of an ape.  Another case:  The Neanderthal Man, a half-century established museum exhibit of a stooped; ape-like man, was at the same London conference revealed to be nothing more than a modern-type man (Time, ibid.)  The 'bent-kneed, stooped' posture, which had hitherto been construed as an ape-like stance, was finally declared to be nothing else than the effects of age and arthritis.  Thus, any old man today, stooped by arthritis and by the weight of his years, could have been pointed out by the Evolutionists as a missing-link; especially if he was posing naked, with a stone axe in his hand, and with a year's growth of hair and beard to make him more authentic.  This, then, is what is finally revealed after fifty years of citing these fossils as proofs."  ---Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth, pp.17-18

[zionlion1948]

"In the same year (1911) of the debut of the Neanderthal Man, another great find was announced:  the Piltdown Man.  For fifty years his picture, portrayed as if he had actually been photographed in real life, adorned the history books, although the find consisted of nothing more than a jawbone and a tooth.  Replicas of this jaw were displayed in 300 museums throughout the world, for the edification of the public.  Finally (10/22/53) it was discovered and publicly admitted that the jawbone was not a fossil, that the tooth had been trimmed with a file to aid in the deception, that the whole had been chemically dyed to simulate age, and that the jawbone belonged to an ape that had died fifty years ago.  This, then is the stuff with which they seduced generations of young men from their belief in the Divinity of Man.  For the edification of the youth, the school textbooks and the popular periodicals were always full of pictures of these mythical 'prehistoric' men, painted with such reality as to leave no doubt of their certainty.  The inescapable fact, that, in a world full of human being who are exactly alike and can breed together, there is not a single sub-human or super-human, either alive or in fossil state, is the most obvious refutation against the theory of Evolution of Man.  Where are the hundreds of various species of sub-humans who did not develop into Man?  And what became of their remains?  Their bones should be everywhere; but not a single one of these legendary 'missing links' has ever been found.  Even if their bones 'could' have disappeared without a trace, their living descendants should have been found all over the world.  Consider the dilemma of the Evolutionists:  it would have been totally impossible, even according to them, that any two different species would have developed by accident into the identical Man.  There are no variations of Man, for all races of men are exactly identical in all body organs, functions and structure; and they can all breed together.  Yet these theorists are forced, by their theory, to say that all the 'lower species of men' either disappeared without a trace; or that all the 'lower species' accidentally developed in identical fashion and evolved into the identical Homo Sapiens: an obviously impossible claim.  Of the millions of 'prehistoric' men which supposedly existed, not one has been discovered alive or dead; where many fossilized ordinary human bodies have been found...No mention is ever made in the books and newspapers about normal human fossils.  The truth is less interesting.  But, as the more honest ones admit, 'the missing-link is yet to be found,' although they have been searching high and low for decades, in the Himalayan mountaintops and in Siberian caves.  In addition to this insoluble dilemma, is the fact that since the memory of Mankind, no living creature ever developed a new organ, although this should be happening quite frequently according to the sudden mutation theory; or gradually according to the old adaptation theory.  They have no foot to stand on."   Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth, pp.18-19

[Dr. Dan]

You just copy and paste. Ban this troll

[IsraelForever]

I'm sorry but I maintain that, if G-d used evolution to create Adam and Eve, then "evolution", in the true, scientific sense, is a myth.  If, for example, the eye developed on its own without any outside guidance, then it's evolution.  But if G-d was overseeing it and moving it along (as it were), then nothing really "evolved."  It only appears to have evolved.  Well, what can I say?  This is how I see it.   Besides, where is any process like evolution mentioned or even hinted at in the Bible?   

 

[Dr. Dan]

I'm sorry but I maintain that, if G-d used evolution to create Adam and Eve, then "evolution", in the true, scientific sense, is a myth.  If, for example, the eye developed on its own without any outside guidance, then it's evolution.  But if G-d was overseeing it and moving it along (as it were), then nothing really "evolved."  It only appears to have evolved.  Well, what can I say?  This is how I see it.   Besides, where is any process like evolution mentioned or even hinted at in the Bible?

You bring up a good point...only to us, the "evolution and development" of the eye looks to us as evolution, but really isn't evolution since Gd intended to create the eye in this manner.  Yes, philosophically you are right...But scientifically, if evolution is true..or some of it is true, it's still science and helps further the cause of medicine, veterinary medicine, and organic technology. 

I like the way Chaim puts it in regards to evolution.  "Does it really matter?  Gd exists. So what difference does it make if it is true or not?"  And he says, "The Bible is a book of morals and not a science book." 

Therefore, Rabbis and priests shouldn't pretend to be scientists when talking about evolution or the lack thereof and scientists should stay away pretending to be experts on the Bible. (that means that if an individual has no scientific background, they just shut up when they try to disprove evolution).

[muman613]

I like the way Chaim puts it in regards to evolution.  "Does it really matter?  Gd exists. So what difference does it make if it is true or not?"  And he says, "The Bible is a book of morals and not a science book." 

We believe (Orthodox Jews, as I have been taught) that the Torah is more than a book of 'morals'. As I have said also, it is not a science book or history book, but it does contain the truths of life. Morals relate to how man interacts with his fellow man. But the Torah involves the mitzvot, the commandments, which enable us to have a relationship with him.

Also we believe that the Torah contains the proof that Hashem has given the land of Canaan as a heritage to the Jewish people. If the Torah were simply a nice book of morals then we would look quite silly using it as the basic reason the Jewish people are to be in the Holy Land of Israel.

The Torah contains the truth of Creation, and through the deeper study of it (the Kabbalah and Sod levels of understanding) we can see that the Torah does contain hints about many things we don't yet understand. There are proofs that Judaism discussed the age of the universe and calculated it incredibly close to what science today calculates.

I would not go so far to say that the Torah is just a nice book of morality, as I consider that a denigration of our great heritage. But I am not, as I said before, going to stop believing in Hashem just because some scientists have some wild theories. Time will tell what is true, and what is false...

[Rubystars]

I find it amusing that people are still trying to discredit Darwin who had the most rudimentary idea of how evolution worked. That field of study was literally in its infancy at the time. Of course you're going to be able to find flaws with it. Young earth creationists seem to think that if they can find a flaw in Darwin's ideas that somehow that discredits the whole idea.

I try not to promote evolution because of the way some people take it to hurt their faith or to take the philosophy that it means we're not different from other animals. A lot of people think that accepting evolution makes you an atheist. One of the most frustrating things in dealing with other human beings is that you can say one thing but people will add several meanings to what you say that you never actually said.

For example if I were to say that I accept the theory of evolution as valid science, people have a tendency to jump to all sorts of unfounded conclusions about me and what I think and believe. It's extremely frustrating and I get tired of spending half the conversation trying to defend myself or dispel these wrong assumptions.

Another problem I run into is that people scream "there is no evidence!" and then they will not accept any evidence shown at all. No matter how thorough, compelling, or strong the evidence is, they continue to scream that there's no evidence because they have decided beforehand that there can not be any evidence.

One of those unfounded assumptions comes into play and that's that, if they accept evolution, they automatically have to abandon the Bible. I don't agree with that at all. However, this false belief causes a lot of emotional resistance to the idea that gets in the way of a clear-headed and unbiased evaluation of evidence.

Until people can get over that and be willing to accept what the evidence leads them to rather than coming to conclusions beforehand, then any argument is pretty much futile.

[angryChineseKahanist]

where does it say we're not allowed to evolve?

[Dr. Dan]

Well said rubystars. You expressed my sentiments perfectly.