Updated every weekday.         Please vote!    



Atavisms are another occurrence that give weight to evolution. Occasionally, an organism is born with traits that can be found in its fossil ancestors. Humans are born with tails, whales are born with hind legs, horses are born with extra toes, etc. This occurs because all organisms carry out-dated recessive DNA in their genetic code that sometimes becomes dominate. Some Creationists pose the argument that these are merely random birth defects, however, the problem with this argument is that the atavisms always match up neatly with fossil records—they never give unpredicted results. For example, you never see a human grow wings, or a whale grow antennae.

This whale illustration has been reprinted without permission from issue # 413 of Nature Magazine.

Here we are at Genesis 1:23.



TBman256 writes:


is anyone else here a sea shepherd supporter?

Katy writes:


I want to be born with wings ... *pout*

Oh, wait ... I'm a bit late for that, aren't I? Yeah ... Hmmm ... Wonder if I could just have them surgically implanted. Has anyone ever done that? I bet they have! Google, here I come!!!

Katy writes:


Thinking on it, there is no reason that Creationism is opposed to evolution. Couldn't creatures have been created that then evolved over time? Why not? Religious people who refuse to accept that things evolve need to take a look at the common pet dog - they all started out as wolf-like creatures, and now they range from mastiffs to tea-cup poodles ... if that isn't very obvious proof of evolution at work, I don't know what is ...

TheAlmightyGuru writes:


@Katy: It's really a matter of how literal you want to take the bible. If you believe that God created fully-formed animals, then you are contradicting the evidence. You would have to say that God created a very primitive life form about 3 billion years ago that evolved into the animals we see today. However, I still think the theory of abiogenesis is more satisfying.

As for dog evolution, that's a great example of artificial selection and evolution in action, but the apologist argument is that, while the dogs have changed, a mastiff and a poodle are still "kinds" of dogs. They agree that animals can change within their own kind, but think it's impossible that dog's can eventually evolve into another species. Basically, the argument is, "If you can't take several millions years of evolution and condense it down into something that can watch before my very eyes, I won't believe it."

Bahookee writes:


That is not difference than a FLIPPER bone see the leap!

TheAlmightyGuru writes:


I'm not sure I understand your objection as biology clearly shows that flippers evolved from arms, hands, legs, or feet.


Oh the irony!