Nutrition, Variation and Evolution

[Ukulelemike]

So, I find a common argument I have with evolutionists is in the area of teeth. Weird, eh?

Evolutionists like to tout the crowding out of wisdom teeth as an example of our evolving to no longer need them. Now that's funny, because it seems clearly to be exactly proof of something completely different.

In the early 20th century, Dr. Weston Price, a dentist, travelled around the world studying the effects of diet on different people, comparing the diets of indigenous peoples who still consumed a more primitive diet high in saturated fats, meat, whole grains (sometimes) and dairy, to those who had recently begun eating more modern diets, with higher grains and sugars, and to those who lived in cities and ate much more refined foods and less primitive foods, and found that those who ate primitive diets had broader jaws and cheeks, little if any tooth problems and never had any problem with wisdom tooth impaction because the jaw could handle them.  However the more 'civilized' the diet became, the narrower the face and jaw and the more dental disease and wisdom tooth impaction.

So basically, the loss of space for the wisdom teeth to fit in the jaw is a matter of poor diet and nutrition over numerous generations.  So in reality, it is a BAD thing, and hardly an improvement in the species, as evolution is supposed to be. Yet still, this is lauded as proof of evolution. We could also discuss how more and more people lose their tonsils and appendix, which today are declared as being unnecessary throwbacks to our earlier, less-evolved bodies, and no longer needed, while denying that modern science knows full-well that they are important parts of our immune systems, and as we lose them, our health is weaker for it. Like the coccyx, or tailbone, they claim is not used anymore, being part of an early tail, while ignoring the scientifically-proven fact that it attaches to various muscles that keep one from being incontinent. That's why Kent Hovind would often declare that if they believed it was not necessary, he would pay for theirs to be removed.

I guess I say all this just to say that it is amazing to me how the loss of good, necessary things in our bodies due to poor nutrition, can somehow be seen as a positive proof of evolution. Seriously, if we once had tails, how could we NOT need them and do even better? Anyone ever need a third hand to open a door while carrying groceries?  Drives me crazy arguing with some of these knuckleheads sometimes.  

[swathdiver]

They'll lie about anything so as not to believe in God.  The Law of Entropy at work.  Somehow it does not apply when it comes to proving evolution false and God being true.  

[John81]

The evolutionary view is without any proof to support their theory, even after over a century of diligent searching for proof, that they must grasp at anything to claim as evidence. Knowing most people will never check the validity of their claims, this works well for them.

It's like those who claim the "web" between our fingers is evidence our hands were once webbed as our ancestors evolved in water. So many people simply look at their hands and give a simple, 'hmm, that makes sense', without another thought. Never mind how obvious it is the "web" between our fingers is no more than the connection between our fingers.

I recall one teacher back when I was in 6th grade telling us the small size of the toenail on the little toe is evidence of evolution. According to him, our toes once had claws but when we no longer needed claws they evolved into toenails and now that we don't really need them they are slowly evolving away.

[swathdiver]

It's all make believe too, not one shred of evidence.  In fact, Evolution cannot be called or considered a theory at all since it cannot stand up to such a definition.  Some relatives of mine say that it's ok for the scientists to be wrong, because the science is evolving!  LOL!  

 

I'll stick with my King James Bible thank you!  "...yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;"   

[John81]

I recently saw a video posted on Facebook which reminded me of this thread. The video says the ONLY explanation for our tailbone is evolution and says ONLY evolution explains why so many different species look similar shortly after conception.

They also pointed out something about certain muscles near our ears and a couple other things. Saying, again, that ONLY evolution could explain these things.

Sadly, many who watch such will think it makes sense and must be right. While previous generations, at least in America, had at least a basic understanding of Scripture and at least believed there was a God, which would give them cause to question the idea of evolution, that's no longer the case.

[swathdiver]

8 hours ago, John81 said:

evolution explains why so many different species look similar shortly after conception

That particular lie was disproven over a hundred years ago.  And yet, it is still in our textbooks from grade school to college to support evolution.  I forget the guy's name, Hagel maybe, who made a bunch of drawings wherein all the different species such as shrimp, monkeys, cats and human babies all looked the same shortly after conception.  He was wrong of course but that has not kept a family member of mine from denying that a baby is not baby until it is born because of this man's deceit.  My reply is, so could your wife be pregnant with a cat?

[John81]

Ken Ham has a good set of videos that refute evolution and helps Christians to confront the falsehood of evolution and present the biblical answer.

One of the things pointed out in one of the videos is how evolutionists have used drawings effectively to support their view. We've probably all seen the one featuring "the evolution of man" from a monkey to various stages of evolving man until the final version of a modern man. If a person just looks at the pictures put forth like that, without any critical thinking, they most often walk away thinking, "yep, I can see that, it must be true". The fact not put forth is there is no one shred of evidence to support that fictional drawing.

Evolutionists are unwilling to believe a Creator God could use the same basic design to bring about various animals but are willing to believe life spontaneously came about from non-life and from that one single cell life every living creature somehow formed.

Indeed, that "blob of tissue" evolutionists and pro-abortionists call the pre-born baby is absolutely a human baby from conception. Never does a human women give birth to a frog, trout, puppy or little chimp; just as none of those creatures ever give birth to a human baby. As they point out in actual fields of science, 'things that are different are not the same'.

I saw a news article about a story of a black African that had been kept in a zoo exhibit in the late 1800s in one of the northeast states as an example of the "missing link". The comments section was filled with outraged people, many blaming such on Christianity! They are blind to the fact the very idea of a "missing link" comes from evolutionary theory, not Christianity. The zoo exhibit was based totally on the theory of evolution, not at all upon Christian teaching on the origin of man.

Unfortunately, there are a sizable number of Christians who believe at least some aspects of evolution theory and some who see no problem in flushing the consequences of their actions from their womb since it's just a "blob of tissue".

[swathdiver]

What these fools and those who fail to actually use their brain fail to realize, is that if you, me, wretched and Mike all stood next together we would be forced to come to the same conclusion!  And yet, how can that be since we're all born within fifty years of each other?