Pelvic floor prolapse: Some of the pelvic floor muscle/tendon/ligaments do indeed attached to the coccyx, and certainly there have been case reports of people who have suffered from “pelvic floor prolapse” after coccygectomy, which is sagging of the pelvic floor.
The coccyx has several important functions. It is the insertion site for multiple muscles, ligaments, and tendons. It provides weight bearing support to a person in the seated position. Leaning back while sitting leads to increased pressure on the coccyx
And sex after the surgery...might be painful...or impossible...but it's hard to know since there have been no studies done on sex in coccygectomy patients.
While I'm having that done, I'll also ask to have my arms, legs, eyes, tongue, ears, nose, teeth and everything else I can survive without removed at the same time to prove that I don't really need them to survive. That will help everyone know that I used to be a monkey.
These images are proof that the mother and father of these humans are pictured below with their siblings, a nice family portrait:
You can see the "evolution tree" diagram above, and read the evolutionist view of dolphins that claims they are related to cows and maybe hippos (but they have no idea, it's all fairy tale telling so they have to leave it open so it can be easily changed at any time).
The evolution view teaches that life organized itself (impossible, never observed) following the explosion of nothing (impossible, never observed), and that single-celled organisms turned into more and more advanced life forms over millions and millions and millions of years (hoping that people won't scoff at the impossibility when more and more and more time is added).
Yes, that requires animals turning from one kind of animal to another kind of animal slowly with each successive generation.
New information is required to be added in order for this to happen.
This addition of new information and new instructions for new parts HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.
why do we have vestigial structures like the tailbone?
The tailbone isn't vestigial.
The tailbone is a very important part of the human anatomy, and is the anchor for tendons, ligaments, and muscles, including those that connect to the anus. The tailbone supports a person in sitting position.
The spine has to end somewhere.
None of this is evidence that human beings "used to have a tail" or "used to be monkeys".
The concept of vestigial organs does not prove evolution anyways. Evolution requires the input of NEW information, NEW systems.
LOSING organs, LOSING function is the OPPOSITE of evolution!
Losing function and losing parts can happen. This is found in real science. But it isn't evidence that one kind of animal can turn into another kind of animal.
An example of losing information that some tout as "evolution observed" (but is actually the opposite) would be if some beetles are produced with wings missing due to a genetic mutation on a windy island. The mutant beetles in this case would be less likely to be blown away, so a population could potentially lose the genetic information for wings this way in a particular environment.
This is not a gain of information. A loss is devolution, not evolution.
For molecules to become man, you need significant, massive amounts of information for new parts, new organs, new instructions ADDED.
Information being lost or removed is the opposite of evolution.
And what's included in science is only variation within a kind of animal. You have beetles at the beginning and beetles at the end. It is still the same kind of animal, but information has been lost.
In most environments, not having wings would make one an easier target for predators, since you can't fly away.
Vestigial organs or lost information would not show evolution, but rather devolution (as the law of entropy, which also renders the entire evolutionary fable impossible, would predict).
The claim that a vestigial organ (even if you had provided an example of one) would prove evolution is similar to saying a spare tire found in the back of a pickup truck proves that the car made itself.
Creatures do show remarkable, God-given ability to adapt (long hair, short hair, coloring, size, etc.) within kinds. Variation within kinds happens. That's scientific.
What is not scientific or observed and never has been, is one kind of animal changing into another kind of animal. This does not happen. Hyraxes don't become horses. Cows don't become dolphins. Fish don't become lizards.
Believing these kinds of impossible claims is just as religious as believing someone really smart and powerful made them, although I'd say logic is heavily on the side of intelligently designed, amazing organisms composed of countless machines operating together in beautiful harmony having been designed rather than poofing into existence from nothingness by accident.
animals turning from one kind of animal to another kind of animal, such as cows to dolphins and whales.
lol i dont really read babyshark posts closely anymore, just saw this and rofld
Not sure why you're laughing here, since you are the one that purports to believe this.
Origin of Dolphins
It is generally believed that all marine mammals evolved from land based ancestors around 50-60 million years ago. Of all the marine mammals the dolphins are among those most adapted to an aquatic way of life. All cetaceans were well diversified around 50 million years ago. It is widely accepted in scientific circles that both the baleen and toothed whales shared a common ancestor, now extinct. The closest living relatives of dolphins today are the even toed ungulates such as camels and cows with the humble hippopotamus being the closest living relative. The origin of dolphins and the origin of whales in general is the subject of much debate. Did they evolve from an ancient ungulate order or did they diverge along with the hippopotamus from another lesser known group of animals land based ungulates?
If evolution is such "fact", why do they have no clue about it and why are they still debating these ridiculous things amongst themselves?
The entire "evolutionary tree" is a fantasy.
All we observe are the "points" of these diagrams. The entire "tree" is missing. No evidence, observational, fossil, or otherwise.
Yet it is taught as fact in most public schools, museiums, textbooks, TV programs, and that's why you believe it's fact.
You have no evidence to support these facts, and neither do any of the evolution scientists.
These ideas have been shredded to oblivion by real science, yet the idea is embraced with religious fervor, not because of science, but because people who love to live for their lusts and pleasures do not wish to be confronted by a God who judges wickedness, and it gives them an excuse to sin.
I do not believe that one kind of animal can turn into another kind of animal. I do not believe that cows turn into dolphins or that frogs can turn into princes in real life.Why would you believe that one kind of animal can turn into another kind of animal? (not science, it's religion) Bring out your best scientific evidence. Let's have it.
dogs used to be wolves. therefore evolution is real
I'm going to assume that you did as requested, and brought out your BEST evidence that one kind of animal can turn into another kind of animal.
I specifically said repeatedly that variation within a kind of animal does not count as evidence that one kind of animal can turn into another kind of animal.
I don't know of anyone who does not understand that dogs and wolves are the same KIND of animal.
Dogs and wolves can interbreed and produce viable and fertile young. They are the same KIND of animal.
Let's talk about the "evolution" of dogs into various artificially selected mutants.
The mutant dogs would be culled by natural selection. They are not an improvement over the natural wolf-looking dog type.
Bulldog - severe underbite (inferior to healthy bite), jaw too short for teeth, teeth grow in crooked, are prone to decay - wrinkled skin prone to bacterial and yeast infections - short fur, would freeze to death in most places - short, deformed legs and joints render them handicapped and unable to outrun enemies or chase prey (72% have hip dysplasia) - can't give birth normally (80-95% of bulldogs are born by C-section) - severe breathing problems due to deformed muzzle, narrow nostrils and windpipe, unable to cool themselves properly in hot weather and are prone to collapse from heatstroke - many have eyelashes that grow inwards and scrape the dogs' corneas - many come with cleft lip, abnormal eye formation, and hydrocephalus - many have a tail so tightly wound that poop gets stuck in it, and the tail needs to be amputated
I personally think it's cruel to intentionally breed a dog that will endure a lifetime of suffering from being this mutated and deformed. It's sick. This is not progress. This is not an improvement from the genetically diverse natural dog body shape found in wild dogs and wolves.
Dachshunds have fragile backs. Because of their dwarfism (big dog, short legs), Dachshunds are genetically predisposed to have faulty spines, which can become injured when handled incorrectly, or sometimes for no apparent reason. Certain activities can be hard on a Dachshund’s back and can even result in a paralyzing disk rupture:
• Going up and down stairs • Jumping off furniture • Even running quickly around a sharp corner.
Get ready to carry your dachshund up and down the stars!
Even my beloved German Shepherd breed has a less genetic diversity than non-purebred dogs, and the American bloodlines have also been damaged beyond belief. The first picture in this post is of a German Shepherd from European working bloodlines (much healthier than American bloodlines, but still have genetic issues).
German Shepherd (American Show Bloodlines)
Someone decided that the breed should have a sloping back. For whatever reason. There's no intelligence there. But the dog has been intentionally bred to be crippled.
These dogs are purposely bred for a certain "look" and the breed ends up deformed and sickly and crippled.
Artificial breeding is clearly NOT making dogs stronger, better, faster, or improved in any way. Nor is any new information being added, which is REQUIRED for evolution to "progress" in an upward direction.
I was asking for evidence that a fish can produce a wolf or that a monkey can produce a human being or that a cow can produce a whale.
Bonus if you can prove that nothing exploded billions of years or if you can prove that life originated from non-living material or if you can prove that an imagined self-replicating molecule (non-existent supposed predecessor to living cells). Evolutionists have a lot of religious faith in these things.
Creationism is religious, sure, especially if you specify who that Creator is. But evolutionism is also religious.
If you don't think so, show me the evidence. So far, none has been produced.
9. Temperament prone to fits of rage and verbal attacks on other players > proceed to 12 10. Temperament confident, playful, fun, stable personality type > proceed to 14 11. Temperament unsure of temperamental suitability > proceed to 13
14. Age over 40 > disqualified (Children with fathers aged 40 or older are more than five times as likely to have an autism spectrum disorder than children fathered by men aged under 30. https://yourfertility.org.au/for-men/age/) 15. Age under 25 > disqualified (You may be a candidate for breeding within a future program, come back in a decade) 16. Age 26 - 39 > proceed to 17
17. Take IQ Test here http://test.mensa.no/ IQ test result over 100 > proceed to 21 18. IQ Test result 70-99 > proceed to 20 19. IQ Test result 40-69 (the majority of forum users most likely land in this group) > disqualified