Though I'm not certain about this, it seems rather absurd that a supreme divinity would make humans with toes. I mean to say, if the Fundamentalist/Creationists were to be right, why would God have made such useless extremities in a basically static being? If no evolution has transpired, then toes cannot be vestigial: they cannot be the phyiological residue of an unthinkably ancient simian past. But why then? To what purpose would a God make them? To vex the observant and sensitive? To pick on humans in general? Mayhap Satan made them himself? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I realize that excessive structures in other creatures, like aquatic mammals, are regarded as vestigial and as evidence for evolution. However, it seems sensible to stick to the toes, as they are the nearest, and, perhaps, the most pertinent example. Don't tell me that you need your toes to grab items for which you're too indolent to lean over: you don't.
The primates that humans evolved from had uses for toes. During evolution, they were simply never disposed of. However, maybe in further evolution, human's toes will get smaller and smaller until finally they are nonexistant. As to God's relationship with all this, well, he is in charge of evolution. He designed the whole process as well as all the eings that came about as a cause of it.
It would probably seem rather absurd if he hadn't either. Considering the mobility of humans versus blue/green algae, how useless are toes?
how about... the appendix? or having two nostrils, or hair, they are vestigal too! Perhaps there will be a better use for toes in the future when we live in zero gravity. But then we won't need bones....hmmmm
I saw a show on living in space on TV. It said most likely after a few generations humans won't have "legs" but more weak little flimsy things Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Living in space Yes, this would be true. In an antigravity state, the muscles of the legs (and possibly heart, bladder and uterus) would waste away and be of no use in this environment. The legs are the most vulnerable. A comment on toes. If we didn't have toes, we would fall forward. Our toes help keep us balanced. Our toes help us to jump or stand taller (tiptoe). I imagine in our Earthly environment, standing tall to reach the fruit of trees the toes are needed. Of course, in space, the toes would be the first to go. I would imagine in a zero gravity environment, our feet would develop into flippers to help propel us where we wanted to go. Since the uterus is a smooth muscle, in that it contracts to expel its contents (like the bladder), in a zero gravity environment menstral function would shut down and the old-fashioned way to get pregnant may not work either. Without a contracting uterus, I don't see how a woman could give birth in space.
There are a few mistakes here. One is that if such an evolution were to occur it would take far more than a 'few' generations it would take thousands of generations. Two, atrophy due to disuse is not heritable. Three, disuse would not necessarily prompt an evolution towards 'weak little flimsy' legs. This would only happen if humans with weaker legs survived and procreated more than people with stronger legs. ~Raithere
Yes, it would take far more than a few generations. You are right about this. Disuse due to atrophy WOULD eventually be inheritable however. We don't have tails any longer, our little toes are getting smaller and we don't use them for anything, people are being born without all their wisdom teeth, etc.). Which brings me to a question. In the days of Abraham and Moses, were their physical features slightly different than ours? Were their toes longer? Did they actually use their wisdom teeth for chewing? Was their appendix used to aid in digestion? Of course, at the time, they wouldn't have commented on this because they all looked similar. I guess the only way we could tell is through archeology. People today are much bigger and taller. For example, I visited a Civil War Museum and the uniforms were small enough to fit a 10 year-old today. I've seen old women's clothing from the early 1900s and today's 8-10 year-old female would fit in them. So our size has changed dramatically. Now way back when Abraham and Moses were alive, I wonder how big they were? Of course we envision them to be statuesque men, but I doubt that they were.
it's not toes that we can do without, it's ceacums (sp?). rabbits (and other such animals that have very tough diets) have nice big ones to digest all the grass they eat, humans have one for apparently no reason at all (literally, we don't use them for anything). Though I'm not certain about this, it seems rather absurd that a supreme divinity would make humans with ceacums if you'd said that then you would've been correct. toes we need, ceacums we don't. basically there is no arguement that chrisitans can come up with to counter the biological evidence found within our own bodies (or that of any other biological bodies). we are not of perfect design, nothing is (what arogant thought that is, WE are perfect). nothing has happened that would cause humans to grow ceacums. no god would've placed them into humans as it created them. if you have a proper christian view (fundamentalist that is. you others are just trying to perpetuate the useless through changing it to fit todays standards. besides, if you believed what christ did you would all be jewish) you cannot defend against such claims without being completely ignorant. evolution must have occured. to claim evolution had purpose would to be just as ignorant. atheroy
Absolutely not. Changes to body structure of the individual are not passed down genetically. Genetic traits that result in such things as weaker legs would have to offer some procreative advantage over those with stronger legs in order for us to evolve towards the suggested end. The greater the advantage the more quickly the trait will be selected towards. A trait that is in disuse but poses no direct advantage or disadvantage might be selected against over an extremely long number of generations simply because the unused trait costs the body in terms of energy and maintenance but such would be a minor influence within the scenario provided. The selection pressure against wisdom teeth, for instance, has little to do with the fact that they are no longer used and much more to do with the fact that they can pose a serious health risk. One will also note that the advance of medical science has all but eliminated the evolutionary impact of wisdom teeth in first world countries. In many ways this type of protection could be quite harmful to humans in the long run. As a population they were essentially identical based upon archaeological findings. Actually, this is a bit misleading. The noted height difference is a primarily a function of nutrition and general health rather than genetics (although there is some argument that 'cross-breeding' between taller and shorter populations has resulted in a higher average height overall). The average height of men actually decreased in the 1800's probably due to poorer health conditions and didn't get back up to the average of the Revolutionary War until WWII. http://www.tryonpalace.org/pages/classpgs/d11_footpg.html http://www.plimoth.org/Library/l-short.htm http://www.nber.org/~confer/2002/si2002/steckel.pdf Although it's difficult to establish a population average for ancient times one should note, for instance, such things as the minimum height requirement for a Roman legionnaire was 5'7". I found the heights of a few historical personages: Washington was 6'2" Napoleon stood 5 foot 6.5" Ramses III was about 6' ~Raithere
