PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Vestigal organs:
       evolutionist red herring

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Even though wisp seems to prefer the shotgun approach to the "well what about ..." diversion technique, I, for one, prefer the exhaustive topic method. If wisp chooses to answer this with rapid fire "well what about...'s" I'd be happy to start a new thread on a single topic of his choice.

(from biology online) vestigial organ:
A rudimentary structure in humans corresponding to a functional structure or organ in the lower animals.


The term vestigial organ or vestigial structure seems to be applied to any structure in which the use is not readily apparent. The appendix, for example, has long been believed to be a useless vestige. Recently, however, it has been shown to be important in the development of antibodies in developing babies and young children. It is also used throughout adulthood as a reservoir for good bacteria.

Of the nearly 180 structures previously identified as vestigial in humans nearly all have been found to have some use. Some are even very highly developed and specialized.





 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 3:29 PM on March 23, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The term vestigial organ or vestigial structure seems to be applied to any structure in which the use is not readily apparent.

Not so, vestigial organs and structures have a very specific definition, from here:
Vestigial

"In evolutionary biology and comparative anatomy, "vestigiality" in a species describes organs (vestigial organs), structures (vestigial structures), behaviors, and biochemical pathways that have seemingly lost all or most of an original function present in ancestor species. These structures are typically in a degenerate, atrophied, or rudimentary condition, and are often called vestigial organs, despite some of them not being actual organs. Examples include the eyes of some cave dwelling fish and mole rats, the leg and hip bones found in whales, the teeth that quickly disappear in duck billed platypuses, pollen in dandelions, and the human appendix and wisdom teeth."

The appendix is not thought to be useless, it is vestigial because it no longer retains it's original function.  
I'd love for you to show us some examples of "highly developed" vestigial orgains.  And while you're at it explain to us why the hip bones in whales aren't vestigial...


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:41 PM on March 23, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon,

Nice definition. I like it.

"In evolutionary biology and comparative anatomy, "vestigiality" in a species describes organs (vestigial organs), structures (vestigial structures), behaviors, and biochemical pathways that have seemingly lost all or most of an original function present in ancestor species. These structures are typically in a degenerate, atrophied, or rudimentary condition, and are often called vestigial organs, despite some of them not being actual organs. Examples include the eyes of some cave dwelling fish and mole rats, the leg and hip bones found in whales, the teeth that quickly disappear in duck billed platypuses, pollen in dandelions, and the human appendix and wisdom teeth."


The word "seemingly" is key in that modern biologists are finally admitting that many "seemingly functionless" "vestiges" actually have a function.

The appendix is not thought to be useless, it is vestigial because it no longer retains it's original function.

Half right. It's original function is the development of antibodies in the fetus. The secondary function is as a bacterial reservoir. It is a highly developed organ with a specific task. The appendix is part of the immune system, strategically located at the entrance of the almost sterile ileum from the colon with its normally high bacterial content.
I'd love for you to show us some examples of "highly developed" vestigial orgains.

There's one.
http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?id=8395&t=CFIDS_FM
And while you're at it explain to us why the hip bones in whales aren't vestigial...

Because they provide attachment points for muscles, primarily for muscles used in reproduction. Same as for the human tail bone.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 4:43 PM on March 23, 2009 | IP
ArcanaKnight

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The word "seemingly" is key in that modern biologists are finally admitting that many "seemingly functionless" "vestiges" actually have a function.

And what function is that exactly?  Most scientists use language like this to leave open the possibility (however remote) that they might be wrong and that those organs and structures do have a function that just hasn't been discovered yet.  Vestigial organs or structures don't have any currently known function in modern species.  If a function is discovered then it is no longer considered vestigial, so if the new supposed function of the appendix pans out all that will happen is the appendix will no longer considered to be vestigial.
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 6:02 PM on March 23, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If a function is discovered then it is no longer considered vestigial, so if the new supposed function of the appendix pans out all that will happen is the appendix will no longer considered to be vestigial.


As it should be. But why do evolutionists default to "vestigial" when a structures purpose is unknown? By definition vestigial implies evolution. To claim a structure is vestigial because it's purpose is unknown automatically presupposes an ancestor that had a use for said structure. Classic circular reasoning.

For example: "We know that people evolved from lower primates because the appendix is vestigial. We know that the appendix is vestigial because people evolved from lower primates."

Do any evos see a possible flaw in that type of reasoning?
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 6:38 PM on March 23, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx

The appendix is very clearly homologous to the cecum in other animals where it has an obvious function which it does not have in humans. It is called 'vestigial' because it is clearly a 'diminished' cecum or the 'vestige' of a cecum that no longer serves as a cecum... whatever other 'functions' it might have taken on.
Biologists accept it as a vestigial 'organ' because it is homologous with a similar structure in other animals but has diminished functionality 'as compared with' the fully functional, homologous organ in other animals.
Another example is the hip/pelvis in whales, snakes and legless lizards. These 'vestigial' structures are homologous with the hip/pelvis in other tetrapods where its function is quite obvious.
Goosebumps in humans are another example. The goosebump reflex is 'homologous' with the hair/spine raising reflex in other mammals. In some animals hair-raising is purely thermoregulatory while in others it is a defensive mechanims (porcupines raising their spines or dogs raising their hackles). Humans still have the reflex but it does not serve either as a thermoregulator or as a defensive mechanism. The fact that the same mechanism exists in different animals serving quite different purposes AND, in some animals, serves no purpose at all is a phenomenon that fits well with the theory of evolution ie evolution has a simple explanation for why this might happen.

All this nonsense about definitions of 'vestigial organ' and what function they currently serve in this animal or that animal is completely irrelevant to the creation/evolution argument. The 'fact' is that we can observe these homologous organs/structures/mechanisms and whichever theory you subscribe to you need to come up with a plausible (and prefereably simple) explanation for the phenomenon. The evos have a perfectly good and simple explanation that requires NO CHANGE to the basic thesis of evolution.

If you are speaking in defence of creation then YOU  MUST SUPPLY a 'creationist' explanation for the observed phenomenon. So...  LETS HEAR IT!!! Im very keen to hear the creationist explanation for why snakes need a pelvis.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 9:13 PM on March 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 6:38 PM on March 23, 2009 :
As it should be. But why do evolutionists default to "vestigial" when a structures purpose is unknown? By definition vestigial implies evolution. To claim a structure is vestigial because it's purpose is unknown automatically presupposes an ancestor that had a use for said structure. Classic circular reasoning.

For example: "We know that people evolved from lower primates because the appendix is vestigial. We know that the appendix is vestigial because people evolved from lower primates."

Do any evos see a possible flaw in that type of reasoning?


I agree that if it were given as you present it, it would not be logically correct.

Please show us a non-creationist source where this argument is used.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:51 PM on March 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Even though wisp seems to prefer the shotgun approach to the "well what about ..." diversion technique
Hum... I do seem to get carried away...

But i use no diversion techniques. Not at all.

What are you implying? That i'm reluctant to treat relevant subjects? I'm not. I don't need to lie or hide anything to help the TOE.

"Diversion"... Divert from what??? From the subject of "random chance"? It's refuted with a single line: Evolution is not about random chance. There.

I only (i think) bring up topics that are related to what we're discussing.

Most creationists are not eager to answer questions. They are also much more prone to thread starting than thread answering. If i started a thread for even just a few of my questions, perhaps none of them would be answered.

And i want as many answers i can get. So i cast a wide net. As wide as the subject under discussion will allow me. I'm not normally the first poster to go off topic.

Now, to this topic.

Examples of human vestigiality are the extra ear muscles; erector pili (that give us goose bumps); the plantaris muscle (used by other primates to manipulate objects and swing from tree branches using their feet); the wisdom teeth and the long root of the canine teeth; the third eyelid; the Jacobson's (or vomeronasal) organ; most of our hairs; the coccyx or tailbone; the Darwin's point; male breast tissue (if there was any function for it i don't think it can be compared with the risk of breast cancer, which can also happen in males) and nipples, and i bet there are plenty of "human" vestigial behaviors. (Vestigiality in other species are just too numerous to treat here.)

Sometimes when we're about to fall asleep we get startled. It fucks up my sleep for a while. It has no function now that we don't sleep on tree branches anymore.

This is the Darwin's spot (or Darwin's tubercle):

You think you can find some use for that?

The ears of a Macaque monkey, and most other monkeys, have far more developed muscles than those of humans and therefore have the capability to move their ears to better hear potential threats. Humans and other apes such as the orangutan and chimpanzee however have ear muscles that are minimally developed and non-functional.

There have been many well documented medical cases where the tailbone has been surgically removed with no adverse effects, and there have been documented cases of infants born with tails (a tailbone with extra vertebrae), and there are no adverse health effects of such a tail. Well, unless you're born in the Dark Ages (in which case the child and the mother would've been burned to cinders by faithful christians).

The TOE states that every single vestigial organ or behavior had some important use in the past.

You need to think that all of those have some use. Well, that's not the case. And even if some of them do, how come we didn't devolve those?

God gave us a coccyx because it serves some obscure purpose, so unnoticeable that it can be removed and it's no big deal. Why didn't he give us a better design for our backs, instead of that crap?

Oh, right... you think we used to have good backs and devolved...

Well, how come we devolved an important function like that of the back, and didn't devolve that pretty useless coccyx? Or toe nails?

Half right. It's original function is the development of antibodies in the fetus.
Antibodies? What for??
There were no diseases in the Garden of Eden.

Actually... Why do we have an immunologic system at all?

Either Yahweh knew Adam would fuck up (and gave him mechanisms to defend himself in the world he'd later be kicked to), or he redesigned him when he threw him out (so God did Adam some great favors, but made us believe that He only punished him).

Although structures usually called "vestigial" are largely or entirely functionless, a vestigial structure may retain lesser functions or develop minor new ones. (Muller, G. B. [2002] "Vestigial Organs and Structures." in Encyclopedia of Evolution. Mark Pagel, editor in chief, New York: Oxford University Press. pp 1131-1133)

The same goes for behaviors. For instance, lesbian sex in virgin whiptail lizards (i'm still waiting for your Bible-friendly explanation for them). It's not functionless. It starts parthenogenesis. And yet it's clearly vestigial.
I bet you believe in vestigials too.
You can (almost)safely believe that they used to engage in regular sex (nothing is really safe to believe when you're a creationist).
You only need to believe that they devolved instead of believing that God made them that way (that would be some great escape, except that parthenogenesis comes from well documented cases of hybridization).

This is exactly what we mean by "vestigial". In a way we do believe in devolution. Traits that are no longer vital can be gradually lost, (if they become dangerous, they can be rapidly lost). But only those. Your concept of devolution should include just about any trait, and we could become extinct by devolving, i don't know, the heart.

No animal has a single trait, organ or instinct (not a single one) that has never (in their evolutionary history) been important for it's survival/reproduction.
There's plenty of evidence for this.
Most vestigials can be compared with their full functions in related species. We can also guess pretty darn well, whether you agree or not.

There's no way that the same intelligent being that designed the octopus eye gave us a bending lens, and a coccyx (i'd trade whatever function the coccyx could have for a pair of rigid moving lenses).

Can the coccyx have some kind of function?
Well, why not? It's there, so it might have a new function or maintain a lesser one. In any case it's clearly not important, so we know it didn't evolve.

In some cases you sure don't like the idea of 'devolution'. Not when our coccyx devolved from a functional tail. (And no, i don't think we could give you a prehensile tail because it stopped being functional so long ago that the genetic instructions for them must be a total mess with many holes.)

We have at least some vestigial behaviors to protect ourselves from predators. You can't account for those, because there were no predators in the Garden of Eden, and there's no mention of a redesign of the human instincts/traits/organs/limbs.

And we couldn't have evolved them because... It goes against thermodynamics, and the odds are astronomically low, and there's no increase of information, and vision is irreducibly complex, and other debunked stuff like that.

You know what i'd give to my creations? Bluetooth based telepathy.

That would be hard to evolve, but easy to design.

It's like God has only given us easily evolvable limbs, instincts, organs and traits.

As it should be. But why do evolutionists default to "vestigial" when a structures purpose is unknown?
Why not? We know so much that if we say something is vestigial chances are we're right.
By definition vestigial implies evolution.
Or devolution. Am i wrong?
To claim a structure is vestigial because it's purpose is unknown automatically presupposes an ancestor that had a use for said structure.
Yes, yes. I don't think anyone will deny this.
If you find some use for the Darwin's spot, i'll recognize openly that my reasoning was faulty (i always do it promptly the few times that i make  mistakes in my discussions), will doubt myself more (while trying to analyze and correct my mistake), and will be a little bit more humble. I'm serious.

To claim a structure is vestigial because it's purpose is unknown automatically presupposes an ancestor that had a use for said structure. Classic circular reasoning.



I don't think your belief in the Bible can be free of that. I mean, the Bible is true because it says so.

That's not our case. Vestigials are not the reason why we believe in Evolution. It's just (yet) another fact in complete harmony with the TOE.

For example: "We know that people evolved from lower primates because the appendix is vestigial. We know that the appendix is vestigial because people evolved from lower primates."

Do any evos see a possible flaw in that type of reasoning?
Yeap.

I don't see that type of reasoning (aside from creationists) though.


(Edited by wisp 3/23/2009 at 9:54 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:52 PM on March 23, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

...is a phenomenon that fits well with the theory of evolution ie evolution has a simple explanation for why this might happen.

Of course it "fits well" with the TOE. As I said, by definition vestigials require the TOE in order to explain the TOE.

All this nonsense about definitions of 'vestigial organ' and what function they currently serve in this animal or that animal is completely irrelevant to the creation/evolution argument.

On the contrary it is absolutely relevant. This vestigial argument is used by evos to support the TOE when it is pure speculation not science. Refer to the last page in the numbers thread. Wisp brings up vestigials  as evidence in support of evolution.

The 'fact' is that we can observe these homologous organs/structures/mechanisms and whichever theory you subscribe to you need to come up with a plausible (and prefereably simple) explanation for the phenomenon. The evos have a perfectly good and simple explanation that requires NO CHANGE to the basic thesis of evolution.

Mumbo Jumbo. You can't explain vestigials without evolution and you use vestigials to defend evolution. Circular reasoning.

If you are speaking in defence of creation then YOU  MUST SUPPLY a 'creationist' explanation for the observed phenomenon. So...  LETS HEAR IT!!!

Waterboy, READ THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD!!! This is not a defense of creation but an attack on the use of vestigials as evidence for evolution.

Im very keen to hear the creationist explanation for why snakes need a pelvis.

They need them to reproduce. They provide attachment points for muscles necessary to reproduction and they protect the genitalia. God made it that way. Duh!

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:16 PM on March 23, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

apoapsisPlease show us a non-creationist source where this argument is used.

Pick any dictionary. The very idea of a vestigial depends upon evolution. Without evolution the only vestigials would be left overs from the womb such as the belly button.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:29 PM on March 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, this is the closest I could find:

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

vestigial   (vě-stĭj'ē-əl)  Pronunciation Key
Relating to a body part that has become small and lost its use because of evolutionary change. Whales, for example, have small bones located in the muscles of their body walls that are vestigial bones of hips and hind limbs.




Maybe if they worked on the Sonic Hedgehog gene in whales and made them grow legs you'd be happy.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:02 PM on March 23, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx

What about all the snakes that dont use spurs for mating?

The fact is that there is an 'observable' phenomenon of homologous organs/mechanisms/reflexes in wide ranges of animals that have varying functions in different species  and sometimes have no apparent function.  

Any theory of biological diversity needs to be able to explain this phenomenon. Evolution can explain it quite simply. The fact that evolution has a simple explanation... actually a very good explanation... inevitably increases confidence in the theory. That's not a circular argument.

Creation theory also has a very simple explanation for the existence of these homologous structures...  it's brilliantly elegant and delightfully economical (being the same explanation creation has for everything)...   need I say more?


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 04:49 AM on March 24, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mumbo Jumbo. You can't explain vestigials without evolution and you use vestigials to defend evolution. Circular reasoning.

Typical creationist tripe.  You don't know what circular reasoing is.  Evolution is the best explaination for observed vestigial structures.  It certainly IS possible to describe vestigials without evoution, just look at your definition.  Of course, you're wrong and youcan provide no evidence to support your claim.  As has been pointed out evolution is the best explaination because it explains the actual evidence.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:07 AM on March 24, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis, where did you find that dictionary? I've been searching in vain for a scientific dictionary online. Do you know where I can find one of those?

Relating to a body part that has become small and lost its use because of evolutionary change.
The body part changed because of evolution.

Whales, for example, have small bones located in the muscles of their body walls that are vestigial bones of hips and hind limbs.
The changed body parts demonstrate the whale's evolution.

Circular reasoning embedded in the definition.

waterboy   The fact is that there is an 'observable' phenomenon of homologous organs

How do you determine that it is a fact that the phenomenon is homologous? It can't be demonstrated or tested. It makes sense only under the presupposition of evolution. Similarity in structure with different degrees of usage is anecdotal evidence, not empirical.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:47 AM on March 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This vestigial argument is used by evos to support the TOE when it is pure speculation not science. Refer to the last page in the numbers thread. Wisp brings up vestigials  as evidence in support of evolution.
Indeed i do. And indeed they are.

You don't need to think that hard to conclude that the TOE predicts vestigials.
And you don't need to think that hard to conclude that correct predictions increase the confidence in a theory.

What's the buzz?

Mumbo Jumbo. You can't explain vestigials without evolution
Can you? Oh, right, this thread can't be used to say anything against YEC...
But actually i think a few of the vestigials we've found can be explained by devolution. Like the dog's vestigial instinct to bury it's feces. Now some of them just bestow a couple of weird little kicks with their hinder legs.

Vestigial limbs in whales cannot be explained just by devolution. They must have evolved other things while they 'devolved' their legs. That's not necessary with dogs.
and you use vestigials to defend evolution. Circular reasoning.
That's not circular at all.

It might sound like it, but it's just the sound.

The direction is just one. Pay attention:
Vestigials defend Evolution. Yes.
Evolution explains vestigials. Yes.

Vestigials and Evolution don't do the same for each other.
If you used the same word, it might be circular.

Let's use something you'll agree upon:
The prophecies anounced Jesus.
Jesus fulfilled the prophecies.

Do you see any circularity? There's none.

I really hope you take that statement back.

If you are speaking in defence of creation then YOU  MUST SUPPLY a 'creationist' explanation for the observed phenomenon. So...  LETS HEAR IT!!!
Waterboy, READ THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD!!! This is not a defense of creation but an attack on the use of vestigials as evidence for evolution.
I'm kinda tired of creationist not defending creationism...

It's like creationism takes all the blows, but desperately tries to bestow some blows too. It's like its only hope is to see Evolution falling with Creationism.

Timbrx, you get lost in words too easily. You get lost in concepts instead of pointing out specific problems with Evolution.

A specific problem would be "there are no vestigials". Finding some use for the Darwin's tubercle would help your cause. It would still be an attack on Evolution (and a valid one indeed -even if very tiny-, i'd be the first to admit). Not a defense of creation.

You don't want to defend creation (at least in this thread)? Fine. But you still have to show that there are other options besides Evolution. That's how you attack it, instead of confusing concepts like circular reasoning.

They need them to reproduce. They provide attachment points for muscles necessary to reproduction and they protect the genitalia. God made it that way. Duh!
Even if that was true (i don't know, but i'd have no problem admitting it), that's definitely a vestigial condition for a hip. I mean... It's a hip... Duh!

Legless lizards: Why do we call them that, instead of calling them snakes? Why don't creationists say "Those are not lizards"? If they admit they are lizards, it's because they admit that they are relatives, or am i wrong? What does it mean to admit that they are lizards (not that i'm sure they do)?

I remember the first time i saw one. I had never heard of them. I was amazed.

At first i thought it was a snake. Then i took a better look at it...
DAMN! THAT'S NOT A SNAKE!!! I don't know, it was very similar, but had a different look. Specially the head.

That's when i first thought of convergent evolution (i had never heard of the concept).

I thought i would like to see the place where legs used to be. I thought it was possible that it had vestigial limbs (i didn't know the term at the time).
I gathered some courage, and took the creature. There they were. I think just the hinder ones were still there, but i'm not sure (it was a long time ago and i've never seen another one).

It was very possible that it had no remains of what it used to be limbs. In this case (i hope you can see that my logic is not faulty, even if you don't like the conclusion), if i found no remains, that did nothing to my hypothesis. But if i found any (like i did), it was a strong evidence to support my hypothesis.

My choices are to believe in Evolution, or to believe i'm a fucking wizard. And i don't care if you find some use for them (i seriously doubt it though). I WAS RIGHT!

When you make predictions using Evolution as a premise, chances are you'll be right.

Why????

Yes, you can be wrong sometimes. Like the guy who fixes your car. He can be wrong, but knowing a whole lot better than you, chances are that he'll make better predictions than you.

Well, you can't ignore that our predictions are damn good. We knew where to look for the Tiktaalic. If we didn't find it, well, so bad (that still doesn't prove us wrong). But finding it is as confirmatory and validating as it gets. And i suspect you know it.

When animals belong to the same taxonomic group (whatever taxonomig group), we know they share DNA.

The only creationist explanation for this would be that God chose to make similar animals, using similar DNA.
But that's just not right.

Knowing Evolution, i can predict that the legless lizard shares more DNA with lizards than with snakes, even if they look more like snakes than lizards.

Care to make any predictions on the DNA test, timbrx?

Do you believe that accurate predictions mean nothing?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:35 PM on March 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Relating to a body part that has become small and lost its use because of evolutionary change.
The body part changed because of evolution.
That's correct.
Whales, for example, have small bones located in the muscles of their body walls that are vestigial bones of hips and hind limbs.
The changed body parts demonstrate the whale's evolution.
It doesn't say that, but yeah, they do.
Circular reasoning embedded in the definition.
Again, no.

Man, leave words alone. Get some facts. Evolution is about facts (explanations and predictions). THAT's what you need to attack.

waterboy   The fact is that there is an 'observable' phenomenon of homologous organs
How do you determine that it is a fact that the phenomenon is homologous?
They look very similar, they are located in the same places, and the species belong to the same taxonomic group. Piece of cake.
It can't be demonstrated or tested.
Meaning that you just don't like the results. We can test the hypothesis by making predictions. Like saying that the tissues will be similar.
It makes sense only under the presupposition of evolution.
Yes. Like everything about life. I see no problem with this.
Similarity in structure with different degrees of usage is anecdotal evidence, not empirical.
Wanna call it anecdotes? Ok, help yourself. The TOE is a collection of thousands (millions really) of anecdotes that point to a single (and simple) explanation.

Again, leave words alone. Present real specific problems, or you have nothing.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:48 PM on March 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is what i see, from your stance.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:15 PM on March 24, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wisp
Man, leave words alone. Get some facts. Evolution is about facts (explanations and predictions). THAT's what you need to attack.

How can we have a discussion if we don't use words? The FACT is that the definition for "vestigial organs" REQUIRES evolution. To use the term in a biological context implies that evolution is a fact, which it is not (macro-evolution).

They look very similar, they are located in the same places, and the species belong to the same taxonomic group. Piece of cake.

Okay. By definition, homologous means similar. you got me on a word. (maybe words do matter?) I assumed the context of homology which IS about supposed ancestral vestiges.

Meaning that you just don't like the results. We can test the hypothesis by making predictions. Like saying that the tissues will be similar.

No, I just don't like the presupposition. Here's a prediction: A Creator would design similar creatures that live in a similar environment and eat similar foods SIMILARLY. What do you know, it fits! I would predict that monkeys, which are similar to apes but live in a somewhat different environment (trees) would have different digestive and immunological structures. What do you know, monkeys don't have an appendix! AND they have a tail! So apes devolved a tail and evolved an appendix? By what magic? Oh yes. Millions of years.

Again, leave words alone. Present real specific problems, or you have nothing.

The word IS the problem. You want to use the word in an argument in defense of evolution? Than back up your word with facts. Pick one at a time, please. Preferably about humans. Medical science seems to know more about humans than snakes, whales and extinct animals.

I'm kinda tired of creationist not defending creationism...

And I'm kinda tired of evos trying to put creos on the defensive when it is the TOE that is taught as a fact without any hard physical evidence. Creation is taught (in christian schools for one) as a belief.


This is what I see from your stance.



 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 6:40 PM on March 24, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here is a fun little story.
The word homologous was first used in a biological context to describe what we now call vestigial structures by a defender of creation, Richard Owen 1848.
He used the classical argument that in any given environment a creator would use similar structures in different animals to address similar needs.
The evolutionists came up with their own explanation for the existence of homologous strutures which was so compelling that the word homologous quickly became 'synonymous' with evolution.


The creationist argument works only up to a point. Evolution has a much better explanation for why cave-dwelling fish have eyes whose function is diminshed to the point that the the fish cannot see with them.

The creationist argument would predict that all sea-creatures should have gills with which to breathe. God must have been having a blonde moment when he gave whales lungs!

Creationists have a major problem explaining inappropriate and inefficient biological structures. Evolutionists have no such problem. In fact such phenomena invariably serve to support and reinforce evolutionary arguments therby increasing confidence in the theory.

The beauty of the creationist argument is that it is very stable. It has a ready-made answer for any new discoveries that might come up in the future. No prizes for guessing the explanation. Its the theory to end all theories really! This probably explains why 'creation scientists' (pardon the antilogy) have been so spectacularly unproductive in comparison to evolutionary biologists over the last 150 years.






-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 7:35 PM on March 24, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

waterboy
Evolution has a much better explanation for why cave-dwelling fish have eyes whose function is diminshed to the point that the the fish cannot see with them.

When a person with strabismus looses sight in one eye does that make the blind eye vestigial? Of course not. The blind cave fish's eyes are not remnants from a sighted ancestor. They are adaptations demonstrating the creatures remarkable built in ability to suppress a trait that is unnecessary (sight in the dark) in favor of one that is (sensitivity to pressure).

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:30 PM on March 24, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

When a person with strabismus looses sight in one eye does that make the blind eye vestigial? Of course not.

Of course not because you must be born with a vestigial, you can't aquire one through disease!  

The blind cave fish's eyes are not remnants from a sighted ancestor. They are adaptations demonstrating the creatures remarkable built in ability to suppress a trait that is unnecessary (sight in the dark) in favor of one that is (sensitivity to pressure).

So wait aminute, if the blind cave fish sightless eyes aren't a vestige from a sighted ancestor, why the hell did God give them useless eyes in the first place??  That certainly doesn't seem remarkable, it's just plain dumb.  Why would an animal have organs that have always been usless?  Even you can't believe that nonsense.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:49 PM on March 24, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 6:40 PM on March 24, 2009 :
Okay. By definition, homologous means similar. you got me on a word. (maybe words do matter?) I assumed the context of homology which IS about supposed ancestral vestiges.


The wing of a hummingbird is not homologous to the wing of a moth despite the similar function.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:56 PM on March 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How can we have a discussion if we don't use words?
Well, i didn't mean "don't use them" but "don't focus on them". Words are the map. Facts are the territory.

Hum... I guess the TOE would be geography in this analogy...

The FACT is that the definition for "vestigial organs" REQUIRES evolution.
Yes, that's true. But Evolution is true too. It's the cornerstone of biology. We don't have to exclude it from our definitions because there's a little group of people who feel that their faith is threatened by this fact.
To use the term in a biological context implies that evolution is a fact, which it is not (macro-evolution).
Ok. That's exactly where you need to focus. Not in the definition of vestigiality, but in the fact of Evolution.

Can we make all of this predictions if Evolution is not a fact? How? Is it God's will? Does He want to test our faith? Well, i fail. He could just leave it there.

If that's not the case, how did i guess that the legless lizard was likely to have vestigial limbs? How??

I don't believe in divination.

They look very similar, they are located in the same places, and the species belong to the same taxonomic group. Piece of cake.
Okay. By definition, homologous means similar. you got me on a word. (maybe words do matter?)
I wasn't trying to get you with words. I assumed you knew what 'homologous' meant.
Actually, i don't think i got you. You're correct in your assumption. We do believe that it's basically the 'same' organ. They evolved from a single one.

I just don't like the presupposition.
Then THAT's what you have to attack.

In my opinion (and that of most scientists in the world) it's a good presupposition. As good as it gets. Never fails. And creationism never hits.

Here's a prediction: A Creator would design similar creatures that live in a similar environment and eat similar foods SIMILARLY.
What's your basis? We have basis. That's how we make predictions.

We had our theory after analyzing a lot of facts. And every fact after that has been in harmony with the TOE.
You had your theory after... I don't know.

Why would a creator design similar environments?

Yours doesn't count as a prediction. It's based in no reasoning.

You're saying why they have similar traits (with no reasoning to support it). But you're not saying why some similar creatures have similar DNA, and some don't.

That makes perfect sense (just like anything else about life) under the light of Evolution.

What do you know, it fits!
Like i've said, it doesn't. Because of the DNA. And because ostriches have spongy bones. And because bats have solid bones.

You don't make real predictions. You just watch facts and bend either your hypothesis or the facts to make them fit.

"We see X. So the creator must like X." That's not a prediction.

I would predict that monkeys, which are similar to apes but live in a somewhat different environment (trees) would have different digestive and immunological structures.
Again, what's your basis?

I would predict no diseases. And i'd be wrong.

I would predict no need for food. And i'd be wrong again.

What do you know, monkeys don't have an appendix!
They don't??? Ok, i didn't know that. That would be strange... Not impossible (they could have just lost it), but it's strange... I would predict that at least some monkeys had it... And more than one species (i'd say many would have it, in different sizes). I can be wrong about this though. I'd be very surprised, but i can't be sure.

I'll look that up later...

AND they have a tail!
Yeap.
So apes devolved a tail and evolved an appendix?
Sometimes i think you almost understand Evolution, and then you come up with things like this.

Are you implying that we say that we evolved from that monkey???

Do i really need to say it?

Even if you find some monkey that doesn't have an appendix (i'd like to know about that, just out of curiosity), that could only mean two things:

1) The common ancestor of your monkey and the apes (including ourselves, of course), did not have this organ. So the ape lineage should have evolved the organ, and then devolved it.

That would be anomalous to my understanding, because monkeys and apes did not part so long ago as to evolve an entire organ (again, to my understanding).

2) The monkey in question has done a better job at suppressing the appendix.

This would be my explanation. But the fact that a monkey lacked any trace of an appendix would be weird. And interesting.

By what magic? Oh yes. Millions of years.
Yes. Always. And no matter how you express it, "millions of years" doesn't sound funny.

The word IS the problem. You want to use the word in an argument in defense of evolution? Than back up your word with facts.
Which ones? Name any word i've ever used, and i'll back it up or retreat my claim.
Pick one at a time, please. Preferably about humans.
I'm not really that interested in humans in particular...
Medical science seems to know more about humans than snakes, whales and extinct animals.
Hum... You're right there. Sounds fair.

Pick one fact at a time? About human Evolution?

Fact: Our toe nails are vestigial.

Back up: They have no function but to give pedicurists a job.

Done.

I'm kinda tired of creationist not defending creationism...
And I'm kinda tired of evos trying to put creos on the defensive when it is the TOE that is taught as a fact without any hard physical evidence.
The whale hips are small but as strong as any bone.
Creation is taught (in christian schools for one) as a belief.
Ok, i didn't know that.

Wait... What do you mean?

Edit: The title of the image you posted is LET THERE BE TRUTH. Doesn't it reflect your own stance?

Besides, if i see no creation, is because there's no creation to see. All i hear about creationism is nonsense. I refute it easily, which means that i hear it.
Speak no creator... Well, i don't tell lies, so that must be right...

But do you really believe that i cover my ears when it comes to this subject?

I don't think you do. You give it a weird treatment so you can keep believing in a creator, but at least you do listen.

Do you really think i don't listen?

Did you read my story about the legless lizard? Do you believe me?

Would you believe if i tell you that i make correct predictions all the time? Would you believe that i have no supernatural foresight?

Here's an easy one: the thylacine shares more DNA with the koala than with the dog, in spite of their similar anatomy.

Taxonomy is not about anatomic similarities, you know?
Do you know?

What's your position on taxonomy?

When a person with strabismus looses sight in one eye does that make the blind eye vestigial? Of course not.
You know Evolution is not about individuals. If the population whence that individual came has a full function for that organ, nobody will ever say that it's vestigial.

The blind cave fish's eyes are not remnants from a sighted ancestor.
Then why have eyes?
They are adaptations demonstrating the creatures remarkable built in ability to suppress a trait that is unnecessary (sight in the dark) in favor of one that is (sensitivity to pressure).
Are you not contradicting yourself? Now you're saying that they did have a sighted ancestor.
I mean... How can you suppress something that wasn't there?

Oh, wait... Do you mean... that they suppress it during their lifetime????

Do you mean that if you bring light down there they will start being born with functional eyes in the first generation????

Otherwise, i don't know what you're saying.



Are you going to take your "circular reasoning" claim back? That would be noble. I have refuted it.
Have i not?

About vestigials you said "It makes sense only under the presupposition of evolution.", as if it was a problem. I pointed out that it's not a problem.
Don't you agree?

It sounds like an accusation, but it's void.
It's like this: "Creationism makes sense only under the presupposition that there is a God."
That's obviously not a problem. Right?

The real problem is that Creationism doesn't make sense even under the presupposition that there's a God (i know because i share that presupposition).


Edit:
Found something about appendixes in monkeys (two minutes search). From here: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=440225

"A vermiform appendix is not unique to humans. It is found in all the hominoid apes, including humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons, and it exists to varying degrees in several species of
New World and Old World monkeys
(Fisher 2000; Hill 1974; Scott 1980)."

Varying degrees!! That's exactly what i predicted!!

Will you take your claim back, or will you attack my source?


(Edited by wisp 3/25/2009 at 12:36 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:30 AM on March 25, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"A vermiform appendix is not unique to humans. It is found in all the hominoid apes, including humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons, and it exists to varying degrees in several species of
New World and Old World monkeys

Varying degrees!! That's exactly what i predicted!!


And I predict that lots of different types of cakes require sugar..
- so they must have a common ancestor?!

Sorry, being dumb here, but how does having a particular organ in a number of different creatures automatically point to evolution?
So they all need an appendix for the same reason. And so they were created with them. You have to presuppose a common ancestor but what about the common creator? It's like putting sugar in a recipe for a reason.
You're right Timbrx, circular reasoning.

The real problem is that Creationism doesn't make sense even under the presupposition that there's a God


That's a prejudice, not a reason. Evolution sounds plausible and so does creation. You just prefer the reasoning of the former. I prefer the latter because of things like accounting for the genetic code and the origin of life. Evolution has no reasonable foundation so they try not to include the foundation in the FACT of evolution -as if it is not important.

Sorry Wisp got to go for one specific point in any one of your posts . When I see a whole page, I just know I don't have time.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:33 AM on March 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And I predict that lots of different types of cakes require sugar..
- so they must have a common ancestor?!
Hahahahahahaha!!!

That was good!!
Sorry, being dumb here, but how does having a particular organ in a number of different creatures automatically point to evolution?
First: vestigial organ. Second: it's not automatic.
(i have to keep it short so you can answer)

So they all need an appendix for the same reason.
Prove it. While you're at it, say something about the Darwin's tubercle.
And so they were created with them.
What's your basis? I can always tell you mine.
You have to presuppose a common ancestor
Yes.
but what about the common creator?
Makes no sense.
You're right Timbrx, circular reasoning.
I've shown how he's not right.
If you think my reasoning was faulty, tell me how.

The real problem is that Creationism doesn't make sense even under the presupposition that there's a God
That's a prejudice, not a reason.
Who said anything about reasons? Do you really read what you quote?
Evolution sounds plausible
It's flawless.
and so does creation.
Not one bit. Well, not the biblical creation. Just "creation" sounds a little tiny bit plausible (like God preparing the Big Bang and being satisfied just with that).
You just prefer the reasoning of the former.
That's the only reasoning.
I prefer the latter because of things like accounting for the genetic code and the origin of life.
Huh? It doesn't account for the genetic code. And if it accounts for the origin of life (whatever), it doesn't account for the diversity.
Evolution has no reasonable foundation so they try not to include the foundation in the FACT of evolution -as if it is not important.
I'm tired of refuting this again and again.

We don't try. There's no "try". If you say that, you're just showing that you don't know what you're talking about.
Sorry Wisp got to go for one specific point in any one of your posts . When I see a whole page, I just know I don't have time.
To answer or to read?

Ok, if you don't have time to read the answers, don't make the questions.

Specially don't make the same questions AGAIN.


(Edited by wisp 3/25/2009 at 03:00 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:52 AM on March 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, Lester. It's up there, so you might have problems finding it. So i'll copypaste it for you:

Mumbo Jumbo. You can't explain vestigials without evolution and you use vestigials to defend evolution. Circular reasoning.
That's not circular at all.

It might sound like it, but it's just the sound.

The direction is just one. Pay attention:
Vestigials defend Evolution. Yes.
Evolution explains vestigials. Yes.

Vestigials and Evolution don't do the same for each other.
If you used the same word, it might be circular.

Let's use something you'll agree upon:
The prophecies announced Jesus.
Jesus fulfilled the prophecies.

Do you see any circularity?
There's none.

I really hope you take that statement back.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:59 AM on March 25, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

Evolution has no reasonable foundation so they try not to include the foundation in the FACT of evolution -as if it is not important.


If I understand you correctly you are saying that evolution fails as a theory because we cannot currently explain all the details of abiogenesis. Its hard to know if Ive understood you correctly because what you seem to be saying is so obviously flawed in logic.

You seem to be making an argument something like this...
We havent successfully replicated all the steps of abiogenesis. Therefore evolution cannot be true and therefore creation must be true.

This is clearly not a complete syllogism. I cannot even begin to imagine how one might complete it using premises of either evolution or creation. Would you care to elaborate on this so we can see your complete argument?


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 03:31 AM on March 25, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's use something you'll agree upon:
The prophecies announced Jesus.
Jesus fulfilled the prophecies.


The prophecies came first. Then Jesus fulfilled them.Someone was supposed to. He did.

Vestigials defend Evolution. Yes.
Evolution explains vestigials. Yes.


The theory preceded the explanation which preceded the realization that the vestigials are usually not that at all. Loss of function is not evolution and if something has a function it is not vestigial.
Vestigials do not defend evolution.

First: vestigial organ. Second: it's not automatic.


'Vestigial' is just a name given to something that is assumed to have had a previous function and is assumed to be no longer needed. Just because they call it vestigial means nothing. It got its name as a direct result of the theory.

And so they were created with them.
What's your basis? I can always tell you mine.


Tell me then.










-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:36 AM on March 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The prophecies came first. Then Jesus fulfilled them.Someone was supposed to. He did.
I don't know what you're talking about here. But stay in the subject. I was talking about circularity. I said that there's none there, or in Evolution predicting/explaining vestigials, and vestigials corroborating Evolution.

Vestigials defend Evolution. Yes.
Evolution explains vestigials. Yes.
The theory preceded the explanation
No, silly! Vestigials don't explain the TOE! Theories explain, facts validate or invalidate.
which preceded the realization that the vestigials are usually not that at all.
I'd say 'seldom' instead of 'usually'. But even if that's the case, you're saying we're right. We have to find just one vestigial to invalidate your hypothesis.
Loss of function is not evolution
It could be due to devolution, and the name 'vestigial' would still be valid. Can you cite anyone that said that loss of function is Evolution? Or will you admit that it was a strawman?
and if something has a function it is not vestigial.
Wrong.
Vestigials do not defend evolution.
Bla bla bla. Stay in the subject. Focus. The subject is circularity. I've explained why there's none. Pay attention to what we're discussing here and give me a valid answer.

'Vestigial' is just a name given to something that is assumed to have had a previous function
Yes. Always.
and is assumed to be no longer needed.
Hum... Not necessarily. But whatever.
Our assumptions are as good as it gets. If not, pick one and say what it's wrong.
Just because they call it vestigial means nothing.
I say that about your "creation". But vestigials are something quite concrete and ordinary. Like our toe nails.

You do believe in devolution, right?
Would you agree with me if i say that useless things (or things with a lesser minor use) are more easily devolved than the vital ones?

If you do, how come we didn't devolve the toe nails, the third eyelid, or our goose bumps?

If you don't... Well... Just think real hard till you do. ;)

It got its name as a direct result of the theory.
Ok, if you have a problem with the name, let's call them... I don't know... Useless organs. Or stupid instincts. Crazy-ass structures. Random features. Shitty parts.

Creationists seem to care so much about words, that they ignore the facts.

And so they were created with them.
What's your basis? I can always tell you mine.
Tell me then.
What?
I have to make this short enough so that you read it, so i can't guess what basis you want (for what statement).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 06:01 AM on March 25, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

The argument would only be circular if the whole theory of evolution depended on an argument from vestigials. It doesn't!

If evolution can't explain the homologous structures then it has a problem.
It can explain them. It has a very good explanation for them and even predicts that they should exist in various animals.
Confidence in evolution increases because it has such a good explanation for 'vestigial organs'. That is not the same thing as saying that evolution depends on an argument from vestigial organs.

Within the context of evolution it makes perfectly good sense to call them vestigial. If you dont 'believe' that these 'organs' are vestiges then good luck trying to exlain them all! Lets start with "why do humans get goosebumps?" Then we can go on to "why did God give whales lungs instead of gills?" Then "Why do bats that need to fly have dense bones?"  Then "Why do the hip and pelvis structures in snakes vary so much?"  and "Why do we have a Vomeronasal organ when it isnt even connected by any nerves to the brain?"

I can keep going! We'll eventually hit one that you cant explain... then what happens to your creation theory?




-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 06:42 AM on March 25, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For my thoughts on prophecy... from another thread...

The entire nature of prophecy as God has revealed it to be is to point to Christ.

The Law, the Minor and Major prophets, the History of Israel as recorded in the Old Testament, all points to Christ.  The Exodus the Tabernacle, the Temple, the Holy of Holies, the passover, all the ceremonies all point to Christ.  The New Testament, the Gospels, The Early Church, The letters, The final Revelation all points to Christ.  The entire Bible points to Christ.  God has revealed Christ as the only salvation for mankind.





Now you've gone way too far. There are the beginnings of Messianic expectations in some of the later prophets and apocalyptic literature. They are NOT explicit predictions for Christ but particular expressions of hope involving a new Davidic figure restoring the fortunes of Israel. Jesus did NOT fulfil these expectations.

Reading Christ into the apocalyptic literature is akin to reading the I Ching. The text can say just about anything you want it to say.





(Edited by waterboy 3/25/2009 at 06:52 AM).


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 06:49 AM on March 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I wasn't talking about the accuracy of the prophecies (in which i don't believe at all), but showing an example of a lack of circularity.

The argument would only be circular if the whole theory of evolution depended on an argument from vestigials. It doesn't!
If you mean if it would depend solely on vestigials, then you're absolutely right.

I'd say that the TOE DOES depend on vestigials AND many other things (all of which are accomplished, of course).

Vestigiality is just one of the facts that corroborate the TOE.
The TOE is not just one of the theories that explain vestigiality. But even if it was, that still wouldn't imply circularity.


(Edited by wisp 3/25/2009 at 12:17 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:15 PM on March 25, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
The blind cave fish's eyes are not remnants from a sighted ancestor. They are adaptations demonstrating the creatures remarkable built in ability to suppress a trait that is unnecessary (sight in the dark) in favor of one that is (sensitivity to pressure).

demon
So wait aminute, if the blind cave fish sightless eyes aren't a vestige from a sighted ancestor, why the hell did God give them useless eyes in the first place??  That certainly doesn't seem remarkable, it's just plain dumb.  Why would an animal have organs that have always been usless?  Even you can't believe that nonsense.


Astyanax mexicanus is a single species of fish that is blind in caves but not in open streams. The sightlessness is an adaptation. God didn't make blind fish, he made fish that could adapt to a new environment.

waterboy
It has a very good explanation for them and even predicts that they should exist in various animals.
Confidence in evolution increases because it has such a good explanation for 'vestigial organs'.  


The problem with the "good explanation" is that it determines an appendix is vestigial in humans but serves a purpose in apes  without fully understanding the role of the appendix in either.
It is only a "good explanation " if the appendix is indeed vestigial. It is not, therefore the explanation is not good.
TOE "predicts" that the appendix should exist in certain animals. Which ones? The ones that have one? The ones that need one? Well humans need one. So why should it be considered vestigial? Because it is smaller than an apes? Maybe apes need a bigger one than humans to begin with.
TOE has a good explanation for vestigials only if they are indeed vestigial. They can't be vestigial unless they evolved. Without evolution there are no vestigials.

1. Evolution is true
2. Unexplained structures are vestigial
3. Since unexplained structures are vestigial than evolution is true.

Circular reasoning.
The argument would only be circular if the whole theory of evolution depended on an argument from vestigials.

Or if the whole theory of vestigials depended upon evolution. You can't have the one without the other.


 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 12:25 PM on March 25, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx -

your logic makes absolutely no sense.  Vestigial organs/structures are the result of evolution.  Why then do snakes and whales have vestigial hip/limb bones if they did not evolve from a four legged ancestor?  Evolution explains this very nicely.  Creationism does not.  

As for blind cave fish, here's a compelling article that supports the evolution explanation for the blind fish.  Researchers took four seperate populations of the fish and cross breeded them.  They found some of the offspring could see.  

Explanation:  the blindness in the fish was due to genetic mutations.  Different populations of fish (from different caves) loss their sight through mutations to different genes.  So when cross-bred some offspring gained eyesight by inheriting good 'sight' genes from each parent.


Blind Cave Fish Result in Sight-seeing Offspring

So your explanation that their eyes were present as a pressure sensor doesn't quite cut it.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:01 PM on March 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Astyanax mexicanus is a single species of fish that is blind in caves but not in open streams. The sightlessness is an adaptation. God didn't make blind fish, he made fish that could adapt to a new environment.

How did it become sightless?  Mutation and natural selection?  If that's how it adapted to its surrondings, then it evolved, simple as that.   Oh, and it's a different species than the sighted tetra, they are definitely not the same species.  so this is an example of macroevolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:38 PM on March 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Excellent example, orion.

The explanation is simple and crystal clear. Very easy to predict as well.

The same will happen with other different populations that have lost some function.

There have been lots of experiments like this one (i know of some with bees).

Creationism, faithful to it's liar nature, can predict nothing.
But they can look at the results and say "Yeah... God prepared fishes to adapt by losing stuff through different mutations. Just because."



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:51 PM on March 25, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

orion
your logic makes absolutely no sense.  Vestigial organs/structures are the result of evolution.

That is my point. If they are vestigial than they are the result of evolution. Therefore if they are not vestigial than they are not the result of evolution? Well according to evos, EVERYTHING is the result of evolution. The whole concept of vestigials is illogical. Why do evos even try and use this argument to defend evolution? Because they are trying to develop an evolutionary chain to fit their presupposition.

"Vestigial organs" is a red herring based on circular reasoning.


So your explanation that their eyes were present as a pressure sensor doesn't quite cut it.

I didn't say that the eyes were present as a pressure sensor. I said that the eyes did not develop but that pressure sensitivity did. Recessive trait becoming dominant? Fits with the sub-species aspect of evolution which is not in question. It is the trans-species aspect that is the problem. Whale hips: whales use these hip bones for muscle attachment and to protect reproductive organs. This proves that whales have hip bones. That's all. It may "fit" with the TOE but it doesn't prove the TOE. Lots of other things DON'T fit. Blubber, waterproof skin, live birthing under water, baleen, etc.

demon
How did it become sightless?  Mutation and natural selection?  If that's how it adapted to its surrondings, then it evolved, simple as that.   Oh, and it's a different species than the sighted tetra, they are definitely not the same species.  so this is an example of macroevolution.


Some "Astynax mexicanus" are blind. All "Astynax jordani" are blind. A. jordani is a sub species, not a new (trans) species. It is still a tetra. (microevolution)


 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 4:52 PM on March 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

waterboy
It has a very good explanation for them and even predicts that they should exist in various animals.
Confidence in evolution increases because it has such a good explanation for 'vestigial organs'.
The problem with the "good explanation" is that it determines an appendix is vestigial in humans
Yes it does.
but serves a purpose in apes
Does it? Which ones? "Apes" says very little... I mean, we're apes. And if we're not, answer my thread (you see what happens when i start a thread with a question? I get no answers).
without fully understanding the role of the appendix in either.
You're focused on humans, and you're focused on the appendix. Does that mean that you have nothing to say about the Darwin's spot, the goose bumps and the toe nails?
It is only a "good explanation " if the appendix is indeed vestigial.
True.
It is not,
Says who?
therefore the explanation is not good.
Again, as good as it gets. The appendix is a vestigial organ in humans and other primates.

What does it mean when you say it's not? That it has some obscure function? That's coherent with the concept of vestigial.

And if some original full function was found for the appendix, i'm sorry to tell you that it's not a big deal. Even if you find it (which you won't, by the way), to deny vestigiality you'd need to invalidate EVERY SINGLE CASE of vestigiality (you can start with toe nails), or the fact of Evolution.

You could also try to demonstrate your own hypothesis, but that's not the creationist style.

TOE "predicts" that the appendix should exist in certain animals.
It deppends on what facts you're beginning with.
Once you have the fact that humans have an appendix, you can predict that other primates will have it as a vestigial, or as a functional organ. Little chance to miss that. You could say that it's a fix.
Which ones? The ones that have one?
Which ones? Depends on the facts we have.

---
The organs/structures/tissues are there. Some call them appendixes, and some don't. They use different definitions. Perhaps that's what made you say that monkeys didn't have an appendix.

The ones that need one?
Needing an appendix is a weird concept...
Well humans need one.
My father doesn't. Lucky him.
So why should it be considered vestigial?
Because it does not retain the original function.
But toe nails are more clear examples of vestigiality. Hum... Perhaps that's the reason why you don't want to mention them...

Look, if i use my toe nails to scratch my ankles, that doesn't invalidate their condition as vestigials.

We don't need them, and i don't think Evolution will give you things that you don't need.

Because it is smaller than an apes?
We're apes.
Maybe apes need a bigger one than humans to begin with.
Humans are apes.
TOE has a good explanation for vestigials only if they are indeed vestigial.
Are you going to start again with terms and words?

Give them the name you want. The TOE explains them perfectly.
They can't be vestigial unless they evolved.
I'm not sure what you mean, but every organ has evolved. Vestigials did not emerge as vestigials. They used to be something else. Probably vital. Definitely an asset.
Without evolution there are no vestigials.
With devolution there can be some vestigials.

The dog's ridiculous back kick is an example of vestigial behavior. They used to bury their feces (it's quite obvious, but i'll ask if you agree, just in case).

This behavior supports Evolution and devolution.

We know Evolution is the correct one because everything else points towards Evolution. So do most vestigials, i believe.
1. Evolution is true
Indeed.
2. Unexplained structures are vestigial
Unexplained? Which ones are you talking about? I can explain the vast majority of my vestigials.
Hum... Ok, perhaps i'll have to hit Wiki for some of them. xD
3. Since unexplained structures are vestigial than evolution is true.
Strawman. Evolution is true because it's true. And we know it because of the immense evidence to support it.
Circular reasoning.
Are you ignoring the reasons why it's NOT circular reasoning?
The argument would only be circular if the whole theory of evolution depended on an argument from vestigials.
Or if the whole theory of vestigials depended upon evolution.
Evolution is true. Vestigials are just a tiny percent of the facts that validate it.

The fact that facts require the truth to be true is not a problematic problem.

You can't have the one without the other.
I've shown you that you can have some vestigials without Evolution (those that don't require for the organism to gain anything while losing some function).

However, most biological facts can't be explained without the TOE. That's because Evolution is a fact.


(Edited by wisp 3/25/2009 at 8:19 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:34 PM on March 25, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 4:52 PM on March 25, 2009 :
Whale hips: whales use these hip bones for muscle attachment and to protect reproductive organs. This proves that whales have hip bones. That's all.


What do you think would happen if a mutation that suppresses appendage growth was reversed?


Comparative studies on mammalian Hoxc8 early enhancer sequence reveal a baleen whale-specific deletion of a cis-acting element


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 01:46 AM on March 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Way over my head.

What's a cis-acting element????

What does this have to do with the appendix?

We suggest that regulation of Hoxc8 in baleen whales differs from other mammalian species and may be associated with variation in axial morphology.
Do you mean that it might govern asymmetric features (as in organs such as the appendix)?
But the article spoke about the neural tube...

Sorry, i found it confusing and much too technical.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:43 AM on March 26, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Basically they found a mutation in whales that elongates the spine and suppresses the formation of hind appendages.  They could tell by putting the same mutation in mice and looking at the effect.  This is a mutation in the body forming control genes which are normally very highly conserved in mammals.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:01 AM on March 26, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yep, that article needs translation into understandable english!  :0)
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 08:03 AM on March 26, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm already dizzy from this thread. Now I'm confused. What's new, right?

Apoapsis, whenever you bring up genetics I get a childlike sense of wonderment and awe. The power contained in these little things is staggering. It's no wonder that geneticists are so excited about their field even though from the outside it looks more boring than statistics.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:45 AM on March 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is still a tetra.
Yes and all tetras are seperate species, they are not one species as you claim.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:58 AM on March 26, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is still a tetra.
demon
Yes and all tetras are seperate species, they are not one species as you claim.

You're right. Same genus, different species. I've already admitted to speciation. I admit that it is micro evolution. I guess I'd have to admit to micro vestigialation. (made up word)

micro-vestigialation: traits that carry over from one species to another during speciation (within a genus) that have a reduced function.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 12:37 PM on March 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is another unfinished subject. Species and kinds.

Demon says that "species" is a clear concept in Biology. I really don't know about that, but i honestly don't care. Not about the definition in Biology. Perhaps it means that the members of a single species can mate producing fertile offspring. That's pretty clear.
In bacteria it's not that simple. I bet there are more than one criterion.

To me those criteria and definitions are consensual. And it doesn't sound very interesting.

But the creationist concept of 'kind' should be anything but consensual. They are supposed to mean something very clear and distinct. And yet i have not come across any creationist who could pinpoint separations between kinds.

There should be a finite, clear and precise number of kinds living today.

What's that number?

Ok, let's leave aside those who were not in the ark.

Coyotes, wolves, dogs, foxes, hyenas, thylacines kangaroos, wallabies, koalas, lions, tigers, cheetahs, panthers, cats, hummingbirds, ostriches, bonobos, chimpanzees, rattlesnake, coral snake, tsukinowaguma bears, polar bears, panda bears, pandas, raccoons, legless lizards, legged lizards...

How many kinds did i mention? Where can i see the Creationist Orchard compared to the Evolutionary Tree? Where's the creationist taxonomy?

If we're right, it's a hard and tiresome process.
If they're right, it's a piece of cake.

It should be as easy as this: if two species are too similar, or if they share too much DNA, they ought to belong to the same kind.

How similar is 'too similar'? How much is 'too much'?

Ok, this belongs another thread. But it's related to my other thread "Taxonomy and Apes", which got '0' replies. I'll copypaste this there nevertheless.

You see now, timbrx, the reason of my shotgun approach?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:44 PM on March 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're right. Same genus, different species.
So kinds are genera?
I've already admitted to speciation.
Yes, but what's a species to a kind?
I admit that it is micro evolution.
That's not an admission.
I guess I'd have to admit to micro vestigialation. (made up word)
Are our toe nails and body hairs examples of vestigiation? If you admit that, you're admitting that we were furrier, and our feet used to scratch.
micro-vestigialation: traits that carry over from one species to another during speciation (within a genus) that have a reduced function.
That's nice, but i prefer talking about what happens and what doesn't happen.

Oh, if you have answers about kinds, please, present them in my lonely thread.


(Edited by wisp 3/26/2009 at 1:26 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:26 PM on March 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've already admitted to speciation. I admit that it is micro evolution.

Speciation is macroevolution not microevolution.  As stated before species is the only really meaningful concept in biology.  Everything else is just man made attempts to artificially put definitions on the continuum of orgainisms.  Species, though, are breeding populations.  Populations of similar orgainisms that no longer normally mate are considered seperate species.  And as stated life isn't static groups but a continuum.  Similar species that are recently seperated as far as breeding goes, have a better chance of being fertile than species that have been seperated for a longer amount of time, a greater amount of mutations have accumulated in both populations making them more dissimilar.

Wisp is correct, species definition for asexually reproducing  organisms is more complex.  Kinds, I have no idea...  


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:08 AM on March 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx -
[

The blind cave fish's eyes are not remnants from a sighted ancestor.

My previous post above, specifically the article showing some offspring of cross-bred pairs of blind cave fist from different caves do have sight.  This shows that cave fish from different caves lost their eyesight from mutations of different DNA locations.  

They are adaptations demonstrating the creatures remarkable built in ability to suppress a trait that is unnecessary (sight in the dark) in favor of one that is (sensitivity to pressure).

Again, the previous article I posted demonstrates no ability to 'suppress a trait (eyesight)', but rather the loss of eyesight was due to a genetic mutation.  In animals that depend on eyesight, such mutations would be detrimental and the animal would not likely survive to produce offspring.  But in the completely dark environment of a cave such a mutation would not be harmful because the function of the eye is not needed.  So the fish passed on the mutation resulting in blindness to its offspring.  Evolution explains this perfectly.

Now for the development of the fish's remarkable sensitivity to pressure, here an interesting article showing how this adaptation is inspiring development of new underwater sensing technology.

Blind Cave Fish Inspire Research into New Underwater Sensor Technology
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 07:23 AM on March 27, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's important to remember that "vestigial" does not necessarily mean "useless."   It means "no longer has it's former use."

And it's been that way since the beginning.   Darwin so defined "rudimentary organs" that way.   The appendix is vestigial in humans because it is no longer used as a chamber for digestion of plant material.



(Edited by Yehren 3/27/2009 at 08:18 AM).
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 08:16 AM on March 27, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.