Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Vestigial Organs?
Peg
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 88 of 109 (559538)
05-10-2010 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by PaulK
05-10-2010 5:42 AM


Re: correct link
he seems to be using terminology that we dont routinely use, he calls it the bursa pharyngea...i think its old terminology. I provided the medical definition which said:
a cystic notochordal remnant found inconstantly in the posterior wall of the nasopharynx at the lower end of the pharyngeal tonsil.
the image shows a digagram of where the pharyngeal tonsil is located...its highlighted in green.
Paulk writes:
(A procedure that has been around, for a long, long time before Wiedersheim, Wikipedia claiming 2,000 years and even citing evidence for tonsillectomies 1,000 years earlier than that).
im aware that its been done for a long time but that is not what is being discussed.... we are talking about the 'idea' of vestigial organs which has nothing to when tonisils first started being removed.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2010 5:42 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2010 6:46 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 91 of 109 (559623)
05-10-2010 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Wounded King
05-10-2010 9:25 AM


Re: correct link
WoundedKing writes:
The Bursa Pharyngeal is not an old term for tonsils it is a term for itself, it isn't the pharyngeal tonsils but a structure associated with them.
As PaulK has also pointed out the tonsils being discussed here are the pharyngeal tonsils, also known as the adenoids, rather than the palatine tonsils which are what are removed in a normal tonsillectomy.
thanks for pointing that out, i was wondering why the book used that term
Im going to keep looking into this because i really dont believe that people are deliberately lying about the tonsils being called vestigials...I have searched right thru the book and this was the only mention of the tonsils so perhaps its not this writer where the idea came from but someone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Wounded King, posted 05-10-2010 9:25 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Wounded King, posted 05-11-2010 6:40 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 93 of 109 (559702)
05-11-2010 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Wounded King
05-11-2010 6:40 AM


Re: Wiedersheim’s list
I would like to send a message to the writer of the wiki entry and ask for clarification as to where he found tonisils in wiedersheims list of vestigials...
i'll do that and post back here with his/response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Wounded King, posted 05-11-2010 6:40 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Wounded King, posted 05-11-2010 8:59 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 96 of 109 (559846)
05-11-2010 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Blue Jay
05-11-2010 11:01 AM


Bluejay writes:
I’m not particularly concerned with how you want to view it: anything can be twisted to mean whatever the believer wants to believe it means. I think you need to do more than explain your viewpoint on the issue, because, as of right now, I see nothing, other than your viewpoint, that says what you claim it says.
Ok.
As similar to monkeys that we may 'appear' and as similar to their dna ours may be, we still cannot reproduce with them
this is because of there is a species barrier proving that we are not the same species as them...we are completely different.
Having similar traits does not make us related and most definately does not prove that we evolved from the species in question.
Bluejay writes:
Why would a designer make a different model of each gene for each organism if those genes are functionally equivalent? Why not reuse the same parts and minimize the inefficiency of the system? Efficiency is one of the most basic tenets of design.
i dont know enough about what you are talking about here to comment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Blue Jay, posted 05-11-2010 11:01 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Taq, posted 05-11-2010 10:38 PM Peg has replied
 Message 105 by Blue Jay, posted 05-14-2010 10:47 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 98 of 109 (560216)
05-13-2010 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Taq
05-11-2010 10:38 PM


Taq writes:
Let's look at this from a slightly different angle. If humans and other primates do share a common ancestor wouldn't you expect there to be shared characteristics?
not necessarily. Just because we have two arms and two legs does not mean we share a common ancestor
sheep, pigs and deers have split hooves...are they related?
Taq writes:
If I may be so bold, Bluejay is asking why God would change the DNA sequence of genes in different species even though that change in DNA has no effect on the final function of the gene.
perhaps the gene was rendered inactive once it was inserted into the mouse
or perhaps in a fully formed animals, having something inserted isnt going to change what is already there???
have they tried this in the embryonic stages of life before the genes have had a chance to do what they were designed to do????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Taq, posted 05-11-2010 10:38 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Wounded King, posted 05-13-2010 8:20 PM Peg has replied
 Message 102 by bluescat48, posted 05-14-2010 12:40 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 104 by Taq, posted 05-14-2010 10:19 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 107 by hooah212002, posted 05-14-2010 7:37 PM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 100 of 109 (560225)
05-13-2010 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Wounded King
05-13-2010 8:20 PM


wounded king writes:
Um, yes. They are members of the order Artiodactyla the even-toed ungulates and their relationship is supported by genetic analysis. You could add cows and giraffes to your list as well, not to mention camels and hippos.
Do you ever think to check these things out before you ask them?
a pig and a sheep is related! Im expected to believe that?
I guess they are similar in size...they have two ears two eyes .... hair is a bit different and only one has horns, but hey they both have split hooves so they must be related
seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Wounded King, posted 05-13-2010 8:20 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by DrJones*, posted 05-13-2010 9:19 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 103 by misha, posted 05-14-2010 9:21 AM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024