Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Vestigial Organs?
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 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

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 92 of 109 (559701)
05-11-2010 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Peg
05-10-2010 7:14 PM


Wiedersheim’s list
This seems to be something that has a reality and a somewhat different false version which is commonly bandied about. If you look at wikipedia's entry on Wiedersheim it gives several examples as having been on the list of 86 vestigial organs, but looking at the actual list itself, on p.200 of the book in section B on organs which might accurately be termed vestigial, we find a number of them clearly missing, specifically the tonsils and adenoids (neither of which are even mentioned in the book apart from that one reference in the Bursa Pharyngea section) and thymus (in another list of organs which have had probable changes in function). Even then these are only organs 'wholly or in part functionless' which includes structures which only occur in the embryo in humans but persist in other vertebrates.
This confusion may well not have originated from creationists, but where it has come from is unclear.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Peg, posted 05-10-2010 7:14 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Peg, posted 05-11-2010 6:54 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 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

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 94 of 109 (559721)
05-11-2010 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Peg
05-11-2010 6:54 AM


Re: Wiedersheim’s list
Just to confuse the issue I have made some edits to the Wikipedia page.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Peg, posted 05-11-2010 6:54 AM Peg has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 95 of 109 (559735)
05-11-2010 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Peg
05-09-2010 7:38 PM


Hi, Peg.
Peg writes:
Bluejay writes:
What made it evidence of evolution was the fact that it represented a change: two organisms have the same structure, but with some differences between them, just as evolution predicts to see.
I dont see that it is evidence for evolution...i see it more as evidence of the one architect or maker. We are all living organisms and therefore we must have functioning body parts...its not proof of evolution.
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.
Think a little more critically: you’ve oversimplified the issue by thinking of it in terms of broad, abstract patterns. Look at the details, the minutiae, for just a minute. Take this, for instance: we can take a mouse, replace one of its genes with the human equivalent of that gene, and it can still function essentially the same way, with no apparent effects on its function. Yet, the human and mouse equivalents of that gene are different from one another.
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.
-----
Peg writes:
the vestigial argument is weak because many of them have been discovered to actually have a purpose.
You're still making the same error that has been pointed out already. Function has nothing to do with this debate, no matter how many times you assert it.
Evolution also favors functionality, because non-functional organs and systems are a drain on the organism's resources. So, we don't expect animals to be walking around with unusable limbs and superfluous muscles sprouting all over the place: if such animals were biologically successful, it would be a fairly hard blow against natural selection as an important part of evolution.
The reason we predict any vestigial structures at all is that the entire process of evolution cannot be perfect, and so, will not totally erase all clues of the genealogical history of an organism or species. So, organisms will sometimes have structures and functions that are essentially superfluous for their biological success.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Peg, posted 05-09-2010 7:38 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Peg, posted 05-11-2010 8:21 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 97 of 109 (559876)
05-11-2010 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Peg
05-11-2010 8:21 PM


Having similar traits does not make us related and most definately does not prove that we evolved from the species in question.
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?
i dont know enough about what you are talking about here to comment.
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.
No gene is this short, but let's say that you compare the same gene from humans and mice and they look like this:
AAAAATAAAA : human
AAAAACAAAA : mouse
Using modern technology you can actually take the gene from humans and put it in mice. Guess what? The gene functions exactly the same. So why wouldn't the same designer use the same sequence in both species? Even more, why do small changes like this correlate with evolutionary distance? It would be analogous to slightly changing the placement of dials in every Ford Mustang that comes off the line for no other reason than personal whim. It is ineffecient to say the least, the very opposite of what you would expect from a design process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Peg, posted 05-11-2010 8:21 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Peg, posted 05-13-2010 7:47 PM Taq has replied
 Message 106 by Blue Jay, posted 05-14-2010 10:51 AM Taq has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 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

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 99 of 109 (560222)
05-13-2010 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Peg
05-13-2010 7:47 PM


sheep, pigs and deers have split hooves...are they related?
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?
perhaps the gene was rendered inactive once it was inserted into the mouse
Such mice are bred for more than one generation, if it was simply that the human copy was inactive in the mouse then you would tend to see no viable mice homozygous for the human version in later generations if it was an important gene.
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?
That is what they do, you can't make an adult transgenic mouse without having it grow from a transgenic embryo. The real trick is working out how to let you only activate the changed genes at later stages of development or in the adult.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Peg, posted 05-13-2010 7:47 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Peg, posted 05-13-2010 8:46 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 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

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 101 of 109 (560230)
05-13-2010 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Peg
05-13-2010 8:46 PM


a pig and a sheep is related! Im expected to believe that?
Why wouldn't you? Is there something wrong with the current methods of genetic analysis?
I guess they are similar in size...they have two ears two eyes ....
They're both animals, chordates and mammals as well
so they must be related
Not as closely related as chimps and humans but yes they have shared ancestry.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Peg, posted 05-13-2010 8:46 PM Peg has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 102 of 109 (560267)
05-14-2010 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Peg
05-13-2010 7:47 PM


Just because we have two arms and two legs does not mean we share a common ancestor
No but when added to other characteristics, particularly ones that only humans and other primates share which other mammals do not, such as the inability to break down uric acid, which all mammals, except the anthropoid apes, including humans, can.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Peg, posted 05-13-2010 7:47 PM Peg has not replied

  
misha
Member (Idle past 4627 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


(1)
Message 103 of 109 (560303)
05-14-2010 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Peg
05-13-2010 8:46 PM


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
exactly, and not just believe it but understand it and understand why.
They both have hair, a trait found in most mammals. You and I probably have different hair but somewhere down the line we're related too (although sometimes i'd like to deny it. . . jk). We're more closely related than sheep and pigs and so logically our hair is more similar.
Pigs and sheep are also both warm blooded, give live birth, have mammary glands, and three inner ear bones. These are all traits of mammals. As pointed out earlier, they are also both even toed ungulates supporting the majority of their weight on the third and fourth toes. They also have very similar ankle structure: a two pulley motion allowing for a great deal of flexibility. They ARE related.
Fetal pigs, sheep and cats are some of the primary subjects of student dissection and inspection. The reason: they are mammals and are thus closely related to humans in many of their internal structures. We can learn a lot about humans by inspecting the inner workings of other mammals. Of course we could learn more about humans by dissecting humans but a lot of times that is frowned upon. Apes and monkeys are not common to dissect because they tend to be endangered and not commonly bred in mass as livestock. So, we pick some more distant relatives but still mammals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Peg, posted 05-13-2010 8:46 PM Peg has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 104 of 109 (560313)
05-14-2010 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Peg
05-13-2010 7:47 PM


Just because we have two arms and two legs does not mean we share a common ancestor
You missed my point. If two species share a common ancestor would you or would you not expect them to have shared characteristics? I am not asking you to accept common ancestry. All I am asking is what you would expect to see if common ancestry was true.
sheep, pigs and deers have split hooves...are they related?
They are all in the placental mammal kind, aren't they?
perhaps the gene was rendered inactive once it was inserted into the mouse
Nope. These can be genes vital for the survival of the mouse, and they work just fine. The expression of these genes is always verified, and there are even systems where you can control the expression of the gene with different drugs.
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????
Yep.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Peg, posted 05-13-2010 7:47 PM Peg has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 105 of 109 (560316)
05-14-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Peg
05-11-2010 8:21 PM


Hi, Peg.
Peg writes:
As similar to monkeys that we may 'appear' and as similar to their dna ours may be, we still cannot reproduce with them...
Do you know this for certain?
Have you tried? Do you know anybody who has tried?
Furthermore, if, for instance, a human and a chimpanzee produced a hybrid offspring, would you change your view on our relatedness to them?
If not, then I think we should agree that reproductive isolation has nothing to do with your reasons for rejecting common ancestry.
If so, it’s still somewhat disingenuous of you to hide behind an assumed phenomenon that everybody here knows will probably not be legal to test in the foreseeable future.
And, finally, what does reproductive isolation have to do with vestigial organs?
Do you believe that reproductive isolation is powerful enough evidence to sweep away all similarities?
I see no reason to believe that reproductive isolation cannot be accomplished by evolutionary means, so perhaps you could walk me through your reasoning as to why reproductive isolation disproves common ancestry.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Peg, posted 05-11-2010 8:21 PM 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