Vestiges

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darwinsterrier:
I would like to know what would count as a vestigial feature to Philip and co. Philip, would you be so kind as to define ‘vestigial’ as you mean it?

​

Meanwhile, Dictionary.com has:
2. Biology. Occurring or persisting as a rudimentary or degenerate structure.
So ‘formerly functional, but now degenerate’.

---

Gee Darwin, the definition looks somewhat ‘biased’: ‘rudimentary’ (like ’primitive’) implies ‘(de-)evolution’ and is biased (circular) reasoning by the Dictionary authors.The body contains many organs we can do without (eyes, ears, a kidney, etc.) with some redundancy that is excellent. That is a far cry from declaring it ‘vestigial’ (i.e., a totally useless structure) don’t you reckon ? Also the 'norm' is the average body. When it gets sick and useless, toss it out as "vestigial"?More later?

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 04-26-2002]

"I got my information from Science & Earth History. 1999. Strahler. p442-3. It even has some pictures showing the different expressions of hind limbs in sperm whales. There are six diagrams showing bones abutting the pelvis (?), the number of bones in the individuals studied are, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, & 10. Showing that 1/ Bones abut the pelvis in the same place you would expect limbs, but the expression of the "structure" varies, & 2/ These bones are not present in most individuals. This is probably why they aren't in your picture."
--Is this refering to fossil findings or todays living whales, either way, I see the vestigiality (theres me freely adding my own suffixes to whatever I please again :\ ) I would like to see more information on it, the exact anatomical seemingly random inherited differentiation or may it possibly be running through a sertain line of whales?"I tried to find similar on a website to reference it, but I'm a bit short on time."
--Shouldn't be too hard for me, I'd have to just think of the right key words. I did it earlier today, though I seem to be recalling that I spelled 'vestigial' as 'vestigal'.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
Gee Darwin, the definition looks somewhat ‘biased’: ‘rudimentary’ (like ’primitive’) implies ‘(de-)evolution’ and is biased (circular) reasoning by the Dictionary authors.

​

The body contains many organs we can do without (eyes, ears, a kidney, etc.) with some redundancy that is excellent. That is a far cry from declaring it ‘vestigial’ (i.e., a totally useless structure) don’t you reckon ? Also the 'norm' is the average body. When it gets sick and useless, toss it out as "vestigial"?

​

More later?

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 04-26-2002]

---

Of course the definition of vestigial is biased in favor of evolution. The reason is that the concept of "vestigial" is based on evolution. Why would God create useless organs?... But the idea behind the relationship of vestiges and evolution is that these useless parts are gradually disappearing from the species. The idea of something truly "vestigial" just doesn't fit with Creationism.

"Of course the definition of vestigial is biased in favor of evolution. The reason is that the concept of "vestigial" is based on evolution. Why would God create useless organs?... But the idea behind the relationship of vestiges and evolution is that these useless parts are gradually disappearing from the species. The idea of something truly "vestigial" just doesn't fit with Creationism."
--Being a YEC, your statment seemed relatively flawless untill you made your last assertion... BTW, welcome to the forum -------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
I'm surprised at your statement because you claim credentials in medicine. Are you not familiar with microbial ecology? Antibiotic resistance? Human endogenous retroviral elements and their relationship to oncogenes? Mutations and their relationships to the epidemiology of malaria? The relationship between the defective CD4 protein and HIV? The mutation-driven variation of the H and N proteins on the surface coat of influenza virii and the choice of flu vaccines to produce the following year? What about the phrase "emerging disease" ?
You weren't aware of these?

---

​

Are your talking MUTATIONS or plasmids, plasmids are pre-programmed in the genes and are NOT mutations. Show me the mutations !

---

OK Philip, first there are three sources of antibiotic resistence of bacterial: 1) Plasmid transfer, 2) mutations within the transcriptional/translational machinery of the bacteria and, 3) lateral gene transfer between bacterial species (non-plasmid transfer of genetic material). If you doubt these statements go to PubMed and input the search terms yourself. I worked in the same group as a guy in the NIH who did work on how the Multi Drug Resistence Protein in bacteria worked (search term MDRP and/or tagging radiolabeled iodine) so I do know a little bit about this one. Second, you avoided the rest of the comments. For example, malaria and flu, the comment was pertaining to "hot spots" of coat proteins to alter the antigenic properties and fool the bodies defense system. Having been in a process development/manufacturing environment for vaccines I know what a bitch that this one is. Mutations within coat proteins within so called "hot spots" within the genome change the antigenic presentation of the infections particles presenting a serious challenge to the host response and preventing good herd immunity. This fits a competition evolution model based on Neo-Darwinian principles, please describe to us how it fits a creation model.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I will not even go into male nipples and wisdom teeth, not to mention the mechanics of the lower back."
--Not sure about the mechanics of the lower back, though see my post on wisdom teeth, and male nipples are characeristics producing sensations, and isn't this characeristic's genetic locus in a chromosome shared by male and female?

​

---

Thank you for making my point RE: wisdom teeth TC. They actually do not fit well into the human mouth any more, at least not for the last couple of thousand years. As to the male nipples, I will try to locate any data on shared locus for the phenotypic expression later. I am just too tired to log onto PubMed or Medline now and I sure as hell am not going to go into the basement and dig up my Greys Anatomy to see it it gives the locus, ditto on the reason. My copy is probably too old anyway.By the way TC, I notice that you did not address my other points re: vestigial aspects of H. sapiens. Giving up on them or waiting for data .------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

"Thank you for making my point RE: wisdom teeth TC. They actually do not fit well into the human mouth any more, at least not for the last couple of thousand years."
--Actually, aboriginals have no problem with wisdom teeth, their jaws for one are relatively larger, and also if I may recall a past resource stated that molars and wisdom teeth in the upper jaw develop in a manner quite different from what is found in the non-aboriginal. This may be due to a natual selection, they of course use their Jaws frequently as a vice and simmilar uses. Of course through technology, modernization, and advancement in hygene, etc. we no longer need this, or it may simply be a product of the action of the use of the jaw in the aboriginal."As to the male nipples, I will try to locate any data on shared locus for the phenotypic expression later. I am just too tired to log onto PubMed or Medline now and I sure as hell am not going to go into the basement and dig up my Greys Anatomy to see it it gives the locus, ditto on the reason. My copy is probably too old anyway."
--I can relate, I thought it may have been interesting to note."By the way TC, I notice that you did not address my other points re: vestigial aspects of H. sapiens. Giving up on them or waiting for data ."
--What post might that be, I can't find it in this thread?------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
This may be due to a natual selection, they of course use their Jaws frequently as a vice and simmilar uses. Of course through technology, modernization, and advancement in hygene, etc. we no longer need this, or it may simply be a product of the action of the use of the jaw in the aboriginal.

---

OK, you hit two points here either it is NS in which case it is a vestigial trait, or it is use/disuse, which is Lamarkian evolution/genetics which has beed disproven. The third possibility is that it is a problem and they either knock the teeth out themselves or suffer a great deal. Does anyone know of studies re: wisdom teeth in primitive cultures?

quote:

---

"By the way TC, I notice that you did not address my other points re: vestigial aspects of H. sapiens. Giving up on them or waiting for data ."
--What post might that be, I can't find it in this thread?

---

Number 6 I think, the first one that you replied to me in this thread.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
Gee Darwin, the definition looks somewhat ‘biased’: ‘rudimentary’ (like ’primitive’) implies ‘(de-)evolution’ and is biased (circular) reasoning by the Dictionary authors.

---

:banghead: :banghead:
Funnily enough, this is precisely what I said. You didn't actually read the rest of the post, did you?

quote:

---

The body contains many organs we can do without (eyes, ears, a kidney, etc.) with some redundancy that is excellent.

---

Um... ... erm, is English your first language? Sorry, but I've no idea what "with some redundancy that is excellent" means. Could you rephrase please?

​

As to doing without, sure. People can also do without substantial proportions of their lungs (smokers), or an arm or leg (or two). Lobotomised people also managed without significant amounts of brain function, as do... < must... resist... urge... can't...no!... > as do creationists. So what? What has this to do with 'vestigiality'?

​

quote:

---

That is a far cry from declaring it ‘vestigial’ (i.e., a totally useless structure) don’t you reckon ?

---

​

:banghead: Please READ my post. And please find a dictionary that states that a vestigial feature must be totally useless. The dictionary I referenced did not. I, in my definition, did not. Please justify your definition.

​

Note that your definition is pointless anyway. That's what I spent my time writing that last post to explain

​

TFN, DT

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I got my information from Science & Earth History. 1999. Strahler. p442-3. It even has some pictures showing the different expressions of hind limbs in sperm whales. There are six diagrams showing bones abutting the pelvis (?), the number of bones in the individuals studied are, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, & 10. Showing that 1/ Bones abut the pelvis in the same place you would expect limbs, but the expression of the "structure" varies, & 2/ These bones are not present in most individuals. This is probably why they aren't in your picture.

​

--Is this refering to fossil findings or todays living whales, either way, I see the vestigiality (theres me freely adding my own suffixes to whatever I please again :\ ) I would like to see more information on it, the exact anatomical seemingly random inherited differentiation or may it possibly be running through a sertain line of whales?

​

---

This refers to living sperm whales, not fossils. The picture you posted wasn't a sperm whale (humpback?).Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

"OK, you hit two points here either it is NS in which case it is a vestigial trait, or it is use/disuse, which is Lamarkian evolution/genetics which has beed disproven."
--The former seems more likely, though for the latter, I wasn't refering to an effect of inheritance. But more of a characeristical feature that you bring on yourself by your life-style/actions. For instance, wheight lifters gain bone/muscle mass but this is not passed on to their child."The third possibility is that it is a problem and they either knock the teeth out themselves or suffer a great deal. Does anyone know of studies re: wisdom teeth in primitive cultures?"
--This was my resource:The Aborigines of Australia - http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/NT0001796E

quote:

---

For example, it has been found that the molars and wisdom teeth in the upper jaw develop in a manner quite different from what is found in the white man, but similar to what obtains in certain of the lower animals. Researches on this subject have not as yet proved sufficiently extensive to enable one to say what other races, if any, exhibit a process of dental development similar to what is found in the Australian aboriginal.

---

--They site this as evidence of common descent, however, this assumes that they actually are ancestral and also supports my supposition. I was unble to find any more information on this though."Number 6 I think, the first one that you replied to me in this thread."
--Ok IC what you are refering to.--------------------Response - Post #6"Here are two from the general populace, goose bumps and the plantaris muscle. Goosebumps are a mechanism in mammels to raise fur in increase air trapping for warmth. Well, most people that I know can be covered in goose bumps and it will not help one bit to keep them warm."
--This may be vestigial from a previously more hairy body, or possibly given as a trait just as muscles in our face give us the ability to raise our eyebrows, an almost communative reaction."As for the plantaris muscle, in monkeys it causes all the digits to in the foot to flex at once, and allows gripping by the feet. In humans it is atrophied, may be absent, does not reach the toes(it disappears into the Achilles tendon)."
--It appears to not be absolutely essential of course, you can deal without it and a good percentage of the worlds population are absent with it. However, it 'Assists in knee flexion and plantar flexion of foot' when present.Human Anatomy and Physiology Second Edition - Elaine N. Marieb; Pg 331-333------------------

"This refers to living sperm whales, not fossils. The picture you posted wasn't a sperm whale (humpback?)."
--I believe so, they didn't reference exactly what type it were though. It appears as if it is a relatively vestigial structure, may have been useful before for the reason I first listen when it would have regularely penetrated the whales skin to be a protruding structure.------------------

The bones are purely internal, you can only find them by dissection, if they are there at all, that is.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

"The bones are purely internal, you can only find them by dissection, if they are there at all, that is."
--Yes of course, though as a side note, it does happen though is very rare that they are externally protruding. This, however, is a bit irrelevant. I was refering to their former possible use.------------------

[QUOTE][b]I said most studies (not all) are by the physicians.[/QUOTE][/b]Cite? Because, as I understand it, the majority of research is conducted on animals, and not done by physicians but by biochemists and other PhDs. Even the work that is done by MDs is not going to be done by your neighborhood GP (as the term 'physician' would generally imply) but by the best specialists in the field at leading institutes. [QUOTE][b]Are your talking MUTATIONS or plasmids[/QUOTE][/b]I'm talking about mutations, and I'm not necessarily going to confine myself to mutations that occur on plasmids. But since antibiotic resistance is usually an ancillary function that is where we will find most of them.Your claim that all antibiotic resistance is conferred by plasmids has a serious problem. For resistance/virulence factors to be introduced to a laboratory culture, the pathogens present must be living in the same culture as a strain already carrying the virulence plasmid and the recipient pathogen must be competant for the transfer. [QUOTE][b]plasmids are pre-programmed in the genes[/QUOTE][/b](1) "Plasmids are preprogrammed..." -- Fallacy: begging the question(2) "{Plasmids are} in the genes..." -- Wrong, genes may be "in the plasmids" but plasmids are not contained "in" genes.(3) "{Plasmids are} NOT mutations." Correct. But they contain genes and those genes may contain mutations. [QUOTE][b]Show me the mutations ![/QUOTE][/b]I'm a bit confused why you are asking me for examples of a principle of biology so basic that it can be taught in high school biology labs, but here is one example of spontaneous microbial mutations that convey antibiotic resistance.You have another problem. Antibiotic resistance (even MDR) occurs in pathogens that do not contain plasmids. (Example: Mycobacterium tuberculosis)Lab activity:
papa.indstate.edu/amcbt/volume_26/v26-1p17-21.pdfSignificant articles:Gubavera, et al. Selection of influenza virus mutants in experimentally infected volunteers treated with Oseltamivir. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2/15/2001Jaffrezou, et al. Mutation rates and mechanisms of resistance to etoposide determined from fluctuation analysis. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 8/3/1994Bessler, Monica; Mason, Phillip. Somatic mutations and cellular selection in paroxysomal nocturna haemoglobinuria. Lancet, 4/16/1994