|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4922 days) Posts: 31 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Vestigial Organs? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I wouldn't use the appendix as an example of a vestigial organs. Studies into the distribution of the appendix and appendix-like organs in animals suggest that it is adaptive.
One possible function for the appendix is that it is there to reseed the gut with bacteria following a bout of diarrhea. This would also explain why removing the appendix is not harmful - the only societies which can safely remove an appendix are also societies in which diarrhea does not carry a significant risk of death. My favourite example of vestigiality is stotting in Svalbard Reindeer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I claim nothing about the relative merits of the explanation, merely wanted to correct the OP which assumed that creationists always see such things as vestigial organs as necessarily having a function.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
I'm a creationist and I disagree with the creationists who think vestigial organs have a purpose. I think they once had a purpose but lost it. I wish we creationists could all get on the same page but right now it isn't happening. Unfortunately for you, those creationists are right, most vestigal organs do have a function, just not the function the organ had in other species. Some vestiges have no function that can be derived, ie legs of whales & snakes. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rockondon Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
This actually got me curious. Where can I read more on humans and tails? Such as studies involving cases where humans were born with true tails?
Here's a research study you might find interesting: [Malformations of the human tail bud or: caudal agenesis syndrome. A review] - PubMed
Abstract
This study presents radiological and clinical findings in 70 patients with aplasia of caudal spinal segments and associated anomalies of the lower extremities and the inner organs. From a functional point of view 5 different types can be classified--unilateral hemi-aplasia, bilateral aplasia with or without sacral plateau, complex malformations of the caudal spine and medial spinal aplasia. Foot deformities and anomalies of the inner organs are common findings regardless to the extent of spinal aplasia, whereas popliteal webbing is only seen in cases with involvement of the lumbar spine. The lack of osseous junction between the spine and the pelvis leeds to a lumbopelvic kyphosis. Additionally the iliac wings are rotated in the frontal plane with the result of a narrow pelvic outlet and a change in the geometry of the hip joints. Embryologically all types of caudal spinal aplasia can be referred to a damage of the human tail bud. However, the term "Syndrome of Caudal Regression" is misleading; with respect to the presented results it is proposed to call this type of spinal malformation "Syndrome of Caudal Aplasia".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flyer75 Member (Idle past 2454 days) Posts: 242 From: Dayton, OH Joined:
|
Flatland writes: Now can "the fall" explain the increase of human knowledge, the advancement of science and technology, the Renaissance, and the modern world? Why are we living so much better than our ancestors? According to the fall we should be getting worse. More epic fail from our resident creationist. This is another thread that is way out of my league for me to discuss but your post is way out there. I've never once heard this argument used by anybody. The Fall was a one time event that obviously affected everything but nowhere in the biblical account of the Fall is there mention of mankind digressing after this. Where is it mentioned anywhere in the Bible that man is digressing because of sin. If you believe the biblical account of the Fall and sin there isn't a progression of anything...in the end, the result is eternal life or eternal damnation, but nothing of a progressive digression of life, technology, or science. Really the only thing that digressed was a moral order which was restored with the death and resurrection of Christ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CosmicAtheist Member (Idle past 4922 days) Posts: 31 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
This is very interesting. How exactly do the differentiate from a true tail or pseudotail? And what would cause a pseudotail?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flatland Junior Member (Idle past 4476 days) Posts: 10 Joined: |
quote: You're the one who brought up the "fall" not me. And no it does not explain death and disease at all. Not one bit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rockondon Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
This is very interesting. How exactly do the differentiate from a true tail or pseudotail? And what would cause a pseudotail?
I fear this is only vaguely related to the subject and I prefer to stay on topic. (in other words, I have no idea what the answers are to your questions )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CosmicAtheist Member (Idle past 4922 days) Posts: 31 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
Heh fair enough. Perhaps for another thread in the future if the curiosity ever gets the better of me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
In this case, they present "vestigial" as meaning "having no function" whereas the more proper meaning is that it no longer has its original purpose. I must disagree. From the course on evolution I'm currently studying:
quote: By your definition, the bones of the ear are vestigial jaws, birds wings are vestigial legs, legs themselves are vestigial fins, and so on - that's not right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4973 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
A creationist might, in turn, argue that it makes no sense for humans to "keep" the appendix when it so easily gets inflamed and bursts -- surely natural selection should have ensured that it disappeared entirely? (It's rare in my experience for a creationist to know enough about evolution to construct such an argument but it's a hypothetical possibility.) The simple answer is evolution doesn't have any "sense". Evolution doesn't make cognitive decisions. Evolution does not step in and cut off unnecessary organs in an instant. In order for the human species to lose any organ, it would first require at least one individual to be born with a mutation that meant it did not have that organ. It would then require that individual to survive to reproduce and pass on the new gene. It must then be a significant survival advantage not to have that particular organ. It would then require sufficient time for that gene to spread across the population. Before all those things happen (which they may never do), it is entirely logical that an adaptation may occur, such as in this case where it is used to store bacteria. There is no predetermined outcome for what then happens to that organ. It may eventually (possibly in millions of years' time) be lost altogether, or it may remain for its existing adapted use, or it may adapt for another use entirely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5049 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: That's very interesting, Mr Jack. Jerry Coyne doesn't agree with that view....
quote: Object not found! I agree with you that jaws should not be counted as vestigial ears, wings as vestigial legs etc - but I do think ostrich wings are vestigial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Hmm, interesting point. One would naturally include Ostrich Wings as vestigial but they're also functional... hmm... I'm not sure what the best way through that is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rockondon Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
Hi Mr Jack,
By your definition, the bones of the ear are vestigial jaws, birds wings are vestigial legs, legs themselves are vestigial fins, and so on - that's not right.
When a structure that was originally used for one purpose is modified for a new one, that's called an exaptation.The distinction between a vestigial structure and an exaptation is sometimes vague, but generally speaking if the structure has a substantial new function and purpose, it should be considered an exaptation, not vestigial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
When a structure that was originally used for one purpose is modified for a new one, that's called an exaptation. The distinction between a vestigial structure and an exaptation is sometimes vague, but generally speaking if the structure has a substantial new function and purpose, it should be considered an exaptation, not vestigial. Yes, I realise that, Dwise's definition does not allow for it, however.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024