Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Vestigial Organs?
Fiver
Junior Member (Idle past 4964 days)
Posts: 26
From: Provo, UT
Joined: 04-17-2010


(1)
Message 50 of 109 (556144)
04-17-2010 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CosmicAtheist
04-08-2010 2:14 AM


Hey there, Cosmic Atheists, welcome to the forums.
The great trick that Creationists pull with regards to vestigial organs is to claim that "vestigial" means "useless". It does not. It means that the organs have lost their original function. The other 'uses' in vestigial organs can usually be seen in the ancestral organs as well.
For example, yes, we use our tailbone to walk and digest. So do most other mammals. That doesn't wipe out the fact that this tailbone begins post-anally in the embryo (like all other tails), and that the vertebrae type are the same as seen in other closely-related mammals.
Whale pelvises and leg bones are a good example as well. Yes, whale's reproductive muscles are anchored to the pelvis bones (just like all four-limbed creatures), but that doesn't address the clear evidence that they are vestigial, mainly by the clear progression we see: some whales are born without leg bones or pelvises (clearly disproving the creationist idea that whales need their pelvises for reproduction)... some species have only the pelvis, some have both pelvis and leg bones, and finally in the fossil record we have whales with pelvises, leg bones, and little feet (five-toed, no less! Why should they be five-toed feet, if they have no relation to land animals?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CosmicAtheist, posted 04-08-2010 2:14 AM CosmicAtheist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Peg, posted 05-07-2010 8:22 PM Fiver has not replied

  
Fiver
Junior Member (Idle past 4964 days)
Posts: 26
From: Provo, UT
Joined: 04-17-2010


Message 109 of 109 (562561)
05-30-2010 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Asking
05-28-2010 11:35 AM


Good word, Asking, you've hit the nail on the head.
In my experience, this issue has centers largely around the Creationist misunderstanding of the term "vestigial". This term does not mean "useless", but rather "previously had a different use".
The most obvious vestigial structures, in my opinion, are the vestigial wings on flightless birds. These wings indisputably still have functions (heating, swimming, running acceleration, mating displays, etc), but they also were quite obviously meant to be used in flight (nearly all vestigial wings still clearly show the airfoil pattern required for flight, and their bone structures and muscles structures still show the same patterns as flying birds.
Thus, a vestigial structure is not a useless one, but rather one that once held a different function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Asking, posted 05-28-2010 11:35 AM Asking 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