Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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?
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 61 of 109 (559358)
05-08-2010 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by hooah212002
05-08-2010 7:18 PM


Re: siple expanation?
hooah212002 writes:
Life itself thrives on the imperfection that runs rampant in this universe.
what makes you think the universe is imperfect?
the earth is the perfect distance from the sun, it is in the perfect angle on its axis to create the 4 seasons and its spinning at the perfect speed... so, in regard to its position in the universe, what aspect of earth is imperfect?
I dont believe we 'thrive' on imperfection. People die when they get sick...thats certainly not 'thriving'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by hooah212002, posted 05-08-2010 7:18 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by hooah212002, posted 05-08-2010 8:39 PM Peg has replied
 Message 68 by anglagard, posted 05-09-2010 1:45 AM Peg has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 62 of 109 (559360)
05-08-2010 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Peg
05-08-2010 8:08 PM


Re: siple expanation?
The simple fact that we are in the right spot peg. We ARE in the right spot for life of our kind to thrive.
the earth is the perfect distance from the sun, it is in the perfect angle on its axis to create the 4 seasons and its spinning at the perfect speed... so, in regard to its position in the universe, what aspect of earth is imperfect?
You're right. And that is why life evolved on this planet: because it is the right distance for life to have happened. However, I feel you think we were placed here just for this purpose. I say nay, we are here because we are in "the goldilocks zone".
The earth is perfect? For who? What is the percentage of this planet is habitable for humans? What little area that IS habitable for man, we have to contend with predation. We are a ball of rock, hurtling through space going millions of miles an hour, orbiting a nuclear reactor, which is orbiting a supermassive balck hole. We stand on a thin layer of rock that is covering searing hot magma. We are protected from the hell that is space by an ultra thin layer of GAS. We are but a speck in this universe. There are BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of other GALAXIES, TRILLIONS of other stars.
Earth is FAR from perfect, peg.
I dont believe we 'thrive' on imperfection. People die when they get sick...thats certainly not 'thriving'
Think outside of earth, peg. Read what I wrote. Life needs to die in order for new life to begin. Think of death as a necessity for life. Stars have to die in order for galaxies to exist. A star had to die in order for you to exist. You need the materials that are in stars. We all do.
Edited by hooah212002, : added last sentence

"The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" -Galileao

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Peg, posted 05-08-2010 8:08 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Peg, posted 05-09-2010 7:23 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 63 of 109 (559362)
05-08-2010 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Peg
05-08-2010 7:58 PM


They are in the list of vestigals though as the the New World Encyclopedia states
What you need is a scientist stating that they're vestigial, and what they're vestiges of. Show me an organism in which they perform a much more important function than they do in humans, and then perhaps we'll know that they're vestigial. Prove, for example, that their homologues in monkeys are absolutely vital to the immune systems of monkeys.
What you have is an unsupported statement in a wiki for Moonies. The fact that a bunch of creationist loonies wish to deny that it's vestigial doesn't actually prove that it is.
The original concept was used as an evidence for evolution as my link above shows
Your link explicitly states that what you are pretending was "the original concept" was not, in fact, the original concept.
Peg writes:
The New World Encyclopedia writes:
He also made the important distinction in The Origin of Species (1859), that if a structure had lost its primary function, but still retained secondary anatomical roles, it could still be described as vestigial.
Did you not bother to read it?
Yet as more research went into these organs it was found that many of these 'so-called' vestigial organs were actually still functioning and served useful purposes.....so they go and change the meaning of what a vestigial organ is to mean an organ that can still be used in some minor way to what it was origiinally used for.
But this is absolutely untrue.
An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other [...] Rudimentary organs [...] are either quite useless, such as teeth which never cut through the gums, or almost useless, such as the wings of an ostrich. --- Darwin, Origin Of Species, Chapter 14
Ever since Darwin wrote the Origin Of Species evolutionists have been talking about exactly the same thing.
It is creationists who have been desperately trying to change the subject under discussion just like they lie about and distort every other concept in evolution.
---
Has it ever occurred to you that if there was really something wrong with the concept of evolution, then people could discredit it without lying about what it is?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Peg, posted 05-08-2010 7:58 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Peg, posted 05-09-2010 7:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 64 of 109 (559366)
05-08-2010 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Peg
05-08-2010 7:58 PM


Hi, Peg.
Peg writes:
Yet as more research went into these organs it was found that many of these 'so-called' vestigial organs were actually still functioning and served useful purposes.....so they go and change the meaning of what a vestigial organ is to mean an organ that can still be used in some minor way to what it was origiinally used for.
but hey, its still evidence of evolution! How does that figure??? I thought science was about accepting whatever the evidence shows.
This is actually a fair question. I think the trouble is that, while the non-functionaltiy of the structure was the basis of the definition of the word vestigial, the non-functionality of the structure was not what made it evidence of evolution (even though many evolutionists like to focus on that point).
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. So, while the term vestigial is probably semantically inappropriate for structures that still have a function, these structures are still evidence of the same evolutionary process.
The extreme of this phenomenon would be a true case of non-functionality (the strictest meaning of vestige). These provide stronger evidence for common ancestry, because there is no reason for a truly non-functional structure to be present in an organism unless it is something that was originally functional.
But, even the more relaxed version of vestigiality, in which some residual or secondary functionality remains, still represents a commonality in structure between organisms that is best explained by relatedness.
Edited by Bluejay, : Rewording of "these structures are still evidence..."

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Peg, posted 05-08-2010 7:58 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2010 10:37 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 72 by Peg, posted 05-09-2010 7:38 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 65 of 109 (559372)
05-08-2010 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
04-09-2010 5:00 PM


Hi, Faith.
I realize I'm too late to get a response from you, but this is as much for those still participating on this thread as it is for you (I suspect you may still be reading this anyway).
I have to say, I find the general concept of vestigial structures to be less useful for distinguishing evolution from the various "front-loading" or "post-fall degeneration" models, because they are the kind of evidence that both ideas predict to observe.
But, when we take certain specific examples, such as the human coccyx, it becomes less clear. As Taq has said, if the human vestigial tail is to be explained as a degeneration of a formerly functional structure, this would suggest that humans were originally created with a tail or some other moveable structure for which muscles were required, and we are now only left with a corrupted, degenerate tailbone and some superfluous bits of muscle.
As long as creationists are willing to accept this implication (that humans were originally created with tails), then I agree that vestigial structures do not support evolution over creation. If creationists are not willing to accept this implication, as I suspect most are not, then I think there is something for the two sides to discuss.
You're free to contact me via PM if you want to talk more about this. If not, I won't be offended: maybe this post can serve as a starting point for other people to discuss the topic here.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 04-09-2010 5:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 66 of 109 (559376)
05-08-2010 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Blue Jay
05-08-2010 9:52 PM


This is actually a fair question. I think the trouble is that, while the non-functionaltiy of the structure was the basis of the definition of the word vestigial, ...
But it wasn't. (See my previous post.)
So, while the term vestigial is probably semantically inappropriate ...
But it isn't. A vestige of something is a remnant held over from the past, but not necessarily a completely functionless one. For example, the House of Lords would properly be called a vestige of the feudal system, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't do anything at all.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Blue Jay, posted 05-08-2010 9:52 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 67 of 109 (559390)
05-09-2010 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Peg
05-08-2010 7:08 PM


To Hell With the Sick is Not a Part of the NT
Peg writes:
imperfection leads to degeneration and death because the body is not as efficient at repairing and regenerating itself. In our perfect state, our bodies would be fully capable of this and thus disease and death would not cause us problems.
In Message 38 you wrote:
quote:
The Fall gives an explanation for disease and death so where we see disease and death the Fall is the explanation.
In Message 52 you wrote:
quote:
Anyway, organs of the body are the area of doctors and medical scientists...evolutionists should leave them alone in my opinion.
I must say I am glad that you are not in charge of curing disease, since you apparently ascribe all illness to 'the fall' instead of bacteria, viruses, and parasites.
Is this not against Jesus' dictum to heal the sick from the Sermon on the Mount or from his behavior in the NT? How would you heal the sick if you insist all illness is an incurable consequence of the fall?
Also, does your hypothesis also not indicate that people should be healthier the further back in time we go, in direct contradiction to the evidence?
Perhaps in speaking of the fall you are speaking in the singular, as though you have fallen into denouncing science, medicine, and Jesus' supposed own words with some absurd false prophet concept of "The Fall" that is not even recorded in the Bible.
Edited by anglagard, : Redo response to something more appropriate.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Peg, posted 05-08-2010 7:08 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 05-09-2010 7:27 PM anglagard has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 68 of 109 (559396)
05-09-2010 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Peg
05-08-2010 8:08 PM


NOMAD Would be Proud
Peg writes:
what makes you think the universe is imperfect?
the earth is the perfect distance from the sun, it is in the perfect angle on its axis to create the 4 seasons and its spinning at the perfect speed... so, in regard to its position in the universe, what aspect of earth is imperfect?
So let me get this straight.
According to Peg:
non-life=perfect
life=imperfect
Where did you learn your philosophy from, NOMAD the intelligent satellite in Star Trek: TOS?
Reference: The Changeling (Star Trek: The Original Series) - Wikipedia

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Peg, posted 05-08-2010 8:08 PM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 69 of 109 (559453)
05-09-2010 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dr Adequate
05-08-2010 9:01 PM


DrAdequate writes:
What you need is a scientist stating that they're vestigial, and what they're vestiges of.
the list of vestigials that included tonisils was first made by a german anatomist Robert Wiedersheim as that new world encycolopedia article states.
I know that was a long time ago, but the point is that he based his data on Darwins ideas and for a very long time the tonsils WERE considered usless because the scientific community accepted it....doctors who were influenced by evolutionary science would routinely remove them.
So this is the foundation for the whole idea of vestigial organs...its foundation is very shakey and shakey foundations dont hold much weight behind them. Most of the vestigial organs, in humans especially, have since been proved to be very useful. Why do evolutionists still insist on going down that road???
Dr Adequate writes:
Did you not bother to read it
absolutely i read it. I left that sentence about Darwin in there because i didnt want to be accused of cherry picking. It was also already mentioned in the thread that the 'real' definition is that they are not completely useful so i'm quite happy to acknowledge that, however that does not make the whole vestigial theory true....it actually makes it worse because it contradicts the idea that these organs are leftovers.
DrAdequate writes:
Has it ever occurred to you that if there was really something wrong with the concept of evolution, then people could discredit it without lying about what it is?
I agree with you, this is why we see that evolution has been discredited by many people including some scientists themselves.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2010 9:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2010 10:49 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 70 of 109 (559457)
05-09-2010 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by hooah212002
05-08-2010 8:39 PM


Re: siple expanation?
hooah212002 writes:
The simple fact that we are in the right spot peg. We ARE in the right spot for life of our kind to thrive.
if things are so imperfect and out of control, how did we just happen to be in the right spot?
hooah212002 writes:
Think outside of earth, peg. Read what I wrote. Life needs to die in order for new life to begin.
stars are not 'life' they are balls of gasses... no real 'life' has been discovered in the known universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by hooah212002, posted 05-08-2010 8:39 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by hooah212002, posted 05-09-2010 9:19 PM Peg has replied
 Message 81 by bluescat48, posted 05-10-2010 1:01 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 71 of 109 (559458)
05-09-2010 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by anglagard
05-09-2010 12:56 AM


Re: To Hell With the Sick is Not a Part of the NT
anglagard writes:
In Re: siple expanation? (Message 38) you wrote:
quote:The Fall gives an explanation for disease and death so where we see disease and death the Fall is the explanation.
In Message 52 you wrote:
quote:Anyway, organs of the body are the area of doctors and medical scientists...evolutionists should leave them alone in my opinion.
Did I?
Oh, maybe you should report me...or rate my message
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by anglagard, posted 05-09-2010 12:56 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by anglagard, posted 05-09-2010 10:27 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 72 of 109 (559462)
05-09-2010 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Blue Jay
05-08-2010 9:52 PM


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.
blueday writes:
But, even the more relaxed version of vestigiality, in which some residual or secondary functionality remains, still represents a commonality in structure between organisms that is best explained by relatedness.
see i dont agree that just because birds and dinosaurs and monkeys and humans have a backbone, we must all be related.
the vestigial argument is weak because many of them have been discovered to actually have a purpose. Flightless birds such as penguins still use their 'wings' as flippers in the water for instance...to me that is simply a different variety of bird, its not proof of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Blue Jay, posted 05-08-2010 9:52 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Blue Jay, posted 05-11-2010 11:01 AM Peg has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 73 of 109 (559479)
05-09-2010 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Peg
05-09-2010 7:23 PM


Re: siple expanation?
if things are so imperfect and out of control, how did we just happen to be in the right spot?
What do you mean? You act like we are supposed to be here or something. We are in the right spot because this is where life is able to happen to the extent that it has happened here. Much further out from the sun, and it's too cold. Much closer and it's too hot. There are factors for life. Earth just happens to be in the right spot.
I ask you again: do you know the percentage of the planet that is habitable?
stars are not 'life' they are balls of gasses... no real 'life' has been discovered in the known universe.
Could you live without the sun? The sun is our life force. It provides ALL of our energy. Without it, we would cease to exist.
no real 'life' has been discovered in the known universe.
Do you have even the faintest clue how large and vast the universe is?

"The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" -Galileao

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Peg, posted 05-09-2010 7:23 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Peg, posted 05-10-2010 12:29 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 74 of 109 (559482)
05-09-2010 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Peg
05-09-2010 7:27 PM


My Apology
Peg writes:
Did I?
Oh, maybe you should report me...or rate my message
Checking back, you are not the author of message 38, Faith was. Out of laziness I cut and pasted a response to message 38 that falsely accused you of being the author.
My mistake, I apologize and will be careful to make sure you are not falsely accused by me of statements made by others in the future.
I should have known better than to trust another person's post when I could have simply looked it up myself.
I should also know by now that when I get too wound up, something is wrong.
Edited by anglagard, : Correct another mistake, this time in grammar.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 05-09-2010 7:27 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Peg, posted 05-10-2010 12:24 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 75 of 109 (559485)
05-09-2010 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Peg
05-09-2010 7:15 PM


the list of vestigials that included tonisils was first made by a german anatomist Robert Wiedersheim as that new world encycolopedia article states.
Why do you think that what you just said is true, or that Wiederschiem was competent? Remember that the "New World Encyclopedia" is the Moonie alternative to reality.
Let me say again. If you want to prove that tonsils are vestigial, show me evidence that tonsils are vestigial.
They may very well be vestigial. But I want to hear it from scientists rather than Moonies.
I know that was a long time ago, but the point is that he based his data on Darwins ideas
Well, that's obviously not true. Darwin never mentioned tonsils.
and for a very long time the tonsils WERE considered usless because the scientific community accepted it...
And still no-one has found an important function for the tonsils.
But the mere fact that the tonsils appear to be useless does not prove that they are vestigial.
PROVE TO ME THAT THEY ARE VESTIGIAL. Some creationist babbling out unsubstantiated nonsense does not prove that tonsils are vestigial. PROVE that they are vestigial or shut up.
So this is the foundation for the whole idea of vestigial organs...
No, your gibberish and your quotations from people who think that Sun Myung Moon is God incarnate do not constitute "the foundation for the whole idea of vestigial organs".
Ihowever that does not make the whole vestigial theory true....it actually makes it worse because it contradicts the idea that these organs are leftovers.
Of course, this is not true.
If you will try to argue for this insane point of view, I shall put up a counter-argument. But if you just wish to spew out this insane drivel, then I can do no more than point out that it is wrong.
This is of course nonsense. And also it does not answer my question.
My question was, and still is, this: If there was really something wrong with the theory of evolution, couldn't creationists point it out WITHOUT LYING about the theory of evolution? If the evidence from vestigial features is no good, then couldn't creationist say so WITHOUT LYING about what biologists mean by "vestigial"?
Couldn't you guys prove your point WITHOUT LYING?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Peg, posted 05-09-2010 7:15 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Peg, posted 05-10-2010 12:44 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024