I realize that's just an idiomatic phrase, but I would say that they are not the same for all purposes. Specifically, the purpose of studying evolutionary biology and the relationships between species that are or are not consider in a transition from one morphological feature to another.
As stated in the wiki article you posted earlier, it is impossible to determine (without DNA) whether a fossil is in a direct line of ancestry or not. For cladistics, no assumption of ancestry is ever made. All species are represented at the end of branches that are connected by synapomorphies (i.e. shared characteristics).
I agree that you can do this, but I don't find it particularly useful. Plus, I don't think the distinction is based solely on distance from the ancestor but also includes the morphologies, themselves.
The determination of evolutionary distance would also include the accumulation of derived traits. That is one important piece of data. However, the addition of derived traits does not take away from the evidence that transitional features supply.
My assertion is well founded on reasoning used by evolution proponents.
I am going to go out on a limb here....You never took Biology in school, did you? If you did you certainly did not get an A. English Composition clearly was not your best class either.
We all have eyes from a common design. Yet its not a sign of biological relatedness.
Have you ever read a biology book or a book about evolutionary biology? If you did you must have had your eyes from a common design tightly closed.
EVIDENCE. Do you know what this word means? How about supporting your assertions with evidence that you even know anything about science or evolutionary biology. Repeating the same silly gibberish over and over does not support your argument.
What are you trying to accomplish here?
Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are out of alignment. -- S.Valley
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley
first there are no such things as mammals or retiles . There are just kinds. These groups are just wrong ideas on lumping things together.
you might be surprised to know that the biblical definition of "kind" loosely matches up with a much smaller grouping than something like mammalia or saurischia. as i explained many years ago in Message 290 of the define "kind" thread, that even though the authors of the bible were likely speaking in the vernacular, their usage loosely lines up with the "family" level on the linnean classification system. that's above genus. so, for example, dogs, wolves, and foxes (all from the canidae family) would all the be same "kind", but bears, skunks, otters, and racoons wouldn be separate "kinds".
Bats are indeed just flying rats. That is a real adaptation after the flood.
of course, the bible lists bats as their own "kind" (strangely grouping them with birds, leviticus 11:19). but bats, chiroptera, are an order, with many many families under it. same with rodents. there are many, many families of rats.
you are, essentially, proposing biblical macro-evolution.
In fact there is a common blueprint for echolocation in bats, whales etc.
two extremely distantly related animals that used the exact same form of a particular adaptation, not found in any other related species between the two, would be a wonderful falsification of evolution. it would mean that "designs" were co-opted across non-hereditary lines.
fortunately, the two systems aren't even close to homologous. bats use their ears, dolphins use a giant fatty drum at the front of their skull.
We all have eyes from a common design. Yet its not a sign of biological relatedness
Really? What are the common design features between humans eyes and those of an ant? Be specific.
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
Bats are indeed just flying rats. That is a real adaptation after the flood.
From what mythological nonsense did you come up with this? Bats & rats aren't even that closely related.
From the Ancestor's Tail pp174 & 192:
Primates, Rodentia & Lagomorpha are in one sub class whereas Bats (2 orders) Megachiroptera & Microchiroptera together with the Insectivora, Cetartiodactyla, Perissodactyla, Carnivora & Pholidta are in the subclass Lauasiatheria
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
"In the evolution of snakes the pelvis bones became unnecessary and functionless and for the most part disappeared, but some snake species still have rudimentary pelvises. That's vestigiality, which is loss of most or all function with no repurposing for a new function."
In 1895, evolutionist Robert Wiedersheim made up a list of 180 alleged vestigial or rudimentary organs. Useful functions have been found for nearly all of them.
Alarmed at the fact that the vestigial list is itself becoming vestigial some evolutionists, notably Alexy Yablokov, have sought to redefine the term. Without going into fine detail, the end result of Yablokov's musings is that having a current function does not preclude an organ as an evidence of evolution.
The problem is that "vestigial" organs offer no advantage to the evolutionary side of the debate. Let's consider that a new candidate vestigial organ is brought to our attention. There are three possibilities:
1) If it shows no apparent function, then it could be redundant architecture from a previous form. Which would represent a loss of information, a movement from complex to simple, an example of "devolution" if you will, which is entirely consistent with the continuing degeneration from The Fall.
2) If it shows no apparent function, it could mean that we haven't found it yet. This is entirely consistent with Weidershiem's list, and it would be most arrogant to dismiss the possibility. If we do dismiss it, then we end up back at 1), so what's the point.
3) If it shows a current function, it could be a reassigned or -as you put it- a "reuse" function. Or it could have been designed that way. Remember, that any argument based on similarity of structure is as much an argument for common design as it is for common descent. A good designer doesn't run around reinventing the wheel.
So there you have it. Vestigiality is either evidence of loss of information, which gets you nowhere in arguing molecule-to-man evolution, or its an equivocal argument both for common descent and common design.
Either way, it's pretty slim pickings for the dedicated evolutionist.
"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton
Let's first dispense with Robert Byers vestigiality arguments before moving on to your own arguments, which are much different.
It was Robert's claim that evolution should produce far more vestigiality than we actually see, that all creatures should be full of bits and pieces of predecessor anatomy, and that their low prevalence is evidence against evolution. I won't waste time summarizing the explanations of why this is not what we would expect of evolution, suffice to say that it is wrong.
You are advancing a different argument about vestigiality, that it is evidence of "degeneration from The Fall," and that it represents a loss of information. Is this what the evidence I assume you're going to present shows, that there was a "Fall" that causes life to degenerate over time and lose information, and that vestigial organs are found to be caused by reduced information in the genome?
Addressing a couple details:
In 1895, evolutionist Robert Wiedersheim made up a list of 180 alleged vestigial or rudimentary organs. Useful functions have been found for nearly all of them.
The absence of useful function is not what makes something vestigial. Vestigial structures and organs are diminished from their original structure and/or function. They've been left behind by evolution and now provide reduced adaptational advantages as compared to ancestral forms. If "useful functions" have been identified for whale legs and blind cavefish eyes then what a wonderful addition to our knowledge, but that can't change the fact that they're both diminished in structure and function and no longer provide their original and very significant adaptational advantages.
Alarmed at the fact that the vestigial list is itself becoming vestigial some evolutionists, notably Alexy Yablokov, have sought to redefine the term. Without going into fine detail, the end result of Yablokov's musings is that having a current function does not preclude an organ as an evidence of evolution.
Yes, I agree, and it seems pretty much in line with what I just said, but just a note about Yablokov. His Variability of Mammals where he proposes redefining vestigial was written back in 1975, and since we don't see that definition employed today we must assume that his suggestion never gained any significant traction. He defined vestigial as an organ or structure that is present in a subset of a population but is not characteristic of the population as a whole. Anyone reading your link (True Vestigial Structures in Whales and Dolphins | National Center for Science Education) will agree that his characterizations of vestigiality or whatever one wants to call it are accurate, but I personally don't like his redefinition of vestigiality, particularly because he proposes no replacement, and it must be the case that most other readers of Yablokov's book felt the same way. The conclusion of that 1982 article from the National Center for Science Education website is worth quoting in full:
True Vestigial Structures in Whales and Dolphins writes:
The very word vestigial comes from the Latin vestigium, which means footstep or track. Vestigial organs are traces of organs previously functional. In a sense, vestigial remains are like footprints leading us back to an earlier time when they were fully developed, a time when the ancestral animal had a significantly different body structure and a totally different way of life from the example alive today. That is what we have discovered in the case of the cetaceans.
In 1895, evolutionist Robert Wiedersheim made up a list of 180 alleged vestigial or rudimentary organs.
So you creationists keep telling us. There is a good deal of creo excitement over online regarding this list. Is there any chance that you might show it to us?
Useful functions have been found for nearly all of them.
a) So what? That does not mean that they are not vestigial (more below).
b) Have functions been found? Really? Prove it. Show us the list, show us the functions. Otherwise, you've got jack shit.
Alarmed at the fact that the vestigial list is itself becoming vestigial some evolutionists, notably Alexy Yablokov, have sought to redefine the term. Without going into fine detail, the end result of Yablokov's musings is that having a current function does not preclude an organ as an evidence of evolution.
Oh look, some lies. And you fell for them. Poor you.
Here is a quotation from a Nineteenth century naturalist called Charles Darwin, perhaps you have heard of him;
quote: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. Thus in plants, the office of the pistil is to allow the pollen-tubes to reach the ovules protected in the ovarium at its base. The pistil consists of a stigma supported on the style; but in some Compositae, the male florets, which of course cannot be fecundated, have a pistil, which is in a rudimentary state, for it is not crowned with a stigma; but the style remains well developed, and is clothed with hairs as in other compositae, for the purpose of brushing the pollen out of the surrounding anthers. Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object: in certain fish the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Other similar instances could be given.
(from The Origin)
Now Darwin is pretty clear here that a vestigial (or to use his term, rudimentary) organ need not be totally lacking in function. It is plain from this that no redefinition has taken place as you claim. The term has kept its meaning since the 1800s.
1) If it shows no apparent function, then it could be redundant architecture from a previous form. Which would represent a loss of information, a movement from complex to simple, an example of "devolution" if you will, which is entirely consistent with the continuing degeneration from The Fall.
Except that this is a falsified concept. Information can be gained and has been shown to do so in both the laboratory and in the wild. How else does one explain the origins of an organism like Nylon-eating bacteria? The idea of "The Fall" AKA "loss of information" is merely a Bronze Age religious myth, dressed up as science. No wonder it has been falsified.
2) If it shows no apparent function, it could mean that we haven't found it yet. This is entirely consistent with Weidershiem's list, and it would be most arrogant to dismiss the possibility. If we do dismiss it, then we end up back at 1), so what's the point.
This is entirely consistent with the desperation of creationists who just wish that that pesky evidence would go away and stop bothering them. It is a sad sight to see creationists fervently praying that a function be discovered for the coccyx or the recurrent laryngeal nerve or whatever. As if it mattered. As shown above, it doesn't matter. Vestigiality does not mean and has never meant that there ought be no function whatsoever. Darwin knew this. Modern biologists know this. Creationists know this too, but why let a little thing like reality get in the way of a good whine?
3) If it shows a current function, it could be a reassigned or -as you put it- a "reuse" function. Or it could have been designed that way. Remember, that any argument based on similarity of structure is as much an argument for common design as it is for common descent. A good designer doesn't run around reinventing the wheel.
And yet reinventing the wheel is exactly how your beloved designer God operates it seems. He does not solve problems with new tailor made designs, he reinvents previous ones, cobbled together from pre-existing parts. If you think that a good designer does not reinvent things, then whoever designed us must have been pretty bad at his job.
So there you have it. Vestigiality is either evidence of loss of information, which gets you nowhere in arguing molecule-to-man evolution, or its an equivocal argument both for common descent and common design.
So there we have it. Creationists propagate nonsense and misconceptions, seek to rewrite history, contradict themselves, cite evidence which they never produce and ignore evidence that falsifies their cherished religious dogmas. Business as usual then.
Mutate and Survive
On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
He defined vestigial as an organ or structure that is present in a subset of a population but is not characteristic of the population as a whole. Anyone reading your link (http://ncse.com/...true-vestigial-structures-whales-dolphins) will agree that his characterizations of vestigiality or whatever one wants to call it are accurate, but I personally don't like his redefinition of vestigiality
On further reflection, I think Yablokov's purpose is this: if an organ or structure is not present in the entirety of a population, then we can assume it has no vital value, and can therefore be assumed to be truly vestigial. The idea that future research may find a purpose for it is obviated- some members of the population don't have it, and they're doing just fine.
The logic of this seems pretty sound, in fact the only counter argument I can think of is that the possessors of the organ or structure are enjoying some sort of survival advantage, and in time the whole population, through natural selection, will possess it. That would be a turn up for the books- a vestigial organ conveying a survival advantage!
If "useful functions" have been identified for whale legs and blind cavefish eyes then what a wonderful addition to our knowledge, but that can't change the fact that they're both diminished in structure and function and no longer provide their original and very significant adaptational advantages.
I have to disagree with you there. If they have a useful function then they are as much a candidate for design as descent, as I pointed out in my previous post. It is only a "fact" that they're diminished in structure and function from their original form if you take evolution as a given, which is begging the question.
Anyway, it is now 1.42am in Tasmania, and I must collapse into blissful oblivion.
Talk to you later.
"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton
I have to disagree with you there. If they have a useful function then they are as much a candidate for design as descent, as I pointed out in my previous post. It is only a "fact" that they're diminished in structure and function from their original form if you take evolution as a given, which is begging the question.
It is however a fact that they look exactly like this is what has happened whether or not you "take evolution as a given". And after 150 years we are still awaiting a creationist explanation.
As Darwin pointed out, the wings of an ostrich are not entirely useless to it --- but it can't fly with them. The question is, why are they so structurally similar to features which in birds that can fly seem so well-adapted to flight? Whatever their function in the ostrich, was it really the best design, the one God would have come up with, to adapt structures used for flight for this purpose, thus incidentally producing a meretricious appearance of evolution?
Apparently you have to say "yes" to this and every similar question. But doesn't it strike you as odd that the best design is always the one that would be produced by evolution?
Perhaps we should divert this conversation to the thread on "animals with bad design", since we seem to be having essentially the same conversation twice in parallel.
Concerning the term vestigial, it sounds like we largely agree on the relevant concepts. How we map terminology to concepts isn't that important to me unless it gets in the way of communication, which doesn't seem to be the case here, so as long as I can understand what you're talking about you can call it whatever you want.
Kaichos Man writes:
I have to disagree with you there. If they have a useful function then they are as much a candidate for design as descent, as I pointed out in my previous post. It is only a "fact" that they're diminished in structure and function from their original form if you take evolution as a given, which is begging the question.
I understand that you consider vestigial structures to be evidence for design, but is that relevant to this thread? I think the only reason we got stuck on vestigiality with Robert is because he made so many misstatements of fact, and even just of simple definitions, and kept repeating them over and over again.
™ Version 4.2
(1)