Vestiges for Peter B.

If there are no such things as vestiges, as you confidently proclaim in another thread, please provide the evidence that the following structures are not vestigial:femurs in whalesauricularis muscles in humansextensor coccygis in humansI have the feeling that either the Peter Borger that posts here is not the Peter Borger with actual scientific publications, or that he is but he is just another creationist with a degree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx

​

Regarding the coccyx in my own thread (!) (I am honoured):

​

This is what I found on the internet:

​

"The notion that it pulls the coccyx back into position after childbirth is unsupported."

​

I say:
This does not mean that it does NOT have this function. Maybe it needs furher scrutiny. Anyway, the backbone has to end somewhere. It happens to be the coccyx.

---

Yes, it does, doesn't it?Of course, a cautious reader would have noticed that I did not even mention the coccyx. I believe that this tactic is called a red herring?

quote:

---

*SNIP prattle on coccyx 'function' as being IRRELEVANT to this thread*

​

In conclusion, I is doubtful whether the coccyx has no function.

​

(ref: www-personal.umich.edu/~jsolum/yec/archive/coccyx1.htm)

---

Of course it has a function - many, in fact. What that has to say about it being vestigial or not I have no idea.Of course, again, I did not even mention the coccyx.

quote:

---

Maybe I will look up comments on the auricularis muscles too.
I will keep you informed.

​

Best wishes
Peter

---

Please do. Or better yet, you can start informing me of something worthwhile and at least ON TOPIC.

I was hoping "Peter B" would tell me some more about the coccyx....

Hey Peter B. - I thought you were going to tell me more about the coccyx and how it is not a vestige.Of course, I never even mentioned the coccyx, did I?

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,

​

Sorry for skimming your post to quickly. I missed that you refered to this small muscle. However, as long as this muscle (and the other one you refered to) do not demonstrate signs of atrophy --yes you have to show me the references where they demonstrate that these muscles are atrophic-- these muscles are not vestiges.

---

I am sorry that I forgot that as az creationist, you will provide all sorts of personal definitions and then demand that everything meet your personal definitions.
Allow me to explain:The extensor coccygis is not even present in all people. Indeed, most modern anatomy texts do not even list it or describe it.
Before I waste time with this, I will have to see evidence that you understand the terms I will be using, and have an understanding of anatomy. You failed utterly in your treatment of the foramen magnum, for example.
I am an anatomist by education, so I do have a solid understanding here.
Do you understand what extension is?
Do you understand what muscles do?Lets hope so. If you do, then we can proceed.

quote:

---

I like you to have alook at the following Nature paper on alleged vestigal muscles in the horse. They turned out to be crucial in dampening of vibrations (Wilson et al, Nature 414, p895, 2001, and the comments on this topic by Alexander in the same issue).

---

I am all a tingle that you were able to search the lit and find this amazing disproof of all vestigial structures.However, this has nothing to do with the extensor coccygis or the auricularis group of muscles.

quote:

---

Best wishes, (and remember: there are no vestiges, science will proof that)

​

Peter

---

You have the overconfidence of a creationist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,

​

You write,

​

"The extensor coccygis is not even present in all people. Indeed, most modern anatomy texts do not even list it or describe it.
Before I waste time with this, I will have to see evidence that you understand the terms I will be using, and have an understanding of anatomy. You failed utterly in your treatment of the foramen magnum, for example.

​

My response:
"I did not treat the foramen magnum (yet)."

---

I can understand why you would write this.

quote:

---

I am an anatomist by education, so I do have a solid understanding here.

​

My reply:
"Ever heard of the thymus? It used to be seen as a rudimentary organ that was not to be found in all subjects studies. Especially the older subjects. Why? Since it is primarily an organ used for the instruction of immune cells, and decays away afterwards. Of course it was eagerly taken as proof for evolution and presented as a vestigial organ. It turned out to be nothing but conclusion jumping (=unwarranted)."

---

Yes, I have heard of the thymus. I teach immunology. Can you explain when the thymus was seen as "proof" of evolution as a vestigial structure?
Can you then explain why it is no longer considered a vestigial structure? The 'conclusion jumping', as you call it (hmmm.... projection?) was due to a lack of evidence to the contrary. When evidence was uncovered to the contrary, a new understanding was possible. The only way that your absurd charge would have merit would be if evolutionists still insisted that the adult thymus is a vestige.
But that isn't the case, is it, Peter B.?Of course, if one wants to talk abouit conclusion jumping, I suggest one go no further than the nearset creationist website. Or Peter B. post.

quote:

---

Do you understand what extension is?
Do you understand what muscles do?

​

Lets hope so. If you do, then we can proceed."

​

My response:
"Do you know what underestimating is?"

---

Yes, I do. You seem to have been doing quite a bit of it on this board. Of course, considering your humiliating forays into areas of science that are not your own, I don't think I am doing this.I notice that you did not answer my question.

quote:

---

In response to my:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I like you to have alook at the following Nature paper on alleged vestigal muscles in the horse. They turned out to be crucial in dampening of vibrations (Wilson et al, Nature 414, p895, 2001, and the comments on this topic by Alexander in the same issue).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

You say:
"I am all a tingle that you were able to search the lit and find this amazing disproof of all vestigial structures."

​

I say:
"Excellent distortion. Where do I say that it disproofs all vestigial structures. It proofs however that the EVOLUTIONARY VISION ON THESE MUSCLES WAS WRONG"

---

Oh, well, pardon me. I guess that means that the entire farrago of 'vestigial structures' is a sham. Is that NOT what you intend? Or is this supposed to be something else?[quote]

quote:

---

SLPx:
However, this has nothing to do with the extensor coccygis or the auricularis group of muscles.

---

What - no statment of indignation?
No irrelevant snippet?
Hmmmm.....

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best wishes, (and remember: there are no vestiges, science will proof that)
Peter
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

You have the overconfidence of a creationist.

​

I say:
"And this is another unwarranted conclusion. Besides, you didn't address my major concern"

---

No, it is entirely warranted. You, a creationist, claim that "science" will 'proof' that there are no vestiges.
This claim has been circulating for years - maybe decades. Just like the claim that molecular biology will 'disprove' evolution, ala TB. Of course, that asinine 'prediction' was made over a decade ago, and the opposite seems to have more basis in reality than the creationist bombast.No, quite warranted.And what was your 'concern' again? That horses don't have a vestigial hoof muscle because it does something, therefore it can't be vestigial?

AiG?My, Peter B., your true colors are showing.Do we have yet another claim of a conspiracy? Gene trees do not match species trees (on occasion)?Well, shiver me timbers, Peter B! That is not a secret, it is well known, oft discussed, and well understood.Yet anohter example of the creationist taking tidbits of information in areas that they have minimal knowledge in and trying to make something out of it.Sure, "Peter B", I will discuss the IL beta gene trees, and anything else you would like to.But, so as not to waste my time, you will need to demonstrate that you have a basic understanding of the topic.
It gets annoying when one's opponant sees no problem conflating terms and concepts and haphazardly using terminology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear SLPx,

​

The difference between you and I is, I presume, that I DO read opposite opinions and get out the ideas that are good. Otherwise I get biased and I try to avoid that. I mailed that already, so you could have known it. What colour do you mean: red, blue? both? Other?

​

Best wishes
Peter

---

Funny, I didn't realise that reading a Spetner (creationist) book, claiming support form papaers that you hadn't even read, and claiming that science will disproof vestigials indicated a lack of bias on your part.I have read the 'opposition' and found it sorely lackiing.Please do not engage in projection - that too is a common creationist trait, and since you finally gave up your ruse (pretending not to be one), I think your desparation is starting to show.