Is “vestigial organ” a term that should be retired?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 7, 2014

Convergent evolution, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Get a look at this item from The Scientist :

For decades, researchers and marine fisheries managers have considered the adipose fin—a small protuberance between the dorsal and tail fins—a vestigial organ, a relic of a bygone evolutionary era. But a study published today (March 5) in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B shows that bony versions of these structures have evolved independently and from more than one ancestor, suggesting that the adipose fin could play a subtle, yet vital, as-yet unidentified role in fish.

Then there’s “Elephant’s extra “toe”: Another “vestigial organ” bites the dust – in this case, literally

and

Your appendix: The king of vestigial organs has a job again

Is the term retained so people can attract attention to a new article by pointing out that such and so was thought to be vestigial but really isn’t? Or is the term itself a vestige of Darwinism? Perhaps it is itself the only example of the idea?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hatchery salmon have their adipose fin clipped off(under sedation), to distinguish them from wild salmon, who are protected. If the fin is not vestigial, maybe this isn’t such a good idea:

Comments

Hey guys sorry I couldn't respond sooner Im busy today packing for a ski trip. Anyway Queries I think vestigial forms are something that have been reduced in functionality. Like whip tail lizards exhibiting sexual behavior even though they reproduce asexually. This shows a behavior reduced to little to no function. Also I did find something interesting a long time ago that blue footed boobies contain a nasal cavity and a sinus cavity even though the top of their beak is covered up and sealed, showing a previous ancestor had a open nasal cavity.Jaceli123_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

James Stanhope, so you really think that you came from an ape? Where is your evidence save for in your imagination? You do know that the tail bone was nothing but a tail bone all along and any claim that it is a leftover monkey tail is purely an old wives tale built on imaginary evidence?
No, It’s Not a Tail! - May 2012 Excerpt: In 2004, an important study was published in the journal Cells Tissues Organs. It studied 52 different human embryos at different stages of development, and it reassessed our knowledge of human embryonic development. In that study, the authors note: "The eminence produces the caudal part of the notochord and, after closure of the caudal neuropore, all caudal structures, but it does not produce even a temporary ‘tail’ in the human.",,, As you can see, then, the idea that human embryos have temporary tails during their embryonic development has been thoroughly debunked in the scientific literature. The only question that remains is how long evolutionists will continue to use this myth to promote their failing hypothesis. http://blog.drwile.com/?p=7621 Fact-Checking Wikipedia on Common Descent: The Evidence from Comparative Anatomy - Jonathan M. - October 2011 Excerpt: "1. The human coccyx (tail bone) is functional inasmuch as it provides essential anchorage points for muscles.""2. The rare congenital deformities where a human is born with a tail-like appendage are usually resultant from a type of fatty tumor which has no relationship to a monkey's tail." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/fact-checking_wikipedia_on_com051711.html
In fact, contrary to another old wives tale built upon imaginary evidence, embryological development for each species, including chimps and humans, is unique:
Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary: Haeckel's Bogus Embryo Drawings - January 2011 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAC807DAXzY The mouse is not enough - February 2011 Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.” http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57986/ Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013 Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes (70% per Tomkins), previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA expression levels.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131017144632.htm Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html Understanding Ontogenetic Depth, Part II: Natural Selection Is a Harsh Mistress - Paul Nelson - April 7, 2011 Excerpt: The problem may be summarized as follows: -- There are striking differences in the early (embryonic) development in animals, even within classes and orders. -- Assuming that these animals are descended from a common ancestor, these divergences suggest that early development evolves relatively easily. -- Evolution by natural selection requires heritable variation. -- But heritable variations in early development, in major features such as cleavage patterns, are not observed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/understanding_ontogenetic_dept_1045581.html Darwin or Design? - Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church - Nov. 2012 - ontogenetic depth (excellent update) - video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change -- that is, to evolve -- any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/ Response to John Wise - October 2010 Excerpt: But there are solid empirical grounds for arguing that changes in DNA alone cannot produce new organs or body plans. A technique called "saturation mutagenesis"1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans--because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. per ENV
bornagain77_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

Querius, The Scopes trial was 90 (or so) years ago. Believe it or not, science has advanced in the last 90 years. The coccyx is a vestigial tail bone. It serves a present purpose of anchoring muscles, a purpose it may have served all along. You seem to think that all biological structures are allowed only a single function. Femurs are irrelevant.James Stanhope_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

Really, James? So, why in the Scopes trial were 180 structures identified as vestigial and evidence for evolution? Or to put it another way, since the ancestors of humans and apes have femurs, therefore by your definition femurs must be vestigial. Right? -QQuerius_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

Querius, The fact that a structure has a useful function is not evidence against its being vestigial. The human coccyx is a good example.James Stanhope_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

Jaceli123, And what about my refutation in #14 regarding your claim that human nails are "vestigial." After demonstrating that they might indeed have a useful function, do you agree that it is not correct calling them vestigial? My point, as is most everyone else's here, is that simply not knowing the function for a structure is not a valid scientific justification for labeling them vestigial---an artifact of Darwinian evolution. -QQuerius_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

SteRusJon I do not disagree with you at all about how these specified complex systems arose in one of my comments I state this and I agree that vestigial and Atavistic legs are the result of loss traits. What I am debating is that some people disagree that theses are even legs found in whales even though they contain leg and feet bones. Tjguy I understand that we can not prove these functions to be completely useless but can draw scientific conclusions from common ancestry it simple shows previous parts from a ancestor. I do agree that this is not the result of natural selection acting on random mutations. As James Shapiro put that natural selection is only a purifier and a mechanism for variation.Jaceli123_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

The reason evolutionists call them 'vestigial' is that they cannot come up with a mechanism that would have evolved them. Indeed, why would nature evolve something that does not convey a clear survival advantage and do it multiple times to boot? Darwinists are the true anti-science religionists.Mapou_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

James Stanhope, "I’m not sure I have an “exact position” on anything that confines me to agreement with any give type of groupthink." whenever you decide to form a rigid argument one way or the other, for or against anything, let me know. In your undefined state, it is hard to know what you complaint is exactly. You lean towards Darwinism in order to make your argument and then when it suits your purposes you back off from being committed to it so as to try to drive a wedge between the vestigial argument of Darwinist and ID proper. Your form of argument is disingenuous to put it mildly. You are trying to have your cake and eat it to. ,,, I'm done playing your stupid game!bornagain77_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Mr. 77, If you're suggesting that some form of loyalty oath is expected, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you. I'm not sure I have an "exact position" on anything that confines me to agreement with any give type of groupthink. As far as ID is concerned, I believe that the general idea of what seems to be focused complexity requiring design has merit and is worth investigation. With all due respect, I'm not quite ready to accept you as an authority on what constitutes "ID proper." I do know however that the rejection of vestigial structures as being vestigial seems to be a common them amongst YEC commentators. I don't know why a structure can't be both vestigial (in the evolution sense) and designed.James Stanhope_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

James Stanhope, "Why would you assume that I’m a “Darwinist”?" Duck test, i.e. looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. Probably is a duck! :) Please feel free to state your exact position so as to differentiate yourself from a neo-Darwinist and avoid any confusion. Moreover, the vestigial organ argument is not a YEC argument but was born purely out of Darwinian thought. In so far as it touches on functionality it impinges on ID proper!bornagain77_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Mr.77, Why would you assume that I'm a "Darwinist"? Is it possible to be at least sympathetic to the ideas behind ID but not prepared to accept YEC arguments? SteRusJon, there are a great many ideas in science that have changed since Darwin's day.James Stanhope_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

James, "There is no one knowledgeable that I know of who claims that vestigial = no present function." Seems to me the goal posts have been moved from where they were in Darwin's day. StephenSteRusJon_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

James Stanhope, perhaps as a Darwinist, you would care to actually try to understand the design argument before you proceed to try to tell us how we should prosecute it?
Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design - video https://vimeo.com/32148403 Inference to the Best Explanation: A Common and Effective Form of Archaeological Reasoning - 2007 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25470436?uid=3739744&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698874349827 Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source -- from a mind or personal agent. (Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2):213-239 (2004).) The materialistic argument essentially appears to be like this: Premise One: No materialistic cause of specified complex information is known. Conclusion: Therefore, it must arise from some unknown materialistic cause On the other hand, Stephen Meyer describes the intelligent design argument as follows: “Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information. “Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information. “Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.” There remains one and only one type of cause that has shown itself able to create functional information like we find in cells, books and software programs -- intelligent design. We know this from our uniform experience and from the design filter -- a mathematically rigorous method of detecting design. Both yield the same answer. (William Dembski and Jonathan Witt, Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy, p. 90 (InterVarsity Press, 2010).) etc.. etc...
bornagain77_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

I'm a little surprised at Intelligent Design advocates having a problem with vestigial structures. You can argue that they are a result of design recycling or some such thing, but to deny them altogether seems to be a little bit inconsistent.James Stanhope_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Jaceli123, The only people who think whales have leg bones are ignorant evolutionists. Why can't those bones be remnants of flippers? "Oh noes Joes, they are legs because we evolutionists knows legs bones."Joe_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

Jaceli123, mostly, A few comments about vestigial organs. It may very well be that there are to be found vestigial organs in certain families and species. Without investigation, how would you know. The darwinian paradigm just went off half-cocked and declared there are many without any evidence. As an example, the remains of the eyes of blind cave fish is often considered a vestigial organ. That is, what remains is of no use. But how do we know it has no use without investigation. It may very well be that, given the interconnection of pathways in the fish's development, that, if every trace of the eye's components were removed from the fish's genome, the fish would not properly develop. If that were to be the case, could the eye, even in the state of non-functionality as an eye, still be considered vestigial. Even if all the components of the eyes of blind cave fish were found to be entirely superfluous to the cave fish's existence, that would be of no support to the case for darwinian evolution vs intelligent design. You see, dysfunction of previously functional features in various life forms is compatible with both unguided darwinian evolution and its opposite- intelligent design. (Intelligent design does not preclude broken parts.) What Darwin attempted to explain with his theory was the existence of a functional eye. (That is what intelligent design attempts to explain, as well.) Not its degradation into a dysfunctional vestige. For someone to put forward vestigial organs in defense of the theory of evolution is a distraction. Pure and simple. It has been pernicious in that it has delayed the research that would have otherwise been long since done. Atavism is a similar distraction. There is no reason that intelligent design prevents the "reappearance" of a characteristic. What needs to be explained is a characteristic's appearance in the first place. Whales, for instance, may simply be designed from a common template, mammalian, with certain components "re-purposed." Legs, for example. (BTW The "remnants" of the legs in whales does serve some purpose.) The issue here is still "How did the components of the process of making legs first arise?" Was it unguided natural process- culled genetic accidents? Or, rather, was some intelligence component required to make them appear. The principal objective of Darwin was to explain the appearance of biological features of the organisms in the world around us with natural laws and "chance" events, only. It is the burden of the darwinian evolution proponents to demonstrate that natural law and chance event are up to the task. Irrelevant pointing to dubious vestigial organs and atavisms doesn't cut it. StephenSteRusJon_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

The question is not about everything having evolved from something else; it's about the fact that characteristics identified as vestigial can be specifically tied to an ancestral characteristic. Function past or present might not be specificlly known, but before a characteristic is identified as vestigial, there is a pretty clear path.James Stanhope_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

The main issue with vestigial organs/ parts is one has to know what the original function was. And no one knows that.Joe_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

James Stanhope please note how plastic the word ‘vestigial’ becomes in the hands of a Darwinist: From Jerry Coyne, “Evolution-of-the-Gaps” and Other Fallacies – Jonathan M. – December 5, 2012 Excerpt: Coyne anticipates the typical response to the argument from vestigiality: “Opponents of evolution always raise the same argument when vestigial traits are cited as evidence for evolution. “The features are not useless,” they say. “They are either useful for something, or we haven’t yet discovered what they’re for.” They claim, in other words, that a trait can’t be vestigial if it still has a function, or a function yet to be found. But this rejoinder misses the point. Evolutionary theory doesn’t say that vestigial characters have no function. A trait can be vestigial and functional at the same time. It is vestigial not because it’s functionless, but because it no longer performs the function for which it evolved. (p. 58)” But surely, by Coyne’s reckoning, this loose definition of “vestigiality” would entail that every organ and structure is vestigial, since, in Coyne’s view, all traits have evolved from something else. As Jonathan Wells explains in his own review of the book, “If the human arm evolved from the leg of a four-footed mammal (as Darwinists claim), then the human arm is vestigial. And if (as Coyne argues) the wings of flying birds evolved from feathered forelimbs of dinosaurs that used them for other purposes, then the wings of flying birds are vestigial. This is the opposite of what most people mean by “vestigial.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/from_jerry_coyn_15067091.htmlbornagain77_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

There is no one knowledgeable that I know of who claims that vestigial = no present function.James Stanhope_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Jaceli, just because something looks like it has no function does not mean it has none. There is no way to prove that that evolutionary belief has any merit. In fact, it is an anti-scientific belief that has done harm to many people! How many people believed that foolish "scientific" claim and had their tonsils taken out before their function was understood? The vestigial organ doctrine hinders research just like the now discredited evolutionary belief in junk DNA did! Usually when a theory's predictions are falsified, the theory is discarded, but evolution just flexes and adjusts so it can assimilate any contrary evidence. Convergent evolution is another example of this. Besides, so what if an organ does not have a function? I see that more as evidence against evolution than for it. How do know if the organ didn't simply lose its function due to a mutation? How is breaking a good organ evidence for evolution? Flightless beetles and blind cave fish are good illustrations of this. What this shows is that evolution is good at breaking things which the ID and creationist side have been saying all along. That agrees with our prediction! As an evolutionist, you have the difficult job of showing that the organ is both functionless AND that it actually is an evolutionary leftover as opposed to simply being an original organ that broke down. Please show us the evidence for your faith!tjguy_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT}

Let me ask a question. My understanding of the 98% similarity claim for the human/chimp genome is that this is based on comparing the most similar and easily aligned portion of the genomes. But as humans and chimps use many of the same proteins wouldn't this be expected? Aren't the most significant differences to be found in the regulatory genes and genes for which we have not understood function?eklektos_{March 8, 2014
March
03
Mar
8
08
2014
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT}

Jaceli123, You don't get it. My point is how can you scientifically prove that, for example, human nails have no useful function? I think mine do. Beside feeling oh-so-good when I can scratch, maybe there's a function that you don't know about. For example - Has anyone demonstrated that human nails have no function in human sexual response? - Has anyone demonstrated that human nails do not have a function in opening nuts and fruit? - Has anyone demonstrated that human nails are never an effective defense weapon? - Has anyone demonstrated that human nails provide additional dexterity and a tool for extracting potentially dangerous splinters? I think they do, and thus they are not "vestigial." Waiting for your answer . . . -QQuerius_{March 7, 2014
March
03
Mar
7
07
2014
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT}

I have to disagree with the lack of vestigial parts. There's a good amount of them in nature around us today such as. -Nails in manatees. -Hind legs with feet found in whales. -Hind legs and pelvis bones in snakes. -Egg cracking teeth found in baby marsupials. -Whip tail lizards having fake sex even though they lay eggs asexually. -Dandelions vestigial reproductive parts. -Amphibuas vestigial legs. -Human sinuses. -Human Philtrum -Human Nails I mean the list goes on! Links: http://www.evolutionevidence.org/evidence/remnants/ and http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htmJaceli123_{March 7, 2014
March
03
Mar
7
07
2014
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

The lack of vestigial bits is a great point for creationism. Evolutionists use the few as a sample to prove evolution. Yet in reality there are so few in living/fossil creatures with vestigial bits that it suggests they never evolved. if they evolved creatures should be crawling with bits and pieces of vestigials on the way out. The very few show a truth. marine mammals were land creatures. Snakes had legs and island birds flew to the isles and then lhad wing atrophy. The fossil record should be full and fuller of vestigial bits. In fact its empty relative to numbers. Yes Trex once walked on all fours but that a special case. Same as the kangaroo.Robert Byers_{March 7, 2014
March
03
Mar
7
07
2014
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

BA77 I see that you disagree with a common ancestor but I don't, as I see a lots of evidence for it. Querius now im not sure about your thoughts on this subject of vestigial organs and common ancestry.Jaceli123_{March 7, 2014
March
03
Mar
7
07
2014
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT}

sorry about that I would love to discuss vestigial organs with you guys. I see that universal common descent has very good evidence from this as I see it. As well as Atavisms! http://www.academia.edu/859494/Atavisms_Medical_Genetic_and_Evolutionary_Implications I do agree that natural selection cannot account for complex life but that complex algorithms and outside space time conscious minds can bring in new information into the quantum and molecular world. But We could debate vestigial organs.Jaceli123_{March 7, 2014
March
03
Mar
7
07
2014
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

Jaceli123, No, I don't think such a discussion is significant. As ba77 says, if you have no free will, then any such discussion is pointless. If you want to go that route, read B.F. Skinner on Behaviorism. Back on track, the topic being considered is labeling any structure as "vestigial" before it has been demonstrated that it definitely has no function or benefit, including repressed genes. I agree that this Darwinist label should be retired because it consistently has impeded scientific progress. -QQuerius_{March 7, 2014
March
03
Mar
7
07
2014
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

BTW when I mean unconscious act I mean scratching your head without being aware of it. BTW I did search up if babies have free will and I didn't find anything. How do you have choice when you unconsciously do something. I also cant find anything on how were not conscious of all are thoughts and memories. If the mind is not the brain were are all these thoughts stored and since we cant control this unconscious area of the brain we have no free will? That's what I also cant find. I think free will needs to be discussed at a real deep level of philosophical discussion. Not about stupid libet experiments but about everyday activities and actions.Jaceli123_{March 7, 2014
March
03
Mar
7
07
2014
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply