PZ Myers: Vestigial means “reduced in size or utility compared to homologous organs in other animals” Huh?

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 23, 2014

Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

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

Here, in “VESTIGIAL: Learn what it means!” (Pharyngula, Scienceblogs)

The appendix in humans, for instance, is a vestigial organ, despite all the insistence by creationists and less-informed scientists that finding expanded local elements of the immune system means it isn’t. An organ is vestigial if it is reduced in size or utility compared to homologous organs in other animals, and another piece of evidence is if it exhibits a wide range of variation that suggests that those differences have no selective component. That you can artificially reduce the size of an appendix by literally cutting it out, with no effect on the individual (other than that they survive a potentially acute and dangerous inflammation) tells us that these are vestigial. More.

But wouldn’t his definition make all kinds of organs and limbs vestigial in most life forms?

Also:

That you can artificially reduce the size of an appendix by literally cutting it out, with no effect on the individual (other than that they survive a potentially acute and dangerous inflammation) tells us that these are vestigial.

But this makes no sense. A doctor can remove a man’s gangrenous leg without anyone getting the idea that the leg was vestigial.

Readers, isn’t the whole concept of “vestigial” organs as evidence for the evolution of life forms a bad idea?

No sooner is a can of worms opened than the worms form an escort party and lead us to a bigger one.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

CLAUDIUS: I would like to add that my acceptance of common descent is not at all a "concession" to darwinism. I accept common descent because it is the best empirical explanation for many of the facts we observe. Moreover, I am deeply convinced that common descent is necessary to ID theory of biological information. Indeed, it is one of the strongest arguments in favor of ID theory of biological information, because it allows us to easily estimate the functional information in protein and in other biological structures. For example, the Durston method to compute functional information in protein families, that I often quote in my arguments, is based on assumptions which imply common descent. When I say, for example, that the alpha subunit of ATP synthase exhibits at least 1600 bits of dFSCI (an argument that I have often presented as a very strong demonstration that it is a designed molecule, without ever receiving any counter-argument at all by anyone), i say that because there are almost 400 aminoacid positions completely conserved from LUCA to humans (IOWs, among the bacterial, archaeal and human form of the protein). That argument implies common descent, and has no meaning out of a CD scenario.gpuccio_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS, well by golly, how could I have missed the clear logic of all that. It is all so clear now! Evidence that humans are 'DE-volving' MUST BE interpreted as evidence that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Because? Because??, don't help me CLAV, I can get it,,, This evidence MUST BE interpreted as evidence that all life evolved from pond scum because evolution is true ?!?! Whew, after all these years I think got evolutionary thinking down finally! As long as you refuse to let logic play any part in your 'evolutionary' reasoning all the evidence, no matter how contrary, supports evolution! :) It all makes so much more sense now! Glad you helped me clear that up! CLAV, I'm surprised you even waste your time trying to correct us imbeciles on UD. How can I ever thank you enough for your time and patience in showing us IDiots that life has no rhyme, reason, or purpose. It is almost as if you actually believed in purpose!
A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head - July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: "This pattern, known as 'early high disparity', turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn't a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.",,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: "Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: "A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html
Verse and music
John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men. And the Light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. Evanescence - Bring Me To Life Lyric: ‘Only You are the living among the dead” http://vimeo.com/38692431
Supplemental Note:
Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural - December 2011 Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. "The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin," they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: "This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html Shroud Of Turin - 3 Dimensional Hologram Reveals Words ‘The Lamb’ - video https://vimeo.com/97156784
bornagain77_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

CLAUDIUS:
An all-powerful creator with inscrutable motives could create absolutely anything logically possible, and therefore is consistent with absolutely any evidence or state of affairs – including scenarios that meet your two criteria. Now, if that’s not the sort of designer contemplated by ID, then please spell out what is the sort of designer ID has in mind.
I can speak only for myself, and just repeat what I have said many times here: "One (or more) conscious intelligent designer who works in a definite context and with all the constraints implied by the context, who works with purpose and understanding and is able to input functional information through some physical interface with biological matter, and who works more or less gradually on what already exists, through common descent."gpuccio_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT}

BA77 @ 85
So, in your twisted Darwinian worldview, a paper showing that humans are losing genetic information is proof that humans, and all life, evolved from pond scum????
Nope. Not even close. Please try to keep up. @ 26: Dr JDD claimed that the argument from vestigial organs is circular. @ 34: CLAVDIVS said no it isn't because we have genetic evidence of common ancestry independent of vestigial organs. @ 38: BA77 said "genetics does not provide evidence for common ancestry". @ 42: BA77 backpedals and contradicts himself, agreeing that genetics does provide evidence for common ancestry for a single generation. @ 79: BA77 backpedals even more dramatically citing a paper that demonstrates the 'out of Africa' common ancestry of modern European Americans and African Americans based on shared genetic elements dating to over 115,000 years ago, which is thousands and thousands of generations ... ... thus BA77 completely reverses himself and ends up agreeing with my original argument @ 34 that genetics provides evidence of common ancestry independent from vestigial organs. (Did you even read the paper you cited, BA77? I'm embarrassed for you.)CLAVDIVS_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS, you state in regards to a paper that shows that humans are 'DE-volving',
Thank you, then, for providing a publication that confirms my comment @ 34 that genetic evidence is independent evidence of common ancestry, thus showing the argument from vestigial organs is not circular.
So, in your twisted Darwinian worldview, a paper showing that humans are losing genetic information is proof that humans, and all life, evolved from pond scum???? I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the paper is confirmation of the principle of genetic entropy (J. Sanford), it is NOT confirmation for evolution from pond scum. As Spetner put the situation,,,
"The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the neo-Darwin theory is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume." Lee Spetner (Ph.D. Physics - MIT - Not By Chance)
bornagain77_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT}

drc466 @ 82
... in what possible way would an eyeless fish support a Capital-E Evolutionary storyline over a little-e evolutionary ID one?
Hi again. I suspect we're getting our wires crossed in part due to terminology. Eyeless fish etc. support descent with modification (common ancestry) over special creation, as noted by Darwin (and me @ 34 & 39). So I agree with you that eyeless fish are equally consistent with an ID common ancestry scenario and a materialistic common ancestry scenario. However, it does seem rather difficult to explain why an intelligent special creator would create fish with functionless eyes, not to mention the eye sockets, muscles, nerves etc. Why not just leave eye-related paraphernalia completely out of the fish? On the other hand, eyeless fish follow very neatly and naturally from the theory of common ancestry. Are we in agreement on this?
As for your second point, the rather ridiculous assertion that any combination of function/non-function is compatible with creationism ...
That's not what I said. I said:
Anything and everything is compatible with an all-powerful designer/creator with inscrutable motives.
This is not ridiculous, it is just logic: An all-powerful creator with inscrutable motives could create absolutely anything logically possible, and therefore is consistent with absolutely any evidence or state of affairs - including scenarios that meet your two criteria. Now, if that's not the sort of designer contemplated by ID, then please spell out what is the sort of designer ID has in mind. CheersCLAVDIVS_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT}

In 51, Evolve says,
There are many examples of vestigial structures that are essentially useless, if that is what you want. Eyes of blind cavefish, male nipples, human ear muscles, human nictitating membrane, human wisdom teeth, fake sex in whiptail lizards (which has only females) etc etc. How does creationism explain all that? ... Only evolution has a robust explanation. Nipples and breast tissue, being mammalian features, are present in both sexes, but only develop to become functional in females since only females bear the young. In males it becomes rudimentary and useless.
In arguing with evolutionists, I am becoming convinced that while many are brilliant biologists or peerless paleontologists, they are lousy logicians. For the sake of entertaining argument, let us permit Evolve the following (debatable) assertion: Adult male nipples are rudimentary and useless. Now, let us look logically at Evolve's follow-up assertion - that because adult male nipples are useless, this is a problem for creationism. Accepting his description of human development, the fetus develops to a certain point before differentiating the breast based on the sex of the fetus. In order for his 2nd assertion to be true, it must further be postulated that any feature that has a purpose specific to one sex must not be developed to any extent before differentiation occurs. In other words, nipples and breast tissue must only begin their development after sexual differentiation during the development of the human fetus. The fact that nipples develop prior to differentation (in Evolve's view) indicates either a) not designed, or b) not compatible with Creationism/Creator. Question: Is this a logical assumption? (Hint: No) Seriously, though - as any good designer of anything (buildings, computers, software, control systems, cars, etc.) can tell you, there are often a lot of design features that are "essentially useless" in the finished product, that are nonetheless crucial (e.g. a framework piece that is needed for proper or efficient assembly) to the design. They will also tell you that just because you don't know what it is/was for, doesn't mean it shouldn't be there :).drc466_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS @78, I'm having trouble responding to your first point (vestigial organs, to support evolution, must be functionless back to the original design point within the species), because you yourself answer the reason immediately within the post - because if an organ has function originally, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that organ's current vestigial status supports an evolutionary scenario over an ID or Creationist scenario. Ref eyeless fish - in what possible way would an eyeless fish support a Capital-E Evolutionary storyline over a little-e evolutionary ID one? As for your second point, the rather ridiculous assertion that any combination of function/non-function is compatible with creationism - that is why I included the example at the end of the fanged/clawed whale. There are infinite scenarios available that would prove problematic for ID/creationism (flying birds with scales and teeth? egg-laying whales with marsupial pouches? land mammals with gills? floating, useless internal organs that have no connections to anything? etc.). ANY scenario that meets the 2 criteria I outline would prove problematic for ID/creationism. The fact that you chose to dispute the validity of the 2 criteria, rather than provide easy, ready-to-hand examples of biology that meet those 2 criteria, proves the validity you are trying to dispute.drc466_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

BA77 @ 79
Human Genetic Variation Recent, Varies Among Populations - (Nov. 28, 2012)
This paper completely contradicts your claim that "genetics does not provide evidence for common ancestry", because the authors in fact use genetics to show common ancestry over at least hundreds, if not thousands, of generations. Thank you, then, for providing a publication that confirms my comment @ 34 that genetic evidence is independent evidence of common ancestry, thus showing the argument from vestigial organs is not circular.CLAVDIVS_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

Dr JDD @ 55 Hi Dr JDD - Thanks for responding.
Thus the opposition from the ID/Creation camp is centered around what is commonly taught and thought. ... So sure you can shout and scream that this is not what vestigial means but the point remains – it is what has commonly been purported for it to mean hence the criticism of that.
Perhaps I've not been clear, I'll try again. The argument from vestigial organs in favour of common descent and against special creation, as originally put by Darwin, works the same whether or not the organ in question is completely functionless. It doesn't matter whether the organ currently has a function (like flightless dung beetle wings that are used to store CO2) or not (like blind cavefish eyes, that likely do nothing). What matters is that the obvious, original function of the organ (flying for wings, seeing for eyes) has been greatly reduced or lost. The argument asks us to consider why a designer would give a creature wings that cannot fly, or eyes that cannot see; and moreover to consider that such rudimentary organs so often appear in species with close relatives that have the same organ in a functional state. This state of affairs is easy to explain on the theory of descent with modification, but difficult to explain in terms of intelligent design.CLAVDIVS_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS you ask what genetics will show for 10 generations? What about 100? 1000? for humans back from the present day,,, Glad you asked:
Human Genetic Variation Recent, Varies Among Populations - (Nov. 28, 2012) Excerpt: Nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins -- the workhorses of the cell -- occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,, "One of the most interesting points is that Europeans have more new deleterious (potentially disease-causing) mutations than Africans,",,, "Having so many of these new variants can be partially explained by the population explosion in the European population. However, variation that occur in genes that are involved in Mendelian traits and in those that affect genes essential to the proper functioning of the cell tend to be much older." (A Mendelian trait is controlled by a single gene. Mutations in that gene can have devastating effects.) The amount variation or mutation identified in protein-coding genes (the exome) in this study is very different from what would have been seen 5,000 years ago,,, The report shows that "recent" events have a potent effect on the human genome. Eighty-six percent of the genetic variation or mutations that are expected to be harmful arose in European-Americans in the last five thousand years, said the researchers. The researchers used established bioinformatics techniques to calculate the age of more than a million changes in single base pairs (the A-T, C-G of the genetic code) that are part of the exome or protein-coding portion of the genomes (human genetic blueprint) of 6,515 people of both European-American and African-American decent.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121128132259.htm "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.- "...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament – EXPELLED https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z5-15wk1Zk Scientists Discover Proof That Humanity Is Getting Dumber, Smaller And Weaker By Michael Snyder, on April 29th, 2014 Excerpt: An earlier study by Cambridge University found that mankind is shrinking in size significantly. Experts say humans are past their peak and that modern-day people are 10 percent smaller and shorter than their hunter-gatherer ancestors. And if that’s not depressing enough, our brains are also smaller. The findings reverse perceived wisdom that humans have grown taller and larger, a belief which has grown from data on more recent physical development. The decline, said scientists, has happened over the past 10,000 years. http://thetruthwins.com/archives/scientists-discover-proof-that-humanity-is-getting-dumber-smaller-and-weaker If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? - January 20, 2011 Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.” “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,, He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking Cro Magnon skull shows that our brains have shrunk - Mar 15, 2010 by Lisa Zyga Excerpt: Using new technology, researchers have produced a replica of the 28,000-year-old brain and found that it is about 15-20% larger than our brains. http://phys.org/news187877156.html Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality - video https://vimeo.com/35088933
Not good for Darwinists!bornagain77_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

drc466 @ 50
In order for vestigial organs to be “evidence” for the Evolutionary theory over competing theories (e.g. ID or Creationism), the vestigial organ would: 1) Need to be proved functionless not just in the existing samples of the species, but in all ancestors of the same species, all the way back to the original creation/design point.
Why would it need to be proved functionless in all ancestors? That doesn't even make logical sense in the context of evolutionary theory. The evolutionary idea is that an organ which functioned for some purpose in an ancestor species is now reduced and unsuitable for that purpose in a descendant species. For example the flightless dung beetle's wings are clearly the same organ in an obviously closely related species to other dung beetles - even a child can see these facts. Yet the wings can't be used for flight. This fits in well with Darwin's theory, and is difficult to explain by special creation.
because any organ that doesn’t meet those criteria is compatible with ID or Creationism
Anything and everything is compatible with an all-powerful designer/creator with inscrutable motives; vestigial/non-vestigial, functional/functionless, common ancestry/independent origins ... it doesn't matter, everything is compatible with ID/creation so long as the designer/creator has no limits. I've got no logical argument with that, just don't call it science.CLAVDIVS_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

An organ is vestigial if it is reduced in size or utility compared to homologous organs in other animals, and another piece of evidence is if it exhibits a wide range of variation that suggests that those differences have no selective component.
(1) First you'd have to prove something was actually reduced - begging the question if attempting to use as evidence FOR Darwin's big idea. (2) If the human appendix is compared to chimp appendix, one of them will likely be bigger. So, in either case, they may both be equally useful, but because one is different in size you have a "vestigial" organ by definition. LOL! Good thinking there genius. Oh, you mean smaller compared to ancestors? Where do we find ancestors appendix's to compare to? Oh, that's going to be a bit of a problem. So, how is it compared? :P (3) If referring to extant creatures with homologous features, doesn't that mean the chimp brain is vestigial organ? LOL!!!! (4) BA77 refuted PZ with simple secondary research.JGuy_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

Has anyone read research yet that the appendix is useful in the immune system - especially in developing children? Reciprocating Bill used flight-less beetles and blind fish to argue as "vestigial" features and for evidence of Darwinism's big idea. Flightless beetles may have a less useful feature, just like blind cave-fish do. However, they got their degraded parts from beetles and fish respectively. LOL! It doesn't take a genius to understand that that is not evidence of Darwin's big idea of common descent. Really though, I shouldn't laugh. Because people believe that crap is evidence and are trying to push it off on the public. PZ et.al. are toxic to public education. He isn't helping to educate people, but rather indoctrinate.JGuy_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

BA77
Clavdivs, nobody is contesting the genetic evidence that children come from their parents. I never claimed otherwise.
Sure you did. You said: "genetics does not provide evidence for common ancestry" which is a denial that genetics can show paternity (because if I can show A's father is F and B's father is also F, then I have demonstrated the common ancestry of A and B). Now you've backpedalled and admitted that genetic evidence can show paternity. Great. Do you also agree it can show who shares grandparents? Great-grandparents? What about 10 generations? What about 100? 1000? At what point does genetic evidence stop being evidence for ancestry?CLAVDIVS_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

PZ Meyers. How embarrassing! Are you using a magic eight ball to come up with ways to rehash this long refuted trite? This just further solidifies the case I have against Darwinism. This should prove to anyone objectively lurking and doing due diligence on such Darwinist claims in these forums the vanity of adhering to the religion of Darwinism.JGuy_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

I'm not sure, ba77, but I think that when billy stickrattle said,
Where did Darwin suggest this? Or is this just the creationist strategy to equate all evolutionary theory with what was known in 1859?
...he wasn't making a substantive argument about the existence of vestigial organs or junk DNA, but quibbling about the use of the term "Darwinist". I'm not certain how that helps his side of the argument, to acknowledge the Darwin was far too ignorant of biology to even have a concept of junk DNA, but there it is. And I'm even less sure of his point re vestigial organs - Darwin didn't think there are vestigial organs? Modern evolutionists don't? Modern evolutionists do, but not in the human body? Darwin did, but "full of" is overstating? I got nothin'.drc466_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

Mung: "Or you’ve never argued that norms are societal?" I've always argued that norms are societal. Thank you for paying attention.william spearshake_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

AB as to,,,
“Far from the human body being full of vestigial body parts, and over 90% junk DNA, as the Darwinists would prefer people to believe, the human body is fearfully and wonderfully made:” Where did Darwin suggest this? Or is this just the creationist strategy to equate all evolutionary theory with what was known in 1859?
Dang it AB you are on to us! I should have known we couldn't keep the wool pulled over your badly designed eyes!,,, Oh well, you are right, finding such unfathomable integrated complexity in the human body is all just one big creationist ploy.,,, A conspiracy devised years and years ago, in the smokey back rooms of churches, to make it look as if almighty God created us. Oh well, the game is up now that you know what we are up to,,, or maybe not!
William Bialek: More Perfect Than We Imagined - March 23, 2013 Excerpt: photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped. “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,” said William Bialek, a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University. “This is as far as it goes.” … In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/03/william-bialek-more-perfect-than-we.html Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak Physical Review Letters, 104, 158102 (April 2010) Excerpt: The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20482021 Phys.org: Specialized Retinal Cells Are a "Design Feature," Showing that the Argument for Suboptimal Design of the Eye "Is Folly" - Casey Luskin - August 8, 2014 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/physorg_special088541.html Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth - November 2010 Excerpt: They found that the brain's complexity is beyond anything they'd imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: ...One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html Neurons in human skin perform advanced calculations - Sept. 1, 2014 Excerpt: Neurons in human skin perform advanced calculations, previously believed that only the brain could perform.,,, - Perhaps the most surprising result of our study is that these peripheral neurons, which are engaged when a fingertip examines an object, perform the same type of calculations done by neurons in the cerebral cortex. http://www.medfak.umu.se/english/about-the-faculty/news/newsdetailpage/neurons-in-human-skin-perform-advanced-calculations.cid238881 DNA: The Ultimate Hard Drive - Science Magazine, August-16-2012 Excerpt: "When it comes to storing information, hard drives don't hold a candle to DNA. Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram. A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare." http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/08/written-in-dna-code.html Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – published online May 2013 Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi-dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically “ poly-functional” [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., “it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated” [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43]. 38. Sanford J (2008) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. FMS Publications, NY. Pages 131–142. 39. Trifonov EN (1989) Multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Bull of Mathematical Biology 51:417–432. 40. Trifanov EN (1997) Genetic sequences as products of compression by inclusive superposition of many codes. Mol Biol 31:647–654. 41. Kapranov P, et al (2005) Examples of complex architecture of the human transcriptome revealed by RACE and high density tiling arrays. Genome Res 15:987–997. 42. Birney E, et al (2007) Encode Project Consortium: Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447:799–816. 43. Itzkovitz S, Hodis E, Sega E (2010) Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences. Genome Res. 20:1582–1589. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006 Second, third, fourth… genetic codes - One spectacular case of code crowding - Edward N. Trifonov - video https://vimeo.com/81930637 In the preceding video, Trifonov elucidates codes that are, simultaneously, in the same sequence, coding for DNA curvature, Chromatin Code, Amphipathic helices, and NF kappaB. In fact, at the 58:00 minute mark he states, "Reading only one message, one gets three more, practically GRATIS!". And please note that this was just an introductory lecture in which Trifinov just covered the very basics and left many of the other codes out of the lecture. Codes which code for completely different, yet still biologically important, functions. In fact, at the 7:55 mark of the video, there are 13 codes that are listed on a powerpoint, although the writing was too small for me to read. Concluding powerpoint of the lecture (at the 1 hour mark): "Not only are there many different codes in the sequences, but they overlap, so that the same letters in a sequence may take part simultaneously in several different messages." Edward N. Trifonov - 2010 Symphony of Life, Revealed: New Imaging Technique Captures Vibrations of Proteins, Tiny Motions Critical to Human Life - Jan. 16, 2014 Excerpt: To observe the protein vibrations, Markelz' team relied on an interesting characteristic of proteins: The fact that they vibrate at the same frequency as the light they absorb. This is analogous to the way wine glasses tremble and shatter when a singer hits exactly the right note. Markelz explained: Wine glasses vibrate because they are absorbing the energy of sound waves, and the shape of a glass determines what pitches of sound it can absorb. Similarly, proteins with different structures will absorb and vibrate in response to light of different frequencies.,,, "If you tap on a bell, it rings for some time, and with a sound that is specific to the bell. This is how the proteins behave," Markelz said. "Many scientists have previously thought a protein is more like a wet sponge than a bell: If you tap on a wet sponge, you don't get any sustained sound." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116084838.htm
etc... etc... Now that you are on to our creationist conspiracy AB, all you have to figure out now is how did we sneak all that exquisite design into the cell so as to fool everybody. ,,, Until then I'm stiicking to my story that God did it! :)
Psalm 139:15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
bornagain77_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

BS: "Only Christians argue that societal norms are Christian norms." Ah, you're a Christian then? Or you've never argued that norms are societal? BS: "Sounds arrogant to me." So? Are you asserting that claims ought not be arrogant? If so, are you going to appeal to Christian/Religious (aka societal) norms again? Let's see if I can predict where this goes: You deny that these norms are Christian/Religious norms. You deny that they are societal norms. You deny that they are norms. Remind us again why your brought them up in the first place? Assuming you're not just a troll.Mung_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

Dr JDD, bornagain77, and Dionisio --- Great posts and greater patience!
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
I'm amazed at the pompous "scientific" explanation offered to you regarding male nipples---without any corroboration at all!
Nipples and breast tissue, being mammalian features, are present in both sexes, but only develop to become functional in females since only females bear the young. In males it becomes rudimentary and useless.
Be still my beating heart! LOL There are so many points in this "just so" fantasy story that could easily be challenged! For example, why shouldn't males be able to feed their young as a backup? If we found an example in nature, it could as easily be explained by Darwinism as, of course, the converse. Let me counter that the male nipple is actually sensitive erectile tissue involved in the human sexual response. If I asserted that this is a Classic Example of Evolutionary Dimorphism, I wouldn't need to present any scientific evidence at all. My opinion would be evidence in of itself---the same as the Darwinists here believe of their opinions. ;-) -QQuerius_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

Mung: "You, as an atheist, are going to appeal to Christian/Religious norms? why?" Only Christians argue that societal norms are Christian norms. Sounds arrogant to me.william spearshake_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

BS:
Mung, using quotes out of context? Since that is one of the biggest weapons in the creationist arsenal, go right ahead. But in the rest of society, this is considered to be a form of misdirection and lying.
so? What is this "rest of society"? Would this be a primarily Christian and/or Religious society that you appeal to? You, as an atheist, are going to appeal to Christian/Religious norms? why? laughable, really.Mung_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

william spearshake Most probably this is a "duh!" comment, because it's pretty obvious to most folks out there, but I just noticed it now. Oh well, what can I do? My IQ score is about the same as my age. :( My primary language is not English, but your last name seems interestingly associated with a famous English writer's last name. Is your last name also English? Kind regards.Dionisio_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

example of vestigial organ?
A newly discovered function of palatine tonsils in immune defence: the expression of defensins. The palatine tonsils have an undoubted role in the immune defence system. After antigen contact an effective adaptive immune response by B- and T-cell lymphocytes will be released. In addition the palatine tonsils seem to exert influence to the defence by the innate immune system. Palatine tonsils express mRNA for different alpha and beta defensins and this expression suggest a newly supposed function in immune defence: the participation in the innate, non-adaptive immune system. Thus, palatine tonsils have a potential influence in the growth and control of the physiological mouth bacteria by their bactericidal activity. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12378798
Dionisio_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

Mung, using quotes out of context? Since that is one of the biggest weapons in the creationist arsenal, go right ahead. But in the rest of society, this is considered to be a form of misdirection and lyingwilliam spearshake_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

BS: "Yet, creationists repeatedly use quotes from Darwin, often out of context, to argue against evolution." So? Are you saying that they ought not do so?Mung_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

BA77: "Far from the human body being full of vestigial body parts, and over 90% junk DNA, as the Darwinists would prefer people to believe, the human body is fearfully and wonderfully made:" Where did Darwin suggest this? Or is this just the creationist strategy to equate all evolutionary theory with what was known in 1859? You don't have to respond, we know the answer.william spearshake_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Far from the human body being full of vestigial body parts, and over 90% junk DNA, as the Darwinists would prefer people to believe, the human body is fearfully and wonderfully made:
“Neither art, nor genius, can even imitate a single fibre of the endless tissues that make up each body. The smallest filament, in fact, shows the Finger of God and the Artist’s signature.” Carl Linneaus, inventor of our modern system of biological classification (Paul Gosselin, Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West - p. 120) “Can it be by accident that all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped, (except in their bowels,) and just two eyes, and no more, on either side of the face; and just two ears on either side of the head, and a nose with two holes; and either two fore- legs, or two wings, or two arms on the shoulders, and two legs on the hips, and no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel and contrivances of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom, and the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside a hard transparent skin, and within transparent humours, with a crystalline lens in the middle, and a pupil before the lens, all of them so finely shaped and fitted for vision, that no artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light, and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures, after the most curious manner, to make use of it? These, and suchlike considerations, always have, and ever will prevail with mankind, to believe that there is a Being who made all things, and has all things in his power, and who is therefore to be feared.” (Sir Isaac Newton, A Short Scheme of the True Religion) Sir Isaac Newton - Of Atheism - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAMCgWV3PVI The Vitruvian Man - Leonardo da Vinci - Drawing https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Da_Vinci_Vitruve_Luc_Viatour.jpg/441px-Da_Vinci_Vitruve_Luc_Viatour.jpg "Speaking as one who has examined the original Vitruvian Man drawing, I can say that Leonardo was looking for a numerical design scheme that informs the proportions of the human body. The drawing began as an illustration from Vitruvius’ book, De Architectura where Vitruvius justifies the use of the square and circle as design elements because those shapes are integral to the human body: a man’s height is equal to his width (with arms outstretched) as a square, and a circle drawn with the navel as center and feet as radius is coincident with the hands’ reach. Leonardo also notes the other proportional relationships from Vitruvius such as the head height measures to the whole as well as the arms and hand sections. Leonardo then continued measuring (from the evidence of pin point indentations made by walking dividers, especially along the left vertical edge) to find more proportional relationships. He would take a measure of a part of the figure with the dividers and walk that measure along the height to see if the measure would fit an even number of times. From this drawing and others where Leonardo was working on the same type of problem it is evident that Leonardo believed there was a something like a unified field theory of design where everything in nature was related by numerical and geometrical design systems. He was one of the original ID thinkers." - Dr. Ford Of note: The Vitruvian Man is a world-renowned drawing created by Leonardo da Vinci c. 1487. It is the one commonly associated with the science of physiology
The Human Body is simply amazing:
Human Anatomy - Impressive Transparent Visualization - Fearfully and Wonderfully Made - video http://vimeo.com/26011909 Introduction to Cells - Anatomy - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFuEo2ccTPA One Body - animation - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4 Luke 12:7 Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. Hierarchy Of The Human Body 1. The Chemical Level 2. The Cellular Level 3. Tissue 4. Organ 5. System http://www.wong-sir.com/reading/?p=165 Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth — visualized – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70 Mathematician Alexander Tsiaras on Human Development: "It's a Mystery, It's Magic, It's Divinity" - March 2012 Excerpt: 'The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It's a mystery, it's magic, it's divinity.' Per Evolution News and Views HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE - Stephen L. Talbott - May 2012 Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,, Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling . . . and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained. The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?” The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary. Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way: "The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)" ,,, And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,, http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2
Verse and Music:
Psalms 139:14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. Made New - Lincoln Brewster http://myktis.com/songs/made-new/
supplemental note:
The average number of cells in the human body is between 75 and 100 trillion cells. 300 million cells in the human body die and are replaced every minute. If all the DNA was removed from a single cell in a person's body and laid end to end, it would be six feet long. If the DNA was removed from all of the cells in a person's body and laid end to end, it would stretch from Earth to the sun and back 450 times, or about 135 billion kilometers. The human genome, according to Bill Gates the founder of Microsoft, far, far surpasses, in complexity, any computer program ever written by man. The data compression (multiple meanings) of some stretches of human DNA is estimated to be up to 12 codes thick! (Trifonov, 1989) No line of computer code ever written by man approaches that level of data compression (poly-functional complexity). There are about three-billion letters of code on the six feet of DNA curled up in each human cell. The amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica—an incredible 384 volumes worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves! Written out, the Human Genome would stretch 5,592 miles, (9,000 km). If you were to read the code aloud, at a rate of three letters per second for twenty-four hours per day (about one-hundred-million letters a year), it would take you over thirty years to read it. The capacity of a DNA molecule to store information is so efficient all the information needed to specify an organism as complex as man weighs less than a few thousand-millionths of a gram. The information needed to specify the design of all species of organisms which have ever existed (a number estimated to be one billion) could easily fit into a teaspoon with plenty of room left over for every book ever written on the face of the earth (455 trillion 1 mb books could be stored on 1 gram of DNA). For comparison sake, if mere man were to try to 'quantum teleport' just one human body (change a physical human body into "pure information" and then 'teleport' it to another physical location) it would take at least 10^32 bits just to decode the teleportation event, or a cube of CD-ROM disks 1000 kilometers on 1 side, and would take over one hundred million centuries to transmit all that information for just one human body even with the best optical fibers conceivable!
etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

DrJDD: "Is this quote by Darwin an observation or the definition of vestigial he gave? My point is not just what you can quote from Darwin but rather how biological use of the word has traditionally been. Further, to discuss how it is portrayed to the public." Yet, creationists repeatedly use quotes from Darwin, often out of context, to argue against evolution.william spearshake_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply