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

He is a college professor, huh? How hard is it to become a college professor? Clearly, not very.
Ah, but is PZ Myers a vestigial college professor? Great topic for a new OP, imo. Why PZ Myers ought to be considered a vestigial appendage to the education system.Mung_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

RB @ 8. LOL! Good one. So an individual is composed of an essential set of parts and the non-essential parts are, by definition, vestigial. Like I said. Where's the science?Mung_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Evolve, I am not interested anymore in getting involved in a long discussion with you or any other committed atheist about these issues - that is the last reason why I post on here. These discussions just end up being circular and misunderstanding (on purpose or not, I will not speculate) my point but also I find, laced with subtle deceptions. Such as the last time I had a discussion with you and you failed to answer my question regarding a claim you made about tail genetics, which I believe to be a deceptive one in the way you presented it. Anyway, just a few points before I sign out of this discussion (I am remembering why I recently reverted to read this forum mainly and not post here):
Dr. JDD, I can only wake up someone who’s asleep, not someone who’s pretending to be asleep. You’ve shown time and again that you’re unwilling to acknowledge the evidence.
Trust me, you do not need to waste your time trying to "wake up someone" and you have no materialistic purpose to do so. After all, why should it matter to you what I believe? According to your apparent worldview it makes no impact on you what I believe nor does it do me any favours to believe in your wordlview as we are all dirt descendent with no soul or spirit who cease to exist after death. I am unsure why you portray the image that you are so concerned with trying to bring someone to truth (i.e. that everything is random therefore logically there is no truth. What is truth?)
Again, NO, the original function is not assumed, it is observed. That the pelvis is used for hindlimb locomotion is not an assumption, my goodness! That the eyes are meant for vision is not assumed, good heavens!!
You knew exactly what I meant. Another cheap shot there. You are not naive to the arguments of ID and creationists. You are not naive to the loss of function arguments and genetic entropy and the like. You are not naive to how any IDist/creationists would fully accept a fish had functional eyes to see and lost that capability hence blindness. You are also not naive to know I was referring to organs/appendages such as coccyx which are assumed to originate from an ancestral tail. You are also surely not naive to know that if you do not assume the whale had a common ancestor that walked the land, or even if it did, that you cannot know the original function of the bone described as the pelvis - it is an assumption based on your own extrapolation. Put it another way - many years ago people would have said "oh, this has wings and looks like this other organism with wings, they must be closer in ancestry than something without wings." Yet as you yourself informed me, we now "know" that they are not as closely related due to the molecular evidence. Further, from molecular evidence we see that many structures had to convergently evolve, i.e. separately evolve. Yet you in the same breath wish to say because this structure looks like another structure in another organism, they MUST be related? Don't answer that - I am merely saying this to highlight the foolishness of evolution, that encompasses every and any observation.
common ancestry emerges as the best-supported explanation of the data.
Only because you refuse to accept a Design argument because you label it as unscientific due to it being untestable. So how is that abiogenesis working out for you? Still a man of faith (like all materialists are) I guess. How about the multiverse? Really testable theories those. Or how about a real testable theory. Take an organism with a short doubling time and expose it for long periods to agents that enhance mutation, perhaps increased radiation of sorts. Do we get new speciation? Novel proteins from new information not previously present? Novel structures? Anything that could resemble some of the differences we see in the short Cambrian time frame? Or take the humble Drosophila melanogaster. A mere 4 chromosome pairs, quick generation time, lots of progeny...let's do something like saturation mutagenesis on it and see if we can at least get it to change into a different species of fly or develop significantly beneficial mutations. How did that work out? That is real science - actually doing an experiment, and observing change, not making assumptions (homology means relatedness).
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?
There are many suggested explanations for most of those things you listed there - there are plenty of resources on the internet that give very good suggestions. Futher, 20 years ago that list would have been longer and already we are whittling it down. Just because you do not fully understand the design of some structure now does not mean it has no design. That is the height of arrogance in science, and history is littered with such assumptions (followed by later enlightenment). The blind cavefish is an argument that you should know better - no IDer/creationists denies all forms of evolution and you know that, just another cheap shot. I do not need to educate you on what IDers and creationists believe and don't believe, you have been here long enough to know.
My gosh! It’s just the opposite. 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.
So when did the separation of male and female take place that coincided with mammary gland development? Remembering the fact that mammary development does not occur in embryogenesis but later on in life? Also, why does a man have a nipple but not a mouse if we share a common ancestor? They lost it but we couldn't? Is the clitoris rudimentary and useless? From an evolutionary point of view, why is it there? So that women will want to have sex? Why would a creator put it there? Because a creator wanted humans to enjoy sex? If so, then why is it hard to accept or understand that nipples are also sexual organs of sensitivity that heighten the experience of sex? You really think male nipples is a problem for one who accepts a Creator that cares about these things? This thread simply highlights the complete inability of 99.9% of materialists to even acknowledge the "sins" of the many in the field of evolutionary biology. FACT: Evolutionists have long taught that vestigial organs that have lost function are good evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor and that a designer could not have possibly been responsible for our existance. They commonly cited organs such as the appendix to support their claim. You cannot deny this as a fact as it is in textbooks, evolution education websites, graduate biology courses in the past. The truth is now so many of these vestigail structures are being found to have function, therefore the evolutionists has to go back to "Darwin's original comments" as you claim, and say actually vestigial does not mean loss of function. Fine, but at least admit that you were wrong to ever over-emphasise the "complete loss of function" side of the story. But you cannot and will not, as giving an inch to the IDist/creationist is a cardinal sin among evolutionists. The irony is I am not even arguing with what the term vestigial means - I am merely stating how it has been used by evolutionists over the years.Dr JDD_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

I note that "the bystander" here posts that he/she agrees with scientists who claim that organs are vestigial. However, in another thread, he/she posts that "science is overrated." Please make up your mind. Or troll somewhere else.Barb_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS - I believe drc466 has adequately addressed your points. I will however say one final thing, and that is the fact that over the years in biological science, by scientists, by evolutionists I have been presented with the argument of vestigial organs where the emphasis has been firmly placed on such organs being "functionless". The appendix was commonly used as an example of this. Thus the opposition from the ID/Creation camp is centered around what is commonly taught and thought. This is why I use those sources to demonstrate my point. Now people like PZ are saying vestigial actually means something different, and you can argue until you are blue in the face that Darwin said this, but if evolutionists had not have gone for the cheap shot and gamble that organs we do not know function for are functionless as the definition of vestigial, than IDists/creationsist would have argued differently. We have never put those words into their mouths, we have responded to such claims. 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. Do not tell me that is not true as I was educated from undergraduate degree to PhD by people who are at the top of their fields internationally in all aspects of biology that include evolutionary biology and this is what was relayed to me. So I do not care if you say that is what Darwin originally meant or not, it is a fact that this is what is commonly (or was, not sure now as it was a long time since I did my degree) taught in science classrooms at the graduate level. So I can accept the new definition of vestigial as the actual, but you cannot just ignore what has been going on for decades in the classroom, which is an example of bad science, precisely what you accuse the ID camp of performing. A bit like Haeckel's embryology.Dr JDD_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Evolve:
Again, NO, the original function is not assumed, it is observed.
No, it isn't observed.
And as I’ve told you before, common ancestry is also not assumed, it is hypothesised.
It cannot be tested. Ya see no one knows what makes an organism what it is. And that means no one knows if one type can evolve into another.Joe_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Evolve:
Yeah yeah, whales had to have a structure that resembles the land-dwelling mammal pelvis (used for walking) to serve as an anchoring point for their penis muscle!
That could be. And again your position can't account for the pelvis, any pelvis. I see that bothers you.
No other shape would cut it!
No need to keep re-inventing structures especially when they are already programmed in and ready to go with just a little tweaking.
Incessant nonsense doesn’t deserve anything better.
And yet incessant nonsense is all you have and all evolutionism is. BTW obviously you have reading comprehension issues- do you understand what the phrase "with few exceptions" means?Joe_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

///Your position can’t explain the pelvis. Also just because a pelvis has one function in one class of organisms does not mean it has to have the same function in all classes./// Yeah yeah, whales had to have a structure that resembles the land-dwelling mammal pelvis (used for walking) to serve as an anchoring point for their penis muscle! No other shape would cut it! ///Your narrow and close-minded views, while entertaining, mean nothing./// Incessant nonsense doesn't deserve anything better.Evolve_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

Dr. JDD, I can only wake up someone who’s asleep, not someone who’s pretending to be asleep. You’ve shown time and again that you’re unwilling to acknowledge the evidence. ///Therefore the criteron for it to be vestigial is an assumption of original function./// Again, NO, the original function is not assumed, it is observed. That the pelvis is used for hindlimb locomotion is not an assumption, my goodness! That the eyes are meant for vision is not assumed, good heavens!! And as I’ve told you before, common ancestry is also not assumed, it is hypothesised. A hypothesis in science is an argument to logically explain the data which can be tested. Let's take the example of the vestigial pelvis found in whales that have fully functional counterparts in land mammals. Land mammals use the pelvis for hindlimb locomotion. Therefore, the presence of rudimentary pelvis in whales suggests that they descended from mammals who walked on land. This means that whales share a common ancestor with land mammals. Thus, we're proposing common ancestry to explain the whale vestigial pelvis. How can we test this? Common ancestry makes other predictions, which we can examine. Evidence from embryology, genetics, and even transitional whale fossils found by paleontologists all confirm those predictions. Thus, common ancestry emerges as the best-supported explanation of the data. ///The best criticism of design would be a functionless organ without explanation for lack of function, which is what old-school vestigial organs were touted as/// 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? ///The Designist’s point is that where we see no apparent function, it may be due to our ignorance./// Then come on and show it! Show that all the examples I cited above have functions. Even if you do that, it still doesn’t explain why they lost their original function and got atrophied. For example, if whales need an anchoring point for muscles to move their penis, why should that structure look like a rudimentary pelvis?!! Why can't it be a totally unrelated new bone? ///evolution has no explanation for why a male would have a nipple./// My gosh! It’s just the opposite. 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. The following Oxford definition of vestigial organs that you cited is not incorrect as a simple definition: "Biology (Of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution." However, when you get down to the science, you have to be more specific and elaborate. There’s no rule that one organ can only have one function. In cases where a given organ has more than one function, it can lose its primary function during the course of evolution as the organism adapts to a new environment or takes up a different lifestyle, but still continue to perform its secondary roles. Such an organ is still vestigial with respect to its primary role. This is what Darwin himself said as has already been pointed out to you.Evolve_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS, et. al., As a starting point, I'm going to go ahead and allow almost everything you've said to be true. "Vestigial" organs are not always functionless, blind cave fish and fused-wing beetles are examples of vestigial organs, etc. Here's the point, though. 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. 2) Need to be proved to have come from an ancestor of a significantly-different species/kind (i.e. prior to the original creation/design), and have had a significant function in that ancestor. Why do I put those two criteria on vestigial organs? Simple - because any organ that doesn't meet those criteria is compatible with ID or Creationism, which basically say that our current species are degenerative/differently-expressed forms of their original design. Let's start with your example of eyeless fish. This example violates both 1 and 2. First, there are obviously ancestral fish of the same species with working eyes, which automatically contradicts #2 as well. Does an eyeless fish fit ID? Of course! The original fish design had working, useful eyes, and over time those eyes lost function due to adaptation and natural selection. So, maybe the fused-wing beetles? Proving #1 is problematic - can you show that the wings were not originally "created" unfused in that design? Or that the fused wing formation is functionless currently? And if, as you suggest, the fused-wing serves a different purpose, the possibility remains that they were designed to perform that function, and were never intended for flight. And can you show the fused wings must have come from a completely different species with unfused wings? After all, plenty of related beetles (same original design) have functional wings. The reason PZ Myer's re-definition of "vestigial" is problematic is that the original understood definition (pointless, useless leftover that never had a purpose in this species) fits the 2 points above, and therefore supports the Evolutionary viewpoint over ID and Creationism. PZ's re-definition (homologous organ with reduced/limited/changed function) violates the 2 points above, and therefore removes any validity to the assertion that vestigial organs are evidence for Evolution. Now, if you could show me, say, fangs and claws on a whale...drc466_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

Evolve:
Yeah, no one can know what the original function of the pelvis was!
Your position can't explain the pelvis. Also just because a pelvis has one function in one class of organisms does not mean it has to have the same function in all classes. Your narrow and close-minded views, while entertaining, mean nothing.Joe_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

I hardly consider the whale pelvis to be of 'reduced functionality' or vestigial (whatever that term means to the Darwinist),, Whale sex: It's all in the hips - Sept. 8, 2014 Excerpt: Both whales and dolphins have pelvic (hip) bones, (supposed) evolutionary remnants from when their ancestors walked on land more than 40 million years ago. Common wisdom has long held that those bones are simply vestigial, slowly withering away,,, New research from USC and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHM) flies directly in the face of that assumption, finding that,, pelvic bones serve a purpose,,, "Everyone's always assumed that if you gave whales and dolphins a few more million years of evolution, the pelvic bones would disappear. But it appears that's not the case,",,, Dean collaborated with fellow co-corresponding author Jim Dines,,, on a painstaking four-year project to analyze cetacean (whale and dolphin) pelvic bones. The muscles that control a cetacean's penis – which has a high degree of mobility – attach directly to its pelvic bones.,,, http://phys.org/news/2014-09-whale-sex-hips.html Now It's Whale Hips: Another Icon of Darwinian Evolution, Vestigial Organs, Takes a Hit - September 15, 2014 Excerpt: Under selection pressure from reality, Darwinists have already had to back away from Darwin's own understanding of what it means for a structure to be vestigial. Rather than serving no purpose, writes Jerry Coyne in Why Evolution Is True, now being vestigial can mean serving a different purpose than in one's distant ancestors.,,, You see the problem. Whale hips are "vestigial" yet still extremely important. Comments our colleague Michael Behe, "So doesn't that make everything a vestigial structure from a Darwinian viewpoint? And if so, of what use is the word?" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/whales_hips_ano089811.html Moreover, this was pointed out for years to Darwinists before it was recently 'rediscovered',, For instance this e-mail exchange from several years ago An Email Exchange Regarding "Vestigial Legs" Pelvic Bones in Whales by Jim Pamplin Excerpt: The pelvic bones of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis. The mechanisms of penile motion are not well understood in whales. The penis seems to be capable of a lot of independent motion, much like the trunk of an elephant. How much of this is mediated by the ischiocavernosus is not known. In females the anatomical parts are smaller and more diffuse. I would imagine that there is something homologous to the perineal muscles in man and tetrapods, which affect the entire pelvic area - the clitoris, vagina and anus. The pelvic rudiments also serve as origins for the ischiocaudalis muscle, which is a ventral muscle that inserts on the tips of the chevron bones of the spinal column and acts to flex the tail in normal locomotion. James G. Mead, Ph.D. - Curator of Marine Mammals - National Museum of Natural History - Smithsonian Institution ,,, Being essential for reproduction is hardly something that would considered of 'reduced functionality, especially in the Darwinian scheme of thingsbornagain77_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

///Unfortunately, with few exceptions, no one can know what the original function was- it is mostly guess work based on untestable personal bias./// Yeah, no one can know what the original function of the pelvis was! That it is meant for locomotion is guesswork! Talking to you is a pointless exercise.Evolve_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Evolve:
The organ has to be reduced to the point of having little to no utility with respect to its original function. Whale pelvis fits the bill, so does the human appendix.
Unfortunately, with few exceptions, no one can know what the original function was- it is mostly guess work based on untestable personal bias.Joe_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS:
for example blind fish with rudimentary eyes or flightless beetles with fused wings. This is difficult to explain by means of intelligent design, but fits in very well with his theory of descent with modification.
1- ID is OK with descent with modification 2- ID is not anti-evolution 3- Blind watchmaker evolution can't account for fish nor eyes, nor beetles nor wingsJoe_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS:
Quadruped limbs are vestigial fish fins, etc.
BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHJoe_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

RB:
PJ’s point was that the appendix may be removed “with no effect on the individual.” That’s what tells us that it is vestigial.
And that is very, very wrong.
The removal of a leg would have a clear deleterious effects upon the individual.
It all depends on the individual. It would have deleterious effects on an athlete who couldn't afford blades.Joe_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

Clavdivs, nobody is contesting the genetic evidence that children come from their parents. I never claimed otherwise. What the evidence fails to support is your extraordinary claim that we all came from pond scum. That evidence simply does not exist (save for in the imagination of Darwinists). Logged Out - Scientists Can't Find Darwin's "Tree of Life" Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin - Winter 2013 Excerpt: the (fossil) record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors. Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,, Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance: • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that "different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s]."6 • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that "evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns."7 • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that "the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be."8 Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled "Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life."9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that "the holy grail was to build a tree of life," but "today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence." According to the article, "many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.",,, Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: "We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?" ,,, "battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life," leaving readers with a stark assessment: "Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology."10,,, A 2012 paper noted that "phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception," since "incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species."12,,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo27/logged-out.php podcast - Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on (Darwin's) Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - March 2014 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-03-14T16_17_31-07_00bornagain77_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

Why don't we discuss the unambiguous bad examples??? Much like design, in which not one instance of design can be allowed in the atheistic mindset, if Darwinism can't explain how all life, every organ, arose it fails as an all encompassing theory of origins! For instance, this critique of Darwin failure to address the origin of life itself: Was Darwin a creationist? - Cosans C. - 2005 Abstract Throughout the Origin of Species, Darwin contrasts his theory of natural selection with the theory that God independently created each species. This makes it seem as though the Origin offers a scientific alternative to a theological worldview. A few months after the Origin appeared, however, the eminent anatomist Richard Owen published a review that pointed out the theological assumptions of Darwin's theory. Owen worked in the tradition of rational morphology, within which one might suggest that evolution occurs by processes that are continuous with those by which life arises from matter; in contrast, Darwin rested his account of life's origins on the notion that God created one or a few life forms upon which natural selection could act. Owen argued that Darwin's reliance on God to explain the origins of life makes his version of evolution no less supernatural than the special creationist that Darwin criticizes: although Darwin limits God to one or a few acts of creation, he still relies upon God to explain life's existence. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16085993bornagain77_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

BA77 @ 38
Yet contrary to what CLAVDIVS believes to be true, genetics does not provide evidence for common ancestry...
Hilarious! Yes, bornagain77, why don't you just throw out paternity testing and forensic DNA profiling because its all bogus, according to you. What a great example of failing to follow the evidence where it leads and instead marching in lockstep to the drumbeat of dogma.CLAVDIVS_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

Dr JDD @ 37
My point remains that much of public thought sees vestigiality as non-functional.
So what? How does commenting on the state of public knowledge address Darwin's original argument that organs having the "plain stamp of inutility" is difficult to explain by means of special creation, but fits in very well with descent with modification?
regarding independent evidence suggesting common ancestry, that is not completely the point however how do you feel genetics has provided proof of common ancestry over/more strongly/in favour of design?
Genetics provides evidence of common ancestry, not proof. Do you mean design by an unpredictable, all-powerful deity? That's not a testable theory, so its not the sort of concept you can have evidence for/against. If you rule out design by an all-powerful deity, then you will have to spell out what your theory is, then we can see whether there's evidence for it and how strong it is.
Further as provided in links above by BA77 i believe, why would we expect an organ such as the appendix to appear on around 32 separate occasions (I.e. converge 32 times) when we can apparently live quite fine without it?
Because the appendix is a bad example of a vestigial organ. Why don't we discuss a good example, like the wings of flightless dung beetles?CLAVDIVS_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS claims
"The argument is not circular because we have evidence independent of Organ A that demonstrates common ancestry e.g. genetics."
Yet contrary to what CLAVDIVS believes to be true, genetics does not provide evidence for common ancestry:
“The facts of comparative anatomy provide no support for evolution in the way conceived by Darwin and research at the molecular level has not demonstrated a correspondence between the structure of the gene and the structural and physical homology.” Professor Norman Nevin hailed in one obituary as “a pioneer in the science of genetics”. Should Christians Embrace Evolution? p137, (IVP 2009), A Primer on the Tree of Life (Part 4) Excerpt: "In sharks, for example, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from cells on the floor of the cavity. And in frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. This discovery—that homologous structures can be produced by different developmental pathways—contradicts what we would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. - Explore Evolution http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_3.html#more Neo-Darwinism's Homology Problem – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrO_oOJWyL8 “We know some cases where you have similar features that come from different genes, but we have lots and lots of cases where we have similar genes that give rise to very different features. I’ll give you an example: eyes. There’s a gene that’s similar in mice, octopuses, and fruit flies. If you look at a mouse eye and an octopus eye, there’s a superficial similarity, which is odd because nobody thinks their common ancestor had an eye like that. What’s more striking is if you look at a fruit fly’s eye – a compound eye with multiple facets – it’s totally different. Yet all three of these eyes depend on the same or very similar gene.” {Icons of Evolution ~ Dr Jonathan Wells, molecular biologist} "But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymnes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same 'patterns', in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it (still) has not been answered." Embryologist Sir Gavin deBeer, Homology, An Unsolved Problem, Oxford Biology Reader, 1971 Homology -- do common structures imply common ancestor? (14:17 minute mark - Different Genes involved in generating similar structures) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ydajcf2SBw&feature=player_detailpage#t=862
Related note:
"Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009) Excerpt: “Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.”,,, “We’ve just annihilated the (Darwin's) tree of life.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_1.html#more Repeated acquisition and loss of complex body form characters: Cornelius Hunter - December 2011 Excerpt: In other words, morphological patterns in biology, including the pentadactyl structure, do not fit the common descent model. This has evolutionists doing mental gymnastics as limbs and other designs must come and go as needed to make sense of evolution. They are lost, then reevolved, then lost, then whatever. It is all just storytelling. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/12/repeated-acquisition-and-loss-of.html
bornagain77_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS: The dictionary I used was quickly determined online here - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/vestigial so you can see for yourself if I took anything out or not. Perhaps it is not the "official" Oxford dictionary then. My point remains that much of public thought sees vestigiality as non-functional. regarding independent evidence suggesting common ancestry, that is not completely the point however how do you feel genetics has provided proof of common ancestry over/more strongly/in favour of design? Further as provided in links above by BA77 i believe, why would we expect an organ such as the appendix to appear on around 32 separate occasions (I.e. converge 32 times) when we can apparently live quite fine without it?Dr JDD_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

phoodoo @ 27
By what evidence can anyone claim that the features they claim are vestigial served two purposes at one time? Because they are vestigial?
Would you agree that dung beetles share a common ancestor? The wings of the flightless dung beetle once served to fly, but now serve as a CO2 storage tank.CLAVDIVS_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

That’s very funny! Not only as it applies to PZ’s definition but also in general. I think I might pinch that one :-)
I have to read every post now because News tosses in little one-liner gems like that at the end. I hope someone will collect them all and do an anthology of the wit and wisdom of D.O. She's a marvel - and could probably make a fortune in stand-up comedy, if the general public knew what ID humor was, that is.Silver Asiatic_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

Dr JDD @ 26
This is therefore circular proof of evolution. THe argument goes: 1) Organ A evolved for function B in organism C 2) We find a similar organ A in organism D but lacks function B 3) Therefore, Organ A has lost its primary function (B) in organism D 4) We know that organism D shares a common ancestor with organism C (or evolved from it) 5) Therefore the lack of function B of Organ A in Organism D proves common descent
The argument is not circular because we have evidence independent of Organ A that demonstrates common ancestry e.g. genetics.CLAVDIVS_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

Dr JDD @ 23 No problem, happens all the time.CLAVDIVS_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

Dr JDD @ 21
The argument has long been that things like the appendix are completely useless and without function. We know that is not true. Therefore it is fair and correct for someone to point this out.
You need to address the stronger, original argument made by Darwin: That organs that are greatly reduced in function compared to their clear homologs - like fused beetle wings or blind cavefish eyes - are very difficult to explain by means of special creation, but easy to explain by means of descent with modification. These goal posts have not moved since 1859. If some people in the meantime have proffered an argument against design that's easier for you to shoot down, because they wrongly thought vestigial' meant 'completely functionless' (not one of whom you have quoted by the way) well bully for you. But now you need to step up and deal with Darwin's stronger argument.CLAVDIVS_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

Dr JDD @ 21
For example, look at the Oxford Dictionary definition of vestigial in the context of Biology: “(Of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution”
You left out the very next example usage in the Oxford Dictionary which completely undermines your point. "The point is not that vestigial organs have no function whatsoever." Did you know you'd done that?CLAVDIVS_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

Evolve:
The organ has to be reduced to the point of having little to no utility with respect to its original function.
Therefore the criteron for it to be vestigial is an assumption of original function. Once again, this can only be defined as vestigial with an a priori acceptance of the evolutionary framework of common descent. As evidence for a theory cannot emerge from the theory itself, this definition of vestigiality again proves the contentious point - it is not evidence or proof of common descent (as common descent is assumed to prove vestigiality). Further, this emphasises the point that you cannot criticise a design argument based on these observations. The best criticism of design would be a functionless organ without explanation for lack of function, which is what old-school vestigial organs were touted as (but also assumes the mind of the desginer). The male nipple is not a good example of that as evolution has no explanation for why a male would have a nipple. Did men once breast feed? Are we evolving on our way to breastfeed? The Designist's point is that where we see no apparent function, it may be due to our ignorance. The Judeo-Christian's point is that we see a world different to how the original design intended it for, hence why some structures like the appendix may have had other functions in the past too. All the evidence I have seen of vestigial organs can fit perfectly well into the Judeo-Christian framework and do not provide stronger evidence for evolution than design. That is your inference and your wish to interpret in that manner that you do, but it does not make it true or design any less false.Dr JDD_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply