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

Indeed Dr JDD, the only thing I've ever seen evidence for unlimited plasiticity in, i.e. evidence for 'macro'-evolution in, is in the theory of evolution itself. The Darwinian theory is forever morphing into new shapes to accomodate whetever disconfirming evidence comes along. There is nothing rigid within the theory that would allow it to be falsified and to thus to classified as a proper science rather than a pseudo-science.
"Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Cornelius Hunter “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003) Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science: 1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection Are Both Grossly Inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit
bornagain77_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT}

News says: ///But wouldn’t his definition make all kinds of organs and limbs vestigial in most life forms?/// No! 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. I’ve repeated the same thing here many times in reply to posts by Vincent Torley etc. But they continue to peddle the same wrong argument in their zeal to disprove evolution. Creationists are yet to explain why God gave human males nipples!Evolve_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS, By what evidence can anyone claim that the features they claim are vestigial served two purposes at one time? Because they are vestigial? You can't make a more circular argument than that. That is the same nonsense Ken Miller tries to argue about irreducible complexity, everything that is complex used to have some other simpler function. Based on what information? None, it just makes the evolution fairy tale easier to tell. There are a billion complex systems in nature, and all of them used to serve another purpose. What bunk.phoodoo_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

A trait can be vestigial and functional at the same time. It is vestigial not because it’s functionless, but because it no longer performs the function for which it evolved.
BA77 - exactly. Note the above point by Coyne. 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 As with all evolutionary arguments, they are either a) circular (e.g. above) b) equally explainable by the design hypothesis (e.g. homology) or c) "it had to happen this way" stories with no real scientific validation (e.g. abiogenesis, novel domain proteins arising by unguided change, multi-complex protein structures essential for life arising by blind, unguided processes, etc) The point is - an evolutionist can scream and cry all they like about what vestigial actually means, however: 1) This does not change the perception of its meaning that has been used by evolutionists, and still is today (see my previous comments) 2) Their "newer" definition offers no more "proof" of evolution or common descent than it does of a designer intelligently using similar structures for different purposes/functions in different organisms. For example, I have a car that has the indicators on the steering column on the left hand side "stick". My wife also has the same thing, however on her car is another little switch and button on the same stick on the same side with the same purpose (to use as an indicator) which controls cruise control. My car does not have cruise control. It still has a function for an indicator though, and that is quite important.I could stick my arms out the window to indicate, however it is safer and best to have lights as indicators. In the case of my wife's car, the designer was maximising on design and space along with function by adding the cruise control functionality on the same structure that controls indicating/signalling. That is a design feature, and an intelligent one. If evolutionists are going to whine about us misusing the definition of vetigiality they need to firstly start cleaning up public conception of the word including evolution resources and textbooks (which disagree with them) and secondly they need to admit it is on the assumption that a "designer wouldn't do it this way" and assuming that because structures look similar and are in similar places and are controled by similar genes, that they must have arisen from each other.Dr JDD_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

No sooner is a can of worms opened than the worms form an escort party and lead us to a bigger one.
That's very funny! Not only as it applies to PZ's definition but also in general. I think I might pinch that one :-)steveO_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

a couple of points, bystander claims,,,
I think everyone understands limbs are not vestigial and that appendix, tail bone, wisdom teeth are vestigial.
Yet these body parts ARE NOT vestigial,,
Over sixty years ago we find these words from the prestigious Quarterly Review of Biology, “There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure” (Straus, 1947). The Useless Appendix and Other Darwinian Myths - June 2012 Excerpt: Uses of appendix: *being "involved primarily in immune functions" *"function[ing] as a lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and in the production of the class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies." *helping with "the production of molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body" *"suppress[ing] potentially destructive humoral (blood- and lymph-borne) antibody responses while promoting local immunity" *Additionally, it is "an important 'back-up' that can be used in a variety of reconstructive surgical techniques" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/the_useless_app_1060521.html Surgical removal of the tonsils and appendix associated with risk of early heart attack - June 2011 Excerpt: The surgical removal of the appendix and tonsils before the age of 20 was associated with an increased risk of premature heart attack in a large population study performed in Sweden. Tonsillectomy increased the risk by 44% (hazard ratio 1.44) and appendectomy by 33% (HR 1.33). The risk increases were just statistically significant, and were even higher when the tonsils and appendix were both removed. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-06-surgical-tonsils-appendix-early-heart.html#share Evolution's "vestigial organ" argument debunked Excerpt: The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting. http://www.ucg.org/science/god-science-and-bible-evolutions-vestigial-organ-argument-debunked/ Are Wisdom Teeth (Third Molars) Vestiges of Human Evolution? by Jerry Bergman - December 1, 1998 Excerpt: Curtis found that both predynastic Egyptians and Nubians rarely had wisdom teeth problems, but they often existed in persons living in later periods of history. He concluded that the maxillary sinus of the populations he compared were similar and attributed the impactions he found to diet and also disuse causing atrophy of the jaws which resulted in a low level of teeth attrition. Dahlberg in a study of American Indians found that mongoloid peoples have a higher percentage of agenesis of third molars then do other groups and few persons in primitive societies had wisdom teeth problems. As Dahlberg notes, third molars were ‘very useful in primitive societies’ to chew their coarse diet. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v12/n3/wisdom-teeth
Of related note to 'reduced functionality' or 'reduced in size', by that definition of PZ's for vestigiality, the entire human body can be considered vestigial:
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
Moreover, changing the definition of vestigial, as Darwinists do whenever function is discovered for a supposedly 'useless' body part, renders the word meaningless.
Now It's Whale Hips: Another Icon of Darwinian Evolution, Vestigial Structures, Takes a Hit - September 15, 2014 Excerpt: 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 From Jerry Coyne, "Evolution-of-the-Gaps" and Other Fallacies - Jonathan M. - December 5, 2012 Excerpt: Coyne anticipates the typical response to the argument from vestigiality: "Opponents of evolution always raise the same argument when vestigial traits are cited as evidence for evolution. "The features are not useless," they say. "They are either useful for something, or we haven't yet discovered what they're for." They claim, in other words, that a trait can't be vestigial if it still has a function, or a function yet to be found. But this rejoinder misses the point. Evolutionary theory doesn't say that vestigial characters have no function. A trait can be vestigial and functional at the same time. It is vestigial not because it's functionless, but because it no longer performs the function for which it evolved. (p. 58)" But surely, by Coyne's reckoning, this loose definition of "vestigiality" would entail that every organ and structure is vestigial, since, in Coyne's view, all traits have evolved from something else. As Jonathan Wells explains in his own review of the book, "If the human arm evolved from the leg of a four-footed mammal (as Darwinists claim), then the human arm is vestigial. And if (as Coyne argues) the wings of flying birds evolved from feathered forelimbs of dinosaurs that used them for other purposes, then the wings of flying birds are vestigial. This is the opposite of what most people mean by "vestigial." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/from_jerry_coyn_15067091.html
bornagain77_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

Apologies CLAVDIVS - I also need to learn to spell your name...Dr JDD_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

CLAVIDUS @ 20: It is well documented that many evolutionists have over the years made this claim: "Vestigal organs are useless and functionless organs leftover from evolution and something a designer would never put in as they are without function." Now many evolutionists may have extrapolated and claimed (as evidence came to light) that some of these have other functions, but these are reduced and secondary/not as important as functions observed in other organisms, but the above I have stated is a commonly used argument by many evolutionists over the years. They made no apology for using such an argument. You can still find this argument all over the internet now including evolution education resources. Now PZ (and others) are making the claim we are misunderstanding what evolutionists meant about vestigiality - that is, that vestigial does not mean "without function". Fine if that is the case, but don't pretend that evolutionists have and still do use this argument. That is my point. Are you saying that evolutionists have NOT used the above argument over the years? And, if you admit they have, should those who appose the theory just let it go and not respond to that?I have provided resources above to show that this is the way people view vestigiality - ie. without function. IDers will always wish to show this is a falsehood, and rightly so.Dr JDD_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT}

I really must learn to spell vestigial correctly... CLAVDIS @ 19: 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. 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" Let us look at basic evolution resources online and how they define it: http://evolution.about.com/od/evidence/g/Vestigial-Structures.htm
Definition: A vestigial structure is an anatomical feature that no longer seems to have a purpose in the current form of an organism of the given species. Often, these vestigial structures were organs that performed some important function in the organism at one point in the past. However, as the population changed due to natural selection, those structures became less and less necessary until they were rendered pretty much useless. While most of these types of structures would probably disappear over many generations, some seem to keep being passed down to offspring even though they have no known function.
So regardless of what people are now claiming vestigiality is, the problem stems from over the years (and even now) how it has been portrayed to the public. Further, the real point is evolutionists have done nothing to counter or correct this as it worked in their favour for people to believe they are "useless remnants of evolution and proof of common descent". So I will not argue if you change the term, but we can only meet you on your terms if you stick by it. 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 his out. If you decide to change the meaning of vestigial then fine but you have to at least accept it is then a poor argument for common descent, because just because something has a differen function in another organism, does not mean that they came from the same ancestor. This is what IDists have always contended - but evolutionists keep changing the goal posts. Further, one who subscribes to a literal interpretation of the Bible may actually find good reason to argue in favour of some of these organs having lost functions (i.e. we used to be vegetarians and may well have had an enlarged caecum, etc). Again, these observations do not prove evolution as evolutionists claim, as they also present an argument for common design.Dr JDD_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT}

Dr JDD @ 18 Way back when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species he noted that: "An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other." Then he gave an argument against special creation: "On the view of each organic being with all its separate parts having been specially created, how utterly inexplicable it is that organs bearing the plain stamp of inutility, such as the teeth in the embryonic calf or like the shrivelled wings under the soldered wing-covers of many beetles, should so frequently occur." How does this differ significantly from how evolutionists have applied it in arguments against ID over the years?CLAVDIVS_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT}

Querius @ 13
There’s no evidence that proves these structures are vestigial, but we currently don’t know of any significant role in each of these.
Do you understand that, according to Darwin, a vestigial organ can have still have "a significant role"?
An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other. ... Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct one... -- Darwin
So you don't need to prove an organ has no significant role in order to show it is vestigial.CLAVDIVS_{September 24, 2014
September
09
Sep
24
24
2014
01:46 AM
1
01
46
AM
PDT}

The definition of vestigility does not really matter here, except that it differs quite significantly from how evolutionists have applied it in arguments against ID over the years. It is undeniable that the vast majority of pro-evolutionists have used vestigal organs as a "blow to design" yet based on this "new" definition revealed by PZM it does not do that - it merely fits with the evolution paradigm by now defining it in this way. We all have (or had) a friend like this who confidently stated some "fact" and then when you go away, do some research and present them with the actual facts, showing that they were wrong, they indignently proclaim that we mis-understood them, they did not ever mean it that way and we have got it wrong through our misunderstanding of what they said. Those "friends" usually annoy us enough to stop being friends with them but sadly many people still believe the illusion those people know what they are talking about given their confidence in the matter. What about vestigal proteins? Proteins from genes that can be knocked out and an organism still survives (i.e. not embryonic lethal or detrimental)? We normally find they have a reduced fitness in some way (some more subtle than others), but is this molecular vestigility?Dr JDD_{September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT}

Good points, phoodoo. -QQuerius_{September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

the bystander, We know that scientists are fallible, and that accepted scientific knowledge changes dramatically over time. So perhaps your faith isn't in the scientists and doctors themselves, but more in the process of the scientific method. About a hundred years ago, eminent scientists and doctors would confidently assure you that the thyroid is a vestigial organ, and you would have believed them. A hundred years from now, we would expect additional discoveries that would change our beliefs. There's a fundamental difference between proving the function of the thyroid as compared to asserting that it has no function simply because one hasn't been discovered. I'd disagree with the position that because we don't know what something does, it therefore must not have a useful purpose. Sounds kind of arrogant to me. Finally, not everything is vital. One can easily survive without tonsils, but that doesn't mean they have no function. Also, I think if you research some of the recent work on the structures in your list, you'll find that they aren't as vesitigial as they once were thought to be. -QQuerius_{September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

You can remove all kinds of parts from the body, and still survive just fine, the spleen, tonsils, prostate, heck you can remove large parts of the brain and still live. Depending on what you remove, the effect could be large or it could be small. How can anyone take such idiocy seriously? Myers can't even write a coherent sentence: "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." Ignoring his trailer park informed grammar for a second, how can you declare that something categorically is a vestigial organ, and then list other evidence to suggest it could be? Which is the definition of vestigial PZ? Your nervous system is definitely reduced in size compared to a Dinosaur, so for you it must be vestigial. And conversely, my brain is bigger than an Apes, so I guess its brain is also vestigial. I guess all brains besides mine are vestigial. He is a college professor, huh? How hard is it to become a college professor? Clearly, not very.phoodoo_{September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT}

Querius, Human bodies have been operated and studied by doctors and scientists, and they have had enough time to understand our body to decide which are vestigial organs, so yes, I believe scientists are right.the bystander_{September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

the bystander, Would it be more accurate for you to say: (a) The aforementioned structures have been proven to be vestigial or (b) There's no evidence that proves these structures are vestigial, but we currently don't know of any significant role in each of these. -QQuerius_{September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

Ok. this is just a 'put-him-down' article. Be fair. I think everyone understands limbs are not vestigial and that appendix, tail bone, wisdom teeth are vestigial. May be definition is not accurate enough to convey the meaning for you, but that doesn't change the facts.the bystander_{September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

Querius, no problem,,, It is also interesting to note that 'science' cannot be practiced without some base level theological presuppositions. Thus it is not surprising that Darwinism, even if its theological basis is twisted, would be found to be reliant on theological presuppositions at its base level.
“If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place.” - William J Murray The Great Debate: Does God Exist? - Justin Holcomb - audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site Excerpt: The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,, http://justinholcomb.com/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-god-exist/ Random Chaos vs. Uniformity Of Nature - Presuppositional Apologetics - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6853139 Presuppositional Apologetics - easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php The Atheist’s Guide to Intellectual Suicide – James N. Anderson PhD. - video https://vimeo.com/75897668 Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ "Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face. Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules." - Cornelius Hunter https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10344804_736790473055959_5027794313726938258_n.png?oh=32dcc64a81815fd8fbf5884ea44490ed&oe=548E8745&__gda__=1418537725_911886dd89430d275c0e393a46afdb55
bornagain77_{September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

News:
But wouldn’t his definition make all kinds of organs and limbs vestigial in most life forms?
Yes, exactly. Quadruped limbs are vestigial fish fins, etc.
Readers, isn’t the whole concept of “vestigial” organs as evidence for the evolution of life forms a bad idea?
No. As Darwin noted, "Organs or parts ... bearing the plain stamp of inutility, are extremely common, or even general, throughout nature.", 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.CLAVDIVS_{September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

Oops. "PZ's point."Reciprocating Bill_{September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

News:
But this makes no sense. A doctor can remove a man’s gangrenous leg without anyone getting the idea that the leg was vestigial.
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. The removal of a leg would have a clear deleterious effects upon the individual. That's why no one would get the idea that it was vestigial.Reciprocating Bill_{September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, Thanks for posting the video by William Lane Craig. It was well presented and compelling! A theological objection to ID is irrelevant to science. It's ironic how many times I've read or heard theological arguments presented by Darwinists in the name of science. -QQuerius_{September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

Well, when the old definition has been shown to be inaccurate by the evidence, to save face, changing the definition is not a bad strategy.tjguy_{September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Is Meyers unaware that people who have had their appendix removed have a far greater difficulty overcoming GI infections such as clostridium difficile? This should be evidence enough that the organ is still happily in use. His definition is so broad as to include every organ in the body! What rubbish.EDTA_{September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

An embarrassing fact about the 'vestigial' appendix that you will never hear mentioned by PZ is the following one:
Evolutionists Multiply Miracles - February 12, 2013 Excerpt: William Parker, a surgeon,,, says it has the strongest evidence yet that the appendix serves a purpose. In a new study, published online this month in Comptes Rendus Palevol, the researchers compiled information on the diets of 361 living mammals, including 50 species now considered to have an appendix, and plotted the data on a mammalian evolutionary tree. They found that the 50 species are scattered so widely across the tree that the structure must have evolved independently at least 32 times, and perhaps as many as 38 times. Randolph Nesse (U of Michigan) had an interesting take on this conclusion. “The conclusion that the appendix has appeared 32 times is amazing,” he said. “I do find their argument for the positive correlation of appendix and cecum sizes to be a convincing refutation of Darwin’s hypothesis” (about the appendix being vestigial).,,, http://crev.info/2013/02/evolutionists-multiply-miracles/
Moreover, the vestigial organ argument is 'old hat' with Darwinists. In fact, over 100 vestigial organs were originally listed for humans back in 1893. That 'prediction' for Darwinism, to put it mildly, has failed:
Vestigial Organs: Comparing ID and Darwinian Approaches - July 20, 2012 Excerpt: A favorite criticisms of ID is that it is a science stopper. The opposite is true. The Live Science article shows that the "vestigial organs" argument has not changed for over a century, since Wiedersheim coined the term and listed over a hundred examples (in 1893). Evolutionary theory, in fact, has been worse than a science stopper: its predictions have been flat out wrong. Only a handful of alleged vestigial organs remains from Wiedersheim's original list, and each of those is questionable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/vestigial_organ062281.html
And please note, the vestigial organ argument, just like the current 'Junk DNA' argument, is basically a theologically based 'Bad Design' argument, (i.e. God would not have done it that way), and the Darwinists are not actually presenting any positive evidence of a appendix, or any other organ, being generated by unguided Darwinian processes. Yet, a theologically based 'Bad Design' argument is a argument that quickly leaves the field of empirical science and enters squarely into the realm of subjective opinion! In this following video Dr. William Lane Craig is surprised to find that evolutionary biologist Dr. Ayala uses the theological argument of ‘bad design’ to support Darwinian evolution and invites him to present evidence, any positive evidence at all, that Darwinian evolution can do what he claims it can:
Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg
Verse and Music:
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; The Afters "Every Good Thing" LIVE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIMmsBuO0p8
bornagain77_{September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

"Readers, isn’t the whole concept of “vestigial” organs as evidence for the evolution of life forms a bad idea?" It is not a scientific argument, it is a theological argument based on assumptions of what a designer would or wouldn't do. I worked as a software engineer for many years and I know that there are commercial software products that have "vestigial" code in them. It is a sign of design not a sign of natural origin. It is a common tactic used by Darwinists, they offer a false dichotomy between some simplistic/straw man version of creation and Darwinism and they assert that since their straw man must be false, Darwinism must be true. But they fail to consider other possibilities. If the Darwinists want to prove Darwinism, they need to provide positive scientific evidence for macroevolution by natural selection. For example, they need to explain why different genes produce different evolutionary trees, and how rapid genetic change indicated by punctuated equilibrium can occur.Jim Smith_{September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

Here's another opportunity to discuss the science. If you can find any.Mung_{September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

"Vestigial" organs are as much proof for evolution as the ability to untile a roof is proof that a tornade can build a house. And reading his rather curious definition I wonder if PZ's brain is a bit on the "vestigial side", too. SebestyenSebestyen_{September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply