Evolution, concise evidence

[BarryPrays]

Sorry Ryan, you have missed the point. Try rereading the article, Godel actually proved that it would be impossible to prove every statement as either true or false.

 

[finalfrogo]

I forgot this in my last post.....i beleive that evolution is going on....but on a very small scale. The peppermoth thing in europe is true proof of the natural selection theory. But that is in terms of the color of their wings.....the moths didn't change into seamonsters to avoid their predators now did they

Of course it's going on a very small scale. There is no quick version of evolution!

 

[mingmty]

The most common mistake when understanding evolution:

the moths didn't change into seamonsters to avoid their predators now did they

And evolution never said it would happen, it says they have a common ancestor that lived long ago and didn't look like neither of them, most probably resembled a microbe, because their characteristics are obviously too great to come from a recent species.

 

[finalfrogo]

http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/fossils_missing.html#Organs

I'm sorry i forgot to put the evidence thing in my last post.....(its more like lack of evidence)

• This article claims that there are no transitional species. Untrue. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik. The problem is that creationists are looking for ridiculous transitions, ones that are extremely hard to find. A bunch of feathered dinasours are going to be hard to find, noticing that we haven't even found that many T-rexes.

• It claims that there are no transitional organs. Look into Vestigal Structures. Take a penguin's wings for example; they are mostly (if not completely) useless to the penguin. Why would God place such structures on a creature? The wings clearly manifest the penguin's ancestry in birds. Among a whale's functional bones are fragments of pelvis bones and hindlegs derived from their land-walking ancestors. The eyes of cavefish cannot see. Crabs have tails they do not use. Asexually reproducing plants have petals (petals are meant to attract organisms needed for sexual reproduction.) Summarized from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigal_organ#Controversy

Additionally, there is much more evidence supporting Evolution that disputing it: Homologous and vestigal structures, similar embryonic stages, similar genetic makeup, and the fossil records are just the ones I can recall off the top of my head.

 

[finalfrogo]

http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/fossils_missing.html#Organs

I'm sorry i forgot to put the evidence thing in my last post.....(its more like lack of evidence)

Oh, and just look at human ancestory! Look at all the species between a human and an ape that can easily be considered transitional:

A. robustus, A. Boisei, A. aethiopicus, A. ramidus, A. anamensis, A. afarensis, A. africanus, H. habilis, H. erectus, Neanderthals, cro-Magnons...

 

[Ryan2065]

Sorry Ryan, you have missed the point. Try rereading the article, Godel actually proved that it would be impossible to prove every statement as either true or false.

Right, and the reason that proof is so big in mathematics is that the rest of the proof states (in plain english): If you cannot prove something as either true or false it is true. This isn't a cop out or anything like that... Here is the theorem:

To every ω-consistent recursive class κ of formulae there correspond recursive class signs r, such that neither v Gen r nor Neg(v Gen r) belongs to Flg(κ) (where v is the free variable of r).

Wikipedia puts the theorem in good english terms...

Roughly speaking, the Gödel statement, G, can be expressed: 'G cannot be proven true'. If G were proven true under the theory's axioms, then the theory would have a theorem, G, which contradicted itself. A similar contradiction would occur if G could be proven false. So we are forced to conclude that G cannot be proven true or false, but is true because of this very fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godel's_Incompleteness_Theorem

Note: I did just graduate with a degree in mathematics but do not ask me to do matematical explanations of Godel's statement... My specalization is knot theory

 

[rocketman]

The problem is that creationists are looking for ridiculous transitions, ones that are extremely hard to find.

The literal meaning of the word ridiculous and the term extremely-hard-to-find are two mutually exclusive characteristics, so which one is it? If it's the latter then maybe they are out there, and yet on the other hand if tiktaalik fits the bill [highly debateable] then it can't be considered ridiculous. You can't have it both ways.

Take a penguin's wings for example; they are mostly (if not completely) useless to the penguin. Why would God place such structures on a creature? The wings clearly manifest the penguin's ancestry in birds.

Penguins are renowned for flying underwater, literally. See here. Air and water are both fluid mediums. A bird that can dive to over a quarter of a mile deep needs it's wings as much as any air-fluid flier does. And a wing designed for denser fluid will be shorter and stouter. The wings of a penguin don't 'manifest their ancestry in birds', because they are by all definitions still a bird. By the way, the wiki article you quote also claims that penguins have vestigal hollow bones - not so: see here. If a creationist made an honest mistake like this they'd be accused of lying. So, saying that penguin wings are useless or even next to useless is completely baseless.

Among a whale's functional bones are fragments of pelvis bones and hindlegs derived from their land-walking ancestors.

Whale pelvis bones are not vestigal. Small muscles vitally involved with the reproductive system attach to these bones, and are well adapted to the differing male/female needs. Other extensions found in some species have not been shown beyond reasonable doubt that they are vestigal, imho. I agree these features are homologous, although that would also suit proponents of a 'common designer' equally as well.

The eyes of cavefish cannot see.

And some cavefish don't have eyes at all. That's just natural selection in a dark cave at work for you. A function no longer required is not guaranteed to be passed on in working order. A genetically defective version can slip through as long as it doesn't interfere with survival or stop reproduction. It may even become dominant, working it's way through the entire population over time. What does this example prove? It proves nothing about where eyes came from in the first place. It only goes to show that animals can adapt to differeing environments, even if that means losing a function. Not a good argument for evolution in general.

Crabs have tails they do not use.

What crabs are you talking about? Coconut crabs have their tails underneath their body for protection, as do most true crabs. Hermit crabs use their tails to get into their shells. Horseshoe crabs use their tails for righting themselves. Frankly I don't know what you mean by tail here.

Asexually reproducing plants have petals (petals are meant to attract organisms needed for sexual reproduction.)

Petals also protect the reproductive parts of a plant, especially before they unfurl. If I use your logic and follow your example of saying that petals are 'meant' for attraction, then I can equally declare that petals are 'meant' to absorb sunlight, the sunflower being an obvious example. In any event the site you quote says " Grass and other non-flowering angiosperms often have small, undeveloped structures which strongly resemble those of flowering plants.." So what? The fact that anemophily works is proof that petals were not necessarily the first adaptation. Common descent or common design?

Summarized from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigal_organ#Controversy

From the same article: "..Biology textbooks and scientific encyclopedias usually describe an organ as vestigial if it does not serve the same function in the modern animal as the cognate organ served in an ancestor, even if the modern organ serves a completely different use (preadaptation)." Oh joy, and I thought creationists were supposed to be the ambiguous ones. This definition has all the bases covered. How convenient. According to this definition our flat-bottomed feet, originally used for squatting and later used for bipedal motion, are in fact vestigial.

Additionally, there is much more evidence supporting Evolution that disputing it: Homologous and vestigal structures, similar embryonic stages, similar genetic makeup, and the fossil records are just the ones I can recall off the top of my head.

Homologous structures lend some credibility to the idea of a common designer, even more so when one realises that many homologous structures do not share homologous genes despite supposedly being 'in sequence' according to interpretations of the fossil record. Similar embryonic stages are to be expected with so much dna in common, but this is an area that has been overhyped. The recapitulation theory has mostly been discarded and it's commendable to see evolutionists willing to correct textbook errors such as here.

 

[Ryan2065]

From the same article: "..Biology textbooks and scientific encyclopedias usually describe an organ as vestigial if it does not serve the same function in the modern animal as the cognate organ served in an ancestor, even if the modern organ serves a completely different use (preadaptation)." Oh joy, and I thought creationists were supposed to be the ambiguous ones. This definition has all the bases covered. How convenient. According to this definition our flat-bottomed feet, originally used for squatting and later used for bipedal motion, are in fact vestigial.

Just a note, that article also says the meaning of vestigal was this definition first... People who debate evolution changed the definition to show there are no vestigal parts =)

I'll quote the whole part...

Those who question the existence of vestigial organs usually claim a different definition for vestigial, giving a strict interpretation that an organ must be utterly useless to qualify.[13] This is a definition often used in dictionaries[14] and children's encyclopedias.[15] Biology textbooks[16][17] and scientific encyclopedias[1] usually describe an organ as vestigial if it does not serve the same function in the modern animal as the cognate organ served in an ancestor, even if the modern organ serves a completely different use (preadaptation).
Those who consider the true meaning of vestigial to be "completely without use" tend to claim that the meaning has been changed over time as structures thought to be vestigial were found to have other uses.[18] However, documentation indicates that from the theory's beginnings in the 19th century, vestigial structures have invariably been understood to "sometimes retain their potentiality"[19], becoming either "wholly or in part functionless".[20] It was thought that "not infrequently the degenerating organ can be turned to account in some other way".[21]

So you see, those debating evolution saying there was no evidence also changed the definition to be "has no use" rather than "has a different use from their ancestors"

Just wanted to clear up the definition... Maybe you want to reconsider what is or isn't vestigial from your previous post... Then again you can keep using the changed definition...

 

[JerryL]

I'm curious what the creationist thinks of goosbumps on essentially hairless people.

 

[fantome profane]

And some cavefish don't have eyes at all. That's just natural selection in a dark cave at work for you. A function no longer required is not guaranteed to be passed on in working order. A genetically defective version can slip through as long as it doesn't interfere with survival or stop reproduction. It may even become dominant, working it's way through the entire population over time. What does this example prove? It proves nothing about where eyes came from in the first place. It only goes to show that animals can adapt to differeing environments, even if that means losing a function. Not a good argument for evolution in general.

But that is exactly what it is. This is an excellent argument for evolution in general. This is a clear example of adaptive change due to natural selection. That is evolution. And it is not just a matter of losing a function. The cavefish has also evolved a highly acute sense of smell and sensitivity to vibrations and an advanced memory that is not present in its sighted ancestor.

You are correct however when you say that this example does not prove where eyes came from in the first place, but no one to my knowledge has claimed that it did. Is this proof of evolution? Yes it is, if you understand the correct use of the word proof. Proof simply means evidence in support of a theory, and this clearly qualifies.

There certainly is no proof of any kind of a creator that designed these fish to have their eyes fall out. (I know that wasn’t your point, I am just saying).

And if you don’t like cave fish, how about cave birds? This is an almost identical example of adaptive evolution due to natural selection. These birds have developed the ability to “see” in the dark through the use of sonar and echolocation.

 

[rocketman]

So you see, those debating evolution saying there was no evidence also changed the definition to be "has no use" rather than "has a different use from their ancestors" .. Just wanted to clear up the definition... Maybe you want to reconsider what is or isn't vestigial from your previous post... Then again you can keep using the changed definition...

This is an ambiguous area to say the least. The definition I was using was "a mark or trace of something that once existed" which I felt was within the spirit of the examples given [penguin wings, whale hips, cavefish eyes, crab tails, rudimentary petals], the claim for all of which was clearly geared toward next to no function or no function. If I use the extended definition my answers would be the same with the addition of saying that homology works equally well for proponents of common design as well as common descent, which I think I did actually say at least once.

If we accept the broader definition which includes old bits with new functions then anything can be called vestigial as long as we can guess that it was used for some other purpose in earlier times. Note that we don't have to prove it, just guess it. Resident in the broader 'scientific' definition is the assumption regarding the functions organs had in earlier times, usually based on homology. This is where the broader definition becomes so broad that it is useless in a debate. The reality is that both sides have tried to take advantage of the definition over the years. No one can honestly say that there wasn't a time when the human appendix, as an example, wasn't considered to be 'completely useless'. Nowadays the completely useless tag has mysteriously been dropped in favour of a guess-based explanation. The guess in this case being that humans once had a rabbit-like caecum. It's interesting to read something like this and then observe how the argument for vestigiality is crafted even in despite of such things, like here. Note that the article I just linked to ultimately relies on homology and what's worse, a homology based on comparison to a guess of what we were once like. I can't believe that this is passed off as science.

"..from the theory's beginnings in the 19th century, vestigial structures have invariably been understood to "sometimes retain their potentiality", becoming either "wholly or in part functionless". It was thought that "not infrequently the degenerating organ can be turned to account in some other way"

So what have we got here Ryan? We have 'sometimes retain their potentiality', then we have 'wholly or in part functionless' and then we have 'can be turned to account some other way'. So which is it? All three? If so then from that I can derive "wholly...functionless" as one acceptable term. That is certainly the kind of vestigiality that finalfrogo seemed to be implying. And if we accept 'partly functioning' then we need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that 'partly' is a true description on a case by case basis. Either way, it seems to me that anyone claiming an organ to be vestigial would do well to also explain what they mean by vestigial, and to have some proof other than extrapolated guestimated homology to show what it once did.

 

[rocketman]

I'm curious what the creationist thinks of goosbumps on essentially hairless people.

Lol, I know a few people who are far from hairless. Anyway, goosebumps force oil onto the surface of the skin which helps keep the skin warm by reducing evaporation of sweat from the surface. And for me personally they noticably increase the sensitivity of my skin and thus also lift my alertness. Goosebumps [unconscious] tend to focus me on what's happening [conscious], like sudden cold, sudden danger etc. I like my goosebumps!

 

[rocketman]

But that is exactly what it is. This is an excellent argument for evolution in general. This is a clear example of adaptive change due to natural selection. That is evolution. And it is not just a matter of losing a function. The cavefish has also evolved a highly acute sense of smell and sensitivity to vibrations and an advanced memory that is not present in its sighted ancestor.

You are right of-course about it being evolution. I don't disagree that it is evolution. I even said it was natural selection. I was trying to keep the focus on vestigiality, not additional adaptation. Anyways, in addition to the other adaptations you speak of there is one type of fish that has traded it's eyes for bigger jaws. The small number of genes involved in all of these adaptations seem to be related to the eyes as well, so it is understandable that as they mutated they got selected. I don't have a problem at all with this kind of evolution, but I can't see how this kind of thing could ever keep going and eventually turn a fish into, say, an amphibian. The fish is too complicated, the adaptations are merely variations on existing systems, control genes can do no more than that, and from what we are learning about genetics it's clear that visually observed homology 'ain't what she used to be'. I know a lot of people would disagree with me on how evolution works in the long run, but they are ultimately infering - no disrespect intended. The inference is logical and reasonable, I'm not saying otherwise, but I don't have to agree with it.

There certainly is no proof of any kind of a creator that designed these fish to have their eyes fall out. (I know that wasn’t your point, I am just saying).

*giggle fit* I can't get that image out of my head...

I'm not one of those who thinks that there is scientific proof of God having created anything. Many other kinds of proofs, perhaps, but no scientific ones. When I ask 'common descent or common design?' I am merely pointing out that facts can be interpreted both ways, as opposed to one proving the other wrong. There may be proof of scriptural claims from areas of archaeology and so on but even these do not ultimately prove scientifically that God created anything. That's really a matter of faith.

And if you don’t like cave fish, how about cave birds? This is an almost identical example of adaptive evolution due to natural selection. These birds have developed the ability to “see” in the dark through the use of sonar and echolocation.

The only birds I know of that fit your description would be the swiftlet and the oilbird. Both can see just fine, in addition to their echo-location for navigating in the dark. There is quite a mystery surrounding the evolution of the swiftlet, as some of the dna sequences bewteen sub-species don't align according to the evolutionary model, so there are several different suggestions revolving around various loss/regain combinations. This problem of homologous features being encoded for by non-homologous dna is only going to get worse and worse for the standard model, imho. I don't think the bird example is comparable to the fish example, certainly not an 'almost identical example of adaptive evolution' unless you have a different bird in mind, besides, things like sonar involve a large amount of genes and require sophisticated nervous system specialisations, for starters. As for it's worth as an example of a complex adaptation we can only guess at what came before.

 

[fantome profane]

You are right of-course about it being evolution. I don't disagree that it is evolution. I even said it was natural selection. I was trying to keep the focus on vestigiality, not additional adaptation.

If you wish to keep the focus on vestigial organs or “losing a function” that is fine. Just as long as we are not denying the evidence of additional adaptations. I felt that it was necessary to point out that there are also numerous examples of evolution through constructive adaptation, and the example of the cavefish is certainly one of them. And since in this one example we have evidence of both vestigial organs (eyes) and creative adaptation it is an excellent example of evolution in general. (You asked what this example proved)

 

[Ryan2065]

This is an ambiguous area to say the least. The definition I was using was "a mark or trace of something that once existed" which I felt was within the spirit of the examples given [penguin wings, whale hips, cavefish eyes, crab tails, rudimentary petals], the claim for all of which was clearly geared toward next to no function or no function. If I use the extended definition my answers would be the same with the addition of saying that homology works equally well for proponents of common design as well as common descent, which I think I did actually say at least once.

So you decided to "fit" the definition to the examples given so percise that the definition just barely excluded most of the examples given... You know, some people use the definition and don't change it. If you used the extended definition? Hrm... a scientist uses the extended definition to define what is or isnt vestigal... One would think you would want to use that same definition...

If we accept the broader definition which includes old bits with new functions then anything can be called vestigial as long as we can guess that it was used for some other purpose in earlier times.

Darn those scientists! Always guessing with what they do and never actually studying anything!

Note that we don't have to prove it, just guess it.

Yea, no evidence supporting their "guess" even has to be given for it to be widely accepted in the science world! Just like all those other science theories!

Resident in the broader 'scientific' definition is the assumption regarding the functions organs had in earlier times, usually based on homology. This is where the broader definition becomes so broad that it is useless in a debate. The reality is that both sides have tried to take advantage of the definition over the years. No one can honestly say that there wasn't a time when the human appendix, as an example, wasn't considered to be 'completely useless'. Nowadays the completely useless tag has mysteriously been dropped in favour of a guess-based explanation. The guess in this case being that humans once had a rabbit-like caecum. It's interesting to read something like this and then observe how the argument for vestigiality is crafted even in despite of such things, like here. Note that the article I just linked to ultimately relies on homology and what's worse, a homology based on comparison to a guess of what we were once like. I can't believe that this is passed off as science.

Hrm, alright... Now lets see what your links have said! Oh wait, you quoted the relavent part of the second link!

"..from the theory's beginnings in the 19th century, vestigial structures have invariably been understood to "sometimes retain their potentiality", becoming either "wholly or in part functionless". It was thought that "not infrequently the degenerating organ can be turned to account in some other way"

Hrm, wait... did you post the relavent part? What about this from your second link?

Currently, arguments against the vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix have been based upon misunderstandings of what constitutes a vestige and of how vestiges are identified.
From an evolutionary perspective, the human appendix is a derivative of the end of the phylogenetically primitive herbivorous caecum found in our primate ancestors (Goodman et al. 1998; Shoshani 1996). The human appendix has lost a major and previously essential function, namely cellulose digestion. Though during primate evolution it has decreased in size to a mere rudiment, the appendix retains a structure that was originally specifically adapted for housing bacteria and extending the time course of digestion. For these reasons the human vermiform appendix is vestigial, regardless of whether or not the human appendix functions in the development of the immune system.

Your first link states some uses of the appendix... Unless if you are debating the definition of vestigal should be "no use" this isn't very relavent...

So what have we got here Ryan? We have 'sometimes retain their potentiality', then we have 'wholly or in part functionless' and then we have 'can be turned to account some other way'. So which is it? All three?

Uhh... So when science names something vestigal they are using the definition "lost main function but can still work and can develop new main functions" But yea, you are right, lets use a definition other than the science one to disprove them!

If so then from that I can derive "wholly...functionless" as one acceptable term. That is certainly the kind of vestigiality that finalfrogo seemed to be implying. And if we accept 'partly functioning' then we need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that 'partly' is a true description on a case by case basis. Either way, it seems to me that anyone claiming an organ to be vestigial would do well to also explain what they mean by vestigial, and to have some proof other than extrapolated guestimated homology to show what it once did.

Hrm... in the same regard why shouldn't a scientist talking about gravity need to define what gravity means after the famous article about intelligent falling by the onion! Science has the definition and it doesn't change from scientist to scientist...

 

[Tiberius]

• This article claims that there are no transitional species. Untrue. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik. The problem is that creationists are looking for ridiculous transitions, ones that are extremely hard to find. A bunch of feathered dinasours are going to be hard to find, noticing that we haven't even found that many T-rexes.

I saw a show on TV last night that showed a fossil of a velociraptor that clearly showed feathers. We have found feathered dinosaurs.

 

[rocketman]

If you wish to keep the focus on vestigial organs or “losing a function” that is fine. Just as long as we are not denying the evidence of additional adaptations. I felt that it was necessary to point out that there are also numerous examples of evolution through constructive adaptation, and the example of the cavefish is certainly one of them. And since in this one example we have evidence of both vestigial organs (eyes) and creative adaptation it is an excellent example of evolution in general. (You asked what this example proved)

No, I'm in no way denying evidence of additional adaptations. And it is certainly very logical of you to focus on the bigger picture. I'm not complaining. My angle is best understood when one considers that my view is that the loss of a system and a variation on a system are not equal. If there had been a gain of a system however, then I'd be more readily convinced that examples like these speak to the even bigger picture...

 

[rocketman]

So you decided to "fit" the definition to the examples given so percise that the definition just barely excluded most of the examples given... You know, some people use the definition and don't change it. If you used the extended definition? Hrm... a scientist uses the extended definition to define what is or isnt vestigal... One would think you would want to use that same definition...

Ryan, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I don't see the problem. As I said, my answers are the same regardless of which definition we use. As for the definition I had in mind at the time it was entirely consistent with what was being presented. My definition is a sub-definition of the wiki one. There is no 'fitting' involved. All of the examples given implied near total or total lack of function.

The fish-eyes I addressed differently because they are indeed vestigial, but we know what the lost system once did [gene therapy experiments have partially restored eyesight to some of the fish], whereas we can't prove what any of the other so-called 'reduced' systems might have once done, no matter how much we trust in homology.

If you actually study the wiki definition you'll see that a vestigial organ can be fully, partly or not functioning. The assertions from finalfrogo revolved around no or nearly no function. So, are you saying that finalfrogo put forth other types of vestiges, such as a fully-functional one?

Darn those scientists! Always guessing with what they do and never actually studying anything!

Does that include the ones who faked their stem-cell research, the ones who say that cryobiology will preserve your memories, the ones who deny global warming, or the ones who say that agent-orange never hurt anybody?

I thought 'guess' would sound less negative than 'assumption'. 'Educated guess' perhaps?

Yea, no evidence supporting their "guess" even has to be given for it to be widely accepted in the science world! Just like all those other science theories!

Can you present the evidence please? On the TalkOrigins page I see a lot of pictures of other animals caecums but none of what ours once looked like. Show me that we once had a rabbit-like caecum and I'll know your not guessing. If you tell me that some primates have this feature and therefore our version is vestigial, then by the same logic I could guess that all of us once never had it and the other primates only got it after we split. Now prove me wrong.

Hrm, alright... Now lets see what your links have said! Oh wait, you quoted the relavent part of the second link! ... Hrm, wait... did you post the relavent part? What about this from your second link?

The words in italics were from the wiki article. I apologize for any confusion.

Your first link states some uses of the appendix... Unless if you are debating the definition of vestigal should be "no use" this isn't very relavent...

I'll assume your incredible ommission was unintentional. Now go back and read the lengthy section on the TalkOrigins page where they try to determine if an appendix is at all useful. In any case, it is right of them to do so, because 'non-functional' is a part of the overall definition of vestigial according to the wiki definition - if it isn't then why are T.O. focusing on it? Of-course, they can't pin it to the mat there so they eventually switch back to the broader theory to cover all the bases, saying that non-functional doesn't count anyway. Far out. They could have stuck to their opening definition of vestige but they seemed intent on having a say on whether an appendix is at all useful. If you are consistent you will write to them and complain.

While we're at it let's consider that opening definition of a vestige: "Evolutionary vestiges are, technically, any diminished structure that previously had a greater physiological significance in an ancestor than at present. Independently of evolutionary theory, a vestige can also be defined typologically as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same homologous structure in other organisms, as one that lacks the complex functions usually found for that structure in other organisms"

First, the 'evolutionary definition' implies that we can know what physiological structures were present in ancestors. We may think we know some, but we certainly do not know them all. Like the ancient appendix structures for instance. This does not seem to stop people from guessing however. The appendix is actually a very good example of just how difficult it can be to determine all that an organ actually does, and that's for living tissue. To try to extend this to fossils is absurd. We have no way of determining if the ancient versions had greater OR lesser physiological significance. We can only make educated guesses. It's a wide-open definition.

Second, the 'independant definition' is simply another way of saying "homology proves vestigiality". That's a very weak argument scientifically speaking. Are all of the complexities and features of a class of structure required on all variant homologous species? No. This is what we would predict using assertions from both sides. At the end of the day we would expect homology everywhere for both the evolutionary model and the creationist model.

Uhh... So when science names something vestigal they are using the definition "lost main function but can still work and can develop new main functions" But yea, you are right, lets use a definition other than the science one to disprove them!

Wholly functionless is a legitimate derivative of that quote and you know it. This is the sub-definition one is using when one says "The eyes of cavefish cannot see. Crabs have tails they do not use." etc. By all means use the other definitions but they don't apply to what finalfrogo was asserting. Your attempt at paraphrasing reveals your discrimination against this part of the definition.

Hrm... in the same regard why shouldn't a scientist talking about gravity need to define what gravity means after the famous article about intelligent falling by the onion! Science has the definition and it doesn't change from scientist to scientist...

I meant for your benefit, not mine.

 

[Ryan2065]

Ryan, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I don't see the problem. As I said, my answers are the same regardless of which definition we use. As for the definition I had in mind at the time it was entirely consistent with what was being presented. My definition is a sub-definition of the wiki one. There is no 'fitting' involved. All of the examples given implied near total or total lack of function.

So instead of correcting finalfrogo and teaching us what the real definition of vestigal is, you decided to debate his version of the definition and show us those organs were in fact not vestigal.

The fish-eyes I addressed differently because they are indeed vestigial, but we know what the lost system once did [gene therapy experiments have partially restored eyesight to some of the fish], whereas we can't prove what any of the other so-called 'reduced' systems might have once done, no matter how much we trust in homology.

If you actually study the wiki definition you'll see that a vestigial organ can be fully, partly or not functioning. The assertions from finalfrogo revolved around no or nearly no function. So, are you saying that finalfrogo put forth other types of vestiges, such as a fully-functional one?

He did mention that those organs were not fully functional, and then you pointed out how each function actually worked... Also, vestigal structures do not have to be "reduced" systems... In terms of the penguin wings they have in fact gained a new use for "flying" underwater, but they still are vestigal because they lost their main purpose of flying.

Does that include the ones who faked their stem-cell research, the ones who say that cryobiology will preserve your memories, the ones who deny global warming, or the ones who say that agent-orange never hurt anybody?

I thought 'guess' would sound less negative than 'assumption'. 'Educated guess' perhaps?

Ahh... good to know you use examples of the majority of scientists rather than the minority. Because we know when the majority of scientists agree on something it really is a big conspiracy!

 

[Ryan2065]

Can you present the evidence please? On the TalkOrigins page I see a lot of pictures of other animals caecums but none of what ours once looked like. Show me that we once had a rabbit-like caecum and I'll know your not guessing. If you tell me that some primates have this feature and therefore our version is vestigial, then by the same logic I could guess that all of us once never had it and the other primates only got it after we split. Now prove me wrong.

I did not realize in order for the appendix to be a vestigal organ it had to look like a rabbit caecum... Some would leave it open to all animals but you apparently want to be specific... In case you want to stop being so specific here is the walk through of how our appendix is structurally homologous to the end of the mammalian caecum...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html#caecum

In vertebrate comparative anatomy, it has long been known that the human appendix and the end of the mammalian caecum are structurally homologous (Berry 1900; Fisher 2000; Hill 1974; Hyman 1979, p. 412; Kardong 2002, pp. 513-515; Kluge 1977, p. 1977; Neal and Rand 1936, p. 315; Romer and Parsons 1986, p. 389; Royster 1927, p. 27; Smith 1960, p. 305; Weichert 1967, p. 189; Wiedersheim 1886, p. 236; Wolff 1991, p. 384). Of course, the end of the caecum and the appendix can be homologous and have different functions. Being the termination of the caecum, the human vermiform appendix is also a "blind pouch," and another name for the appendix is in fact the "true caecal apex" (Berry 1900). Within the gastrointestinal tract of many vertebrates, mammals, and primates in particular, the termination of the caecum and the vermiform appendix share the same relative position (Figure 2), both have a similar structure and form, both are blind sacs enriched with lymphatic tissue (Berry 1900), both have a common developmental origin (Condon and Telford 1991; Williams and Myers 1994, p. 9), and, as discussed below, in the primates both are connected by an extensive series of intermediates. These observations firmly establish these structures as homologous by standard systematic criteria (Kitching et al. 1998, pp. 26-27; Remane 1952; Schuh 2000, pp. 63-64; Rieppel 1988, p. 202), a conclusion confirmed by cladistic systematic analysis (Goodman et al. 1998; Shoshani 1996).

Hrm, to say that the other mamals got the organ that is structurally homologous to our ogran after we split... Genius! Why doesn't science believe this? Oh yea... there is no evidence of this. However, if a part of a human is structurally homologous to the part of another animal, the actual chances of this developing the same way in both are so huge science doesn't consider it. If there was more evidence of this science would consider it, but otherwise there is no reason to consider it.

I'll assume your incredible ommission was unintentional. Now go back and read the lengthy section on the TalkOrigins page where they try to determine if an appendix is at all useful. In any case, it is right of them to do so, because 'non-functional' is a part of the overall definition of vestigial according to the wiki definition - if it isn't then why are T.O. focusing on it? Of-course, they can't pin it to the mat there so they eventually switch back to the broader theory to cover all the bases, saying that non-functional doesn't count anyway. Far out. They could have stuck to their opening definition of vestige but they seemed intent on having a say on whether an appendix is at all useful. If you are consistent you will write to them and complain.

Hrm, so you say they start saying vestigal means non-functional, then when they decide half way through the paper that this doesn't work, they decided to change the definition they were using to the other definition? Hrm... well here is the intro to the paper...

Given our current evolutionary knowledge of comparative anatomy and phylogenetics, many biological structures can be considered vestiges. In evolutionary discussions the human vermiform appendix is one of the most commonly cited, and most disputed, vestigial structures. Evolutionary vestiges are, technically, any diminished structure that previously had a greater physiological significance in an ancestor than at present. Independently of evolutionary theory, a vestige can also be defined typologically as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same homologous structure in other organisms, as one that lacks the complex functions usually found for that structure in other organisms (see, e.g. Geoffroy 1798).
Classic examples of vestiges are the wings of the ostrich and the eyes of blind cavefish. These vestigial structures may have functions of some sort. Nevertheless, what matters is that rudimentary ostrich wings are useless as normal flying wings, and that rudimentary cavefish eyes are useless as normal sighted eyes. Vestiges can be functional, and speculative arguments against vestiges based upon their possible functions completely miss the point.
For more discussion of the vestigial concept, extensive modern and historical references concerning its definition (especially the allowance for functionality), see the Citing Scadding (1981) and Misunderstanding Vestigiality and 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Anatomical vestiges FAQs.
The following discussion makes four main points:

1. The human appendix may have bona fide functions, but this is currently controversial, undemonstrated in humans, and irrelevant as to whether the appendix is a true vestige or not.
2. The appendix is a prime example of dysteleology (i.e. suboptimal structural design), a prediction of genetically gradual evolution.
3. The appendix is a rudimentary tip of the caecum and is useless as a normal, cellulose-digesting caecum.
4. Thus, the appendix is vestigial by both the evolutionary and non-evolutionary, typological definitions of vestigiality.

Also throughout the paper they make little shots showing that a hidden purpose of this paper is to show that an Intelligent Designer would not have created the human appendix the way it is made.