Is the vestigial organ argument a vestige of poor science

[SomeRandom]

Once upon a time the human body was full of so called vestigial organs. Now? arguably zero.

We were taught in school that there is a list of many vestigial organs and this is consistent with evolution and yet... that prediction of evolutionary science appears wrong and there are arguably no vestigial organs

for example:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090730-spleen-vestigial-organs_2.html
Vestigial Organs Not So Useless After All, Studies Find
Maggie Koerth-Baker
for National Geographic News
July 30, 2009
Appendix, tonsils, various redundant veins—they're all vestigial body parts once considered expendable, if not downright useless.

But as technology has advanced, researchers have found that, more often than not, some of these "junk parts" are actually hard at work.

Umm, no one has called the those useless in about 50 years grandpa. The hell taught you Biology? Ned Flanders?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually it does not

More confirmation that you clearly have no clue when it comes to the scientific method.

Tell me how does it fail? Don't rely on your poor understanding of Bacon, science has advanced since his time at any rate.

 

[Revoltingest]

Mine is always right!!!!

Mine is never right.
But it's never wrong either.

 

[ChristineM]

View attachment 22894 View attachment 22893

Well perhaps the Museum of Natural History can commission a cow to whale painting to their liking

Friendship between animals does not prove common ancestry either

 

[whirlingmerc]

That is because usually they have not done so.

If you have a PhD you really should be able to understand this. You might have severe cognitive dissonance. That could be the only excuse that I can think of and your refusal to discuss this topic properly.

Interesting. By properly... you mean seeing things your way?

 

[Revoltingest]

Only one problem here, religion (in this case abrahamic religions) have faith they start with perfect information when in fact they start with bronze age guesswork and do little to improve on that guesswork but argue over interpretation

That is indeed a problem for those who have The Truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You gave me what I asked for.
I thought the last link was your way of saying, 'Here get yourself educated about science.'
Was it what I asked about, then I'll look at it, otherwise,... sorry. This is a debate forum, not a science class.

Besides I informed you before hand.
Forum rules say
always provide a citation and limit your quotation to a paragraph or two rather than quoting the entire content (see Rule 4 for additional guidelines)

Sometimes that is not practical. My trusty home computer died after about nine years. For the day or two I was using a cheap tablet I found it very difficult to quote an article.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Umm, no one has called the those useless in about 50 years grandpa. The hell taught you Biology? Ned Flanders?

By no one? you mean... not as many as before?
here's one still claiming appendix... tonsils.. talk bone..
https://io9.gizmodo.com/5829687/10-vestigial-traits-you-didnt-know-you-had

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting. By properly... you mean seeing things your way?

No, seeing things the way that the vast majority of scientists see things. I gave you a link on observation that explained why you were wrong about not being observable. Here is a key quote from it:

"Any data recorded during an experiment can be called an observation."

Each new fossil find is an "experiment". One does not know ahead of time what one will find. We can observe whale evolution in the fossil record and now we can observe it in DNA.

 

[nPeace]

You obviously still do not comprehend the scientific method so fall back on the old mockery again

Please provide evidence of a creator, the supernatural... ou and et's.[/QUOTE]
Here we go again. What does the scientific method have to do with

the supernatural

As for ETs, see wiki.

 

[ChristineM]

And there's the rub... the creator is not 'in the box' of the universe unless he wants to but out of the box and hence a serious limitation of naturalistic science - or a blind spot if you prefer

So no evidence then??? Thought not, and here lies your problem .you cannot provide evidence for your delusion so poopoo any real evidence that contradicts that delusion

And since when did you begin deciding the laws of the universe

And when did you begin knowing your gods mind/actions/address?

 

[Subduction Zone]

By no one? you mean... not as many as before?
here's one still claiming appendix...
https://io9.gizmodo.com/5829687/10-vestigial-traits-you-didnt-know-you-had

How does that article support your claim? The first example refuted your claim.

 

[nPeace]

You obviously still do not comprehend the scientific method so fall back on the old mockery again

Please provide evidence of a creator, the supernatural... ou and et's.

And there's the rub... the creator is not 'in the box' of the universe unless he wants to but out of the box and hence a serious limitation of naturalistic science - or a blind spot if you prefer

I left out the creator bit, because a creator can be inferred.

 

[ChristineM]

Here we go again. What does the scientific method have to do with
As for ETs, see wiki.

So still no evidence, how predictable.

A Wiki does not constitute evidence, i really thought you would be aware of the definition of evidence considering you refuse to provide any but demand it of others. You should at least be aware of what you are asking for

 

[SomeRandom]

By no one? you mean... not as many as before?
here's one still claiming appendix... tonsils.. talk bone..
https://io9.gizmodo.com/5829687/10-vestigial-traits-you-didnt-know-you-had

Umm actually the link pretty much starts out with the explanation of how the Appendix acts as a safe house for bad bacteria. Something I vaguely recall learning back in like primary school science class during the goddamned 1990s!

 

[nPeace]

Sometimes that is not practical. My trusty home computer died after about nine years. For the day or two I was using a cheap tablet I found it very difficult to quote an article.

Why do you think the rule was made? If the power went out, how many of us could type?

 

[Jose Fly]

Even Richard Dawson couldn't think of an example of where information increased in a point mutation...

Was that on Hogan's Heroes or Family Feud?

Either way, I call Poe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I left out the creator bit, because a creator can be inferred.

Not without at least some reliable evidence.

 

[nPeace]

So still no evidence, how predictable.

A Wiki does not constitute evidence, i really thought you would be aware of the definition of evidence considering you refuse to provide any but demand it of others. You should at least be aware of what you are asking for

You asked about ETs, I gave you info on the fact that it is considered a testable hypothesis.
The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a collective term for scientific searches for intelligent extraterrestrial life, for example, monitoring electromagnetic radiation for signs of transmissions from civilizations on other planets.

 

[Jose Fly]

When someone "knowledgeable" tells you this
Not a few bones but many along with dna (which cannot lie), comparative anatomy and anthropology. 50 years ago the conclusion was interred, but you are behind the times because it suites your agenda, now, 50 years later things have moved on and the evidence is sound

.and someone "knowledgeable" tells you this
And most of science is "inferring". It is inference based upon evidence and testing.
You wonder, so what are these "knowledgeable" people making so much noise about?

With so much evidence around us, why don't you infer a creator.
Ah. The scientific method cannot include the supernatural - only ETs.
Too bad.

We convict and sentence people to death based on inferences from data, so I'm not sure why you think inference is an issue.

Should we release everyone convicted of crimes for which there were no eye witnesses?