Vestigial Organs as Proof of Evolution

[PoliticalChic]

ah yes that reminded me Kiois: PC, what do you think vestigiality means? I can't help notice you avoid this question repeatedly as well.

See the OP.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I couldn't help but notice that you avoided a rather straightforward clarification question to the OP: does the OP suggest that the case for or against vestigiality has anything to do with evolution? This is a simple yes or no answer you took several lines to avoid.

Following this up, I couldn't help but notice that you completely avoided the fact that you still don't actually understand what vestigiality means, as pointed out by multiple people in this thread, and that YOUR OWN SOURCES contradict the claims of the OP.

Let me ask you this, to amuse myself with your answer: what do you think vestigiality means?


the best support you have is an opinion paper from nearly 40 years ago? So when I made the statement "Lucky for us, we don't live in 1960, so we don't need to rely only on fossil evidence" you figured that the 70s would be a better basis of scientific perspective? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Well, I'm sure in the 70s you were busy looking up these articles by going to your local medical library, using the dewy decimal system, finding the paper archived version, and if you were lucky, photocopying it. Here in 2013, I will simply use this thing called the internet to quickly point you towards the right direction: Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wait, how bout instead of evidence from 40 years ago, you get some survey about the opinions of random people's opinions instead? That's good enough for creationists, right?

So....you have a problem with a paper dated 1975?
Not with the dispositive nature of the paper, the date?

But you wrote "... Lucky for us, we don't live in 1960,..."

The only way you'd be considered bright would be if I threw a lamp at you.

I only have a problem with the human brain becoming a vestigial organ, which I fear more and more with every post you add herein.

Why are you so afraid of me?

The spankings I've been forced to administer?


Poor baby.

 

[Koios]

So....you have a problem with a paper dated 1975?
Not with the dispositive nature of the paper, the date?

But you wrote "... Lucky for us, we don't live in 1960,..."

The only way you'd be considered bright would be if I threw a lamp at you.

I only have a problem with the human brain becoming a vestigial organ, which I fear more and more with every post you add herein.

Why are you so afraid of me?

The spankings I've been forced to administer?


Poor baby.

Yes; that. Good of you to notice my shear terror in taking you on.

But why? God only knows, since really, you're an imbecile who no one should fear.

Seems some therapy might help me deal with my irrational fears.

Off to make an appointment ...

 

[PoliticalChic]

I only have a problem with the human brain becoming a vestigial organ, which I fear more and more with every post you add herein.

Why are you so afraid of me?

The spankings I've been forced to administer?


Poor baby.

Yes; that. Good of you to notice my shear terror in taking you on.

But why? God only knows, since really, you're an imbecile who no one should fear.

Seems some therapy might help me deal with my irrational fears.

Off to make an appointment ...

It's certainly true that you're "off"...but it nothing to do with any appointment.


I rather enjoy holding up the mirror for you to consider your boorish visage, both to tickle my funny bone, and for your embarrassment.

 

[Koios]

Why are you so afraid of me?

The spankings I've been forced to administer?


Poor baby.

Yes; that. Good of you to notice my shear terror in taking you on.

But why? God only knows, since really, you're an imbecile who no one should fear.

Seems some therapy might help me deal with my irrational fears.

Off to make an appointment ...

It's certainly true that you're "off"...but it nothing to do with any appointment.


I rather enjoy holding up the mirror for you to consider your boorish visage, both to tickle my funny bone, and for your embarrassment.

My; how intuitive you are. Hahahahahahaha.

 

[newpolitics]

Why are you so afraid of me?

The spankings I've been forced to administer?


Poor baby.

Yes; that. Good of you to notice my shear terror in taking you on.

But why? God only knows, since really, you're an imbecile who no one should fear.

Seems some therapy might help me deal with my irrational fears.

Off to make an appointment ...

It's certainly true that you're "off"...but it nothing to do with any appointment.


I rather enjoy holding up the mirror for you to consider your boorish visage, both to tickle my funny bone, and for your embarrassment.

The fact that you think you are intelligent enough to reflect anything resembling reality onto anyone is a true sign of both your delusion and idiocy. The only thing you reflect are aberrations of a distant reality you are manifestly unable to grasp. Stick to reading Ann Coulter and worshipping her poster on your wall.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes; that. Good of you to notice my shear terror in taking you on.

But why? God only knows, since really, you're an imbecile who no one should fear.

Seems some therapy might help me deal with my irrational fears.

Off to make an appointment ...

It's certainly true that you're "off"...but it nothing to do with any appointment.


I rather enjoy holding up the mirror for you to consider your boorish visage, both to tickle my funny bone, and for your embarrassment.

The fact that you think you are intelligent enough to reflect anything resembling reality onto anyone is a true sign of both your delusion and idiocy. The only thing you reflect are aberrations of a distant reality you are manifestly unable to grasp. Stick to reading Ann Coulter and worshipping her poster on your wall.

Syphilis!

What are you doing back here?

Finished dinner at the dumpster?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

ah yes that reminded me Kiois: PC, what do you think vestigiality means? I can't help notice you avoid this question repeatedly as well.

See the OP.

Ah, thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I had overlooked your copied and pasted definition from Yahoo Answers, a highly reputable source written by random people on the internet without credentials, who normally dumb things down for people like you.

By the way, that definition is incorrect. Just thought I'd point it out. Again.

Vestigiality does not equate to "not pertinent today." It more closely can be summarized as lost original main function. You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you? You don't even have a decent understanding of the basic vocabulary you're using!

 

[newpolitics]

It's certainly true that you're "off"...but it nothing to do with any appointment.


I rather enjoy holding up the mirror for you to consider your boorish visage, both to tickle my funny bone, and for your embarrassment.

The fact that you think you are intelligent enough to reflect anything resembling reality onto anyone is a true sign of both your delusion and idiocy. The only thing you reflect are aberrations of a distant reality you are manifestly unable to grasp. Stick to reading Ann Coulter and worshipping her poster on your wall.

Syphilis!

What are you doing back here?

Finished dinner at the dumpster?

Funny that you would mention a bacterial infection, which belongs to a class of organisms who's observation and manipulation are yet another confirmation of evolution. In fact, it is our understanding of evolution that allowed us to create vaccines against such infections. Do you want a shovel to dig this hole your in?

 

[Koios]

The fact that you think you are intelligent enough to reflect anything resembling reality onto anyone is a true sign of both your delusion and idiocy. The only thing you reflect are aberrations of a distant reality you are manifestly unable to grasp. Stick to reading Ann Coulter and worshipping her poster on your wall.

Syphilis!

What are you doing back here?

Finished dinner at the dumpster?

Funny that you would mention a bacterial infection, which belongs to a class of organisms who's observation and manipulation are yet another confirmation of evolution. Do you want a shovel to dig this hole your in?

I am going to have a T-shirt made!!!!

Syphilis - proof of God's love for us.

 

[newpolitics]

Syphilis!

What are you doing back here?

Finished dinner at the dumpster?

Funny that you would mention a bacterial infection, which belongs to a class of organisms who's observation and manipulation are yet another confirmation of evolution. Do you want a shovel to dig this hole your in?

I am going to have a T-shirt made!!!!

Syphilis - proof of God's love for us.

Haven't you heard? It's the argument from death and destruction. They keep this one under wraps though, since it wouldn't bode well for an all-benevolent war god, which itself, is a paradox. There are so many blatant contradictions Christian theology. It's truly hilarious these jack wagons blame the perceived decline of society on the lack of faith in this myth.

 

[zombiehunter696]

You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you? You don't even have a decent understanding of the basic vocabulary you're using!

This describes your average creationist quite well. They know next to nothing about evolution or science, but they are sure it's false because their beliefs in magical fairy tales are true. It's why I(or any scientist really) never debate with them. It's like trying to play a game with someone who doesn't know the rules.

Ever notice they can never produce any evidence for creation? They just try(and fail) to attack evolution.

If any creationist thinks they have it, why not submit it for peer review? You'd be famous beyond imagination. Oh right, there's an evil conspiracy of scientists hiding all the evidence or it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

ah yes that reminded me Kiois: PC, what do you think vestigiality means? I can't help notice you avoid this question repeatedly as well.

See the OP.

Ah, thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I had overlooked your copied and pasted definition from Yahoo Answers, a highly reputable source written by random people on the internet without credentials, who normally dumb things down for people like you.

By the way, that definition is incorrect. Just thought I'd point it out. Again.

Vestigiality does not equate to "not pertinent today." It more closely can be summarized as lost original main function. You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you? You don't even have a decent understanding of the basic vocabulary you're using!

I love to study the phenomenon of inquisition in you acolytes of evolution. I get a real chuckle when any debate the question of the popular ‘theory’…but for some reason, you devotees get incensed when anyone doesn’t march in lock-step.
Especially in cases such as this...where I prove you wrong.

Now…why is that?
Because you are secure in your ‘faith’?
Hardly.
It is because of your fear that the central belief in what you think of as science may be wrong.





From the OP: “Vestigial Organ: This is an organ that served a purpose in the distant ancestor of an organism, but is not longer pertinent in the presently existing, recently evolved, organisms. An example would be the muscles we have that can move our ears a bit. Since human ears cannot be reorientated like some animals can (and presumably our long gone ancestors from million of years ago) then those muscle do not serve much purpose (except for mild entertainment). Another example would be our tail bone.” What is a vestigial organ? give an example? - Yahoo! Answers

But you threw a fit!

“ I had overlooked your copied and pasted definition from Yahoo Answers, a highly reputable source written by random people on the internet without credentials, who normally dumb things down for people like you.

By the way, that definition is incorrect. Just thought I'd point it out. Again.

Vestigiality does not equate to "not pertinent today." It more closely can be summarized as lost original main function. You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you? You don't even have a decent understanding of the basic vocabulary you're using”

Well….let’s see:

1. Vestigial structures: nonfunctional structures in an organism that are a remnant of structures that were functional in some ancestral form of the organism. Schraer and Stoltze,”Biology,” p. 926

2. The concept of vestigiality applies to genetically determined structures or attributes that have apparently lost most or all of its ancestral function in a given species. Vestigiality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. Vestigial refers to an organ or part (for example, the human appendix) which is greatly reduced from the originalancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function. Vestigial structures provide a clue to the evolutionary history of a species because they are remnants of structures found in the ancestral species. Vestigial - definition from Biology-Online.org

4. Bet this one really burn you up:
'In Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) and in his later works, he referred to several "vestiges" in human anatomy that were left over from the course of evolution. These vestigial organs, Darwin argued, are evidence of evolution and represent a function that was once necessary for survival, but over time that function became either diminished or nonexistent.'
Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs) | LiveScience

5. And this:
One of the most often cited evidences for human evolution is the existence of vestigial structures. Vestigial structures are body parts that seemingly have no purpose or function. Perhaps they once did, but somewhere along the way they lost their functions and are now basically useless.
Vestigial Structures in Humans





Now, calm down....you know what the Doctor said about your blood pressure.

Seems that this applies to you, rather than to me: “source written by random people on the internet without credentials, who normally dumb things down for people like you.”
That sound? Me laughing at you.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

it appears that you didn't actually read your own sources, seeing as the ones you just listed are different from your original one. you see your original one states vestigiality means no function. These new definitions refer to "lost most" and "reduced" or "altered" or "dimished." Are you incapable of understanding the differences?

Let's go back to the appendix, since you like it so much. It's function today is mostly part of the immune system, much like all the other immune-rich areas of the intestine. But this wasn't it's original function in the least. It's original function is completely gone. The only thing remaining is a greatly diminished non-original function. Now let's look at your wikipedia reference: "structures or attributes that have apparently lost most or all of its ancestral function." Is that an accurate description of an appendix? Yep.

See your argument only works if you completely ignore the actual definition of the thing you're arguing, and reduce it to some dumb hick interpretation instead. So, yes, you're still wrong. Your own sources prove you are wrong. You can whine about faith and blood pressure, but your own sources prove you wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

it appears that you didn't actually read your own sources, seeing as the ones you just listed are different from your original one. you see your original one states vestigiality means no function. These new definitions refer to "lost most" and "reduced" or "altered" or "dimished." Are you incapable of understanding the differences?

Let's go back to the appendix, since you like it so much. It's function today is mostly part of the immune system, much like all the other immune-rich areas of the intestine. But this wasn't it's original function in the least. It's original function is completely gone. The only thing remaining is a greatly diminished non-original function. Now let's look at your wikipedia reference: "structures or attributes that have apparently lost most or all of its ancestral function." Is that an accurate description of an appendix? Yep.

See your argument only works if you completely ignore the actual definition of the thing you're arguing, and reduce it to some dumb hick interpretation instead. So, yes, you're still wrong. Your own sources prove you are wrong. You can whine about faith and blood pressure, but your own sources prove you wrong.

No, let's stick to the definition of vestigial organ, which I correctly identified and you didn't...

...and while we're at it....consider why it sticks in your craw.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

i'm citing your own sources. ones which have a bit more reliability than a random person aswering a yahoo answers question. your own sources continue to prove you wrong. you can complain they don't count now for some reason, but your own sources show you to be wrong. sorry.

 

[PoliticalChic]

i'm citing your own sources. ones which have a bit more reliability than a random person aswering a yahoo answers question. your own sources continue to prove you wrong. you can complain they don't count now for some reason, but your own sources show you to be wrong. sorry.

The multiple sources agree with that in the OP.

You....tap-dancing as fast as you can.

Why?

It's clear that the vestigial organ argument no longer can be used as a main support for the theory known as 'Darwinian evolution.'

Why are you exercised to the point of fear over this development?

 

[Freemason9]

What's the point of all this, PC? What is it that you're trying to say? The earth is 6,000 years old? Prove it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What's the point of all this, PC? What is it that you're trying to say? The earth is 6,000 years old? Prove it.

I believe it is quite clear as what contemporary scientists, and the OP, was saying.

Hint: the subject was vestigial organs, not the age of the earth.

If you'd like to initiate a thread re: the age of the earth....please, don't hesitate.