Vestigial Organs as Proof of Evolution

[newpolitics]

Considering that the first statement of your op is patently false, I can't imagine the rest could get any better. Science is the not collection if correct knowledge. Correct knowledge is handled by epistemology. Science is a methodology designed to reveal demonstrable truths.

Vestigial organs exist in a multitude of animals. Your smug assertions to the contrary are backed only by the opinions of some scientists. This an argument ad populim. Any moron looking at the anatomy of a human can see a tail bone that is no longer expressed genetically, although every so often, the dormant gene controlling what was the tail will be activated and human babies will develop tails. This tailbone alone falsifies your premise.

1. Why the heck would you deprive me of the amusement of proving what a dim-wit you are???
Stick to your own baliwick!

"....backed only by the opinions of some scientists."

Now say "duh..."



2. "Any moron looking at the anatomy of a human can see a tail bone that is no longer expressed genetically, although every so often, the dormant gene controlling what was the tail will be activated and human babies will develop tails. This tailbone alone falsifies your premise."

Now for your remedial:

In 1994, however, renowned anatomy professor David Menton produced evidence disproving the idea that the coccyx is vestigial. “[M]ost modern biology textbooks give the erroneous impression that the human coccyx has no real function other than to remind us of the ‘inescapable fact’ of evolution,” Menton wrote in Essays on Origins.

He explained that among the key functions of the coccyx is its acting as an anchor point for several converging muscles from the ring-like arrangement of the pelvic bones. “The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs” (ibid). Removal of the coccyx often causes incontinence and serious difficulties with sitting, standing or giving birth.

The evolutionary faithful long considered the tailbone vestigial and pointed to it as evidence against creation. But the tailbone, too, was placed in the body for a purpose."
Evolution?s ?Unnecessary? Organs - theTrumpet.com


3. QED...you're not just "Any moron..."
No indeed....you're a special variety of same.

Keep up the good work.

Your calling me a moron, and you doubt the evidence for evolution? Presumably you are a Christian creationist who read a 2000 year old book and beleieves the creation fairy tale. It's easy to criticize competing theories, however, trying showing evidence for your god. considering you have Zero evidence for your own claims, your position is laughable. add to it the utter bitchiness with which you present yourself and you have full blown idiocy. you Might want to get that checked.

Your little story about the coccyx is also idiotic. The argument is not that the coccyx has no purpose at all. Of course the base of a tailbone will be used for anchoring muscles. The question is? Did the tailbone used to be the base of a tale? The answer, verified through DNA, is use, proving the tailbone to be vestigial as far as being the vase for an appendage. That a vestigial organ still has a purpose does not mean it is not vestigial, necessarily. Evolution will find ways to was to utilize everything so calories are not wasted and efficiency is achieved. The appendix being used to grow bacteria is not what appendixes are use for in other species. It's vestigial status has been utilized as best as possible. It's pretty simple idea, yet you are so indoctrinated by religious conservatism, you wouldn't know truth of it smacked you in the face

 

[PoliticalChic]

Then you noticed the opposite of what in fact I did: narrow the scope by merely bitch-slapping the retarded fucking assertion that vestigial organs do not exist in human species ... which btw, only a very tiny, tiny minority of scientists, often in unrelated areas of research, who are further on intellectual lock-down when it comes to religion, are disputing, in contrast to the overwhelming plurality of scientists whose sole focus is life sciences.

Getting in warring quotes by "scientists" is folly. Just cut to the chase and say what is factual.

As you seeing, or is the truth something you cannot handle?

"...who are further on intellectual lock-down when it comes to religion,..."

Can you provide the links as to the scientists named in the OP.....or are you just making stuff up?

No. Merely the non scientists who compile these lists and interpret the myriad snippets from, for example, an immunologist who posits that our appendixes may serve a purpose of storing beneficial bacteria. Not an evolutionary biologist, nor a genecist, but a doc dealing with immune diseases, who may or may not be a Creationist (I doubt very much he is.) But the list source you quote, indeed seems to be and was merely requoting another religionist and apparent evolution-denier.

So in fact, what you have, is bullshit. Whether one or 100 vestigial organs, etc prove to not be vestigial, at some point, IT DOES NOT MEAN ALL VESTIGIALTIES ARE WRONG. The animal kingdom, of which we are members, are rife with vestigialities.

1. I ask you to put you money where your mouth is, i.e., can you document that those scientists who exposed the fraud were all religious folk, and you, correctly answered
"No."

2. So...you admit you made it up....but then continue. You went to government schools, huh?


3 ."Not an evolutionary biologist, nor a genecist, ...."
And, you are which of the above?


a. How about "A 2011 study showed that the appendix also helps generate, guide and train white blood cells, especially for fetuses and children. Valerie O’Loughlin, a professor of medical sciences at Indiana University, said it is “the site where a type of white blood cell called b-lymphocytes can be recognized and where the newborn and young child’s body can start to recognize certain pathogens that are in the [gastrointestinal] tract.”

Professor of medical sciences a notch below you as well?



4. "...who may or may not be a Creationist (I doubt very much he is.)"

Do you realize how schizo you sound here?

5. "But the list source you quote, indeed seems to be and was merely requoting another religionist and apparent evolution-denier."

See if you get this: non-science folks, i.e., 'secular science' dismiss any evidence that doesn't comport with their pre-determined belief.
Sounds like that would be you, huh?


6. BTW, this, from the OP: "History is littered with body parts that were called "useless" simply because medical science had yet to understand them, Laitman (director of anatomy and functional morphology at New York City's Mount Sinai School of Medicine and president-elect of the American Association of Anatomists( said. Vestigial Organs Not So Useless After All, Studies Find'

....was from those 'oh-so-religious nut' over at National Geographic.
Go ahead, click on the link.



So…you motto is ‘I ain’t much for fancy book-learnin’....?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Considering that the first statement of your op is patently false, I can't imagine the rest could get any better. Science is the not collection if correct knowledge. Correct knowledge is handled by epistemology. Science is a methodology designed to reveal demonstrable truths.

Vestigial organs exist in a multitude of animals. Your smug assertions to the contrary are backed only by the opinions of some scientists. This an argument ad populim. Any moron looking at the anatomy of a human can see a tail bone that is no longer expressed genetically, although every so often, the dormant gene controlling what was the tail will be activated and human babies will develop tails. This tailbone alone falsifies your premise.

1. Why the heck would you deprive me of the amusement of proving what a dim-wit you are???
Stick to your own baliwick!

"....backed only by the opinions of some scientists."

Now say "duh..."



2. "Any moron looking at the anatomy of a human can see a tail bone that is no longer expressed genetically, although every so often, the dormant gene controlling what was the tail will be activated and human babies will develop tails. This tailbone alone falsifies your premise."

Now for your remedial:

In 1994, however, renowned anatomy professor David Menton produced evidence disproving the idea that the coccyx is vestigial. “[M]ost modern biology textbooks give the erroneous impression that the human coccyx has no real function other than to remind us of the ‘inescapable fact’ of evolution,” Menton wrote in Essays on Origins.

He explained that among the key functions of the coccyx is its acting as an anchor point for several converging muscles from the ring-like arrangement of the pelvic bones. “The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs” (ibid). Removal of the coccyx often causes incontinence and serious difficulties with sitting, standing or giving birth.

The evolutionary faithful long considered the tailbone vestigial and pointed to it as evidence against creation. But the tailbone, too, was placed in the body for a purpose."
Evolution?s ?Unnecessary? Organs - theTrumpet.com


3. QED...you're not just "Any moron..."
No indeed....you're a special variety of same.

Keep up the good work.

Your calling me a moron, and you doubt the evidence for evolution? Presumably you are a Christian creationist who read a 2000 year old book and beleieves the creation fairy tale. It's easy to criticize competing theories, however, trying showing evidence for your god. considering you have Zero evidence for your own claims, your position is laughable. add to it the utter bitchiness with which you present yourself and you have full blown idiocy. you Might want to get that checked.

Your little story about the coccyx is also idiotic. The argument is not that the coccyx has no purpose at all. Of course the base of a tailbone will be used for anchoring muscles. The question is? Did the tailbone used to be the base of a tale? The answer, verified through DNA, is use, proving the tailbone to be vestigial as far as being the vase for an appendage. That a vestigial organ still has a purpose does not mean it is not vestigial, necessarily. Evolution will find ways to was to utilize everything so calories are not wasted and efficiency is achieved. The appendix being used to grow bacteria is not what appendixes are use for in other species. It's vestigial status has been utilized as best as possible. It's pretty simple idea, yet you are so indoctrinated by religious conservatism, you wouldn't know truth of it smacked you in the face

1. "and you doubt the evidence for evolution?"

I note your attention span is that of a ferret on a double espresso.

Again....the question under discussion is vestigial organs.




2. "Presumably you are...."

Here is the unmitigated proof that you are a moron.
What difference the personal beliefs of any who provide facts, evidence???

Presumably you were so angry over the 9/11 attacks that you've stopped using Arabic numerals. What time is it...X after V?
Moron.


3. "Zero evidence for your own claims,..."
Not my claims....
....and evidence can be found in the OP.
Moron.


4. "It's vestigial status has been utilized..."
You mean 'proven'?
If you understood science, you'd realize one doen't prove an organ has
no function.....
....one can only say that no function has been found, to date.
Of course, that is not the case for the appendix.
Illiterate.


5. "It's pretty simple idea, yet you are so indoctrinated by religious conservatism, you wouldn't know truth of it smacked you in the face "

Well, I must say I've enjoyed playing Cagney, with the half grapefruit in yours.

 

[Koios]

"...who are further on intellectual lock-down when it comes to religion,..."

Can you provide the links as to the scientists named in the OP.....or are you just making stuff up?

No. Merely the non scientists who compile these lists and interpret the myriad snippets from, for example, an immunologist who posits that our appendixes may serve a purpose of storing beneficial bacteria. Not an evolutionary biologist, nor a genecist, but a doc dealing with immune diseases, who may or may not be a Creationist (I doubt very much he is.) But the list source you quote, indeed seems to be and was merely requoting another religionist and apparent evolution-denier.

So in fact, what you have, is bullshit. Whether one or 100 vestigial organs, etc prove to not be vestigial, at some point, IT DOES NOT MEAN ALL VESTIGIALTIES ARE WRONG. The animal kingdom, of which we are members, are rife with vestigialities.

1. I ask you to put you money where your mouth is, i.e., can you document that those scientists who exposed the fraud were all religious folk, and you, correctly answered
"No."

2. So...you admit you made it up....but then continue. You went to government schools, huh?


3 ."Not an evolutionary biologist, nor a genecist, ...."
And, you are which of the above?


a. How about "A 2011 study showed that the appendix also helps generate, guide and train white blood cells, especially for fetuses and children. Valerie O’Loughlin, a professor of medical sciences at Indiana University, said it is “the site where a type of white blood cell called b-lymphocytes can be recognized and where the newborn and young child’s body can start to recognize certain pathogens that are in the [gastrointestinal] tract.”

Professor of medical sciences a notch below you as well?



4. "...who may or may not be a Creationist (I doubt very much he is.)"

Do you realize how schizo you sound here?

5. "But the list source you quote, indeed seems to be and was merely requoting another religionist and apparent evolution-denier."

See if you get this: non-science folks, i.e., 'secular science' dismiss any evidence that doesn't comport with their pre-determined belief.
Sounds like that would be you, huh?


6. BTW, this, from the OP: "History is littered with body parts that were called "useless" simply because medical science had yet to understand them, Laitman (director of anatomy and functional morphology at New York City's Mount Sinai School of Medicine and president-elect of the American Association of Anatomists( said. Vestigial Organs Not So Useless After All, Studies Find'

....was from those 'oh-so-religious nut' over at National Geographic.
Go ahead, click on the link.



So…you motto is ‘I ain’t much for fancy book-learnin’....?

No. That's not what the "scientist" said. (Fraud exposed!) They're merely suggesting some benefit may come from appendixes, etc. Then abject fucking retards (Creationists) distort it, and say, essentially, what you're attributing to the doc who thinks he might be onto something; maybe with peer review, it'll hold up. Who knows? But indeed, the doc is not saying what you're concluding: vestigials are a fraud. If I'm wrong, quote him and show me.

But then, it's not determined that things are vestages of our earlier stages in evolution are thus, merely because folks come to realize that haven't the foggiest what good some organ serves. They go deeper, and find other species with the same or a remarkably similar organ which has evolved some more, where it serve a real valuable purpose in nature, which for early humanoid species, would have have been real valuable, too. Thus we have them, even though today, they're unneeded, to do what they do in other species. (why it evolved) And indeed, appendixes are thus, even still. But even if they prove to not be, and evolved in us differently and for a different reason, it does not mean vestigials are bunk, nor that evolution, which is supported myriad other shit, is now invalid.

In fact, thinking that, would make one an "abject fucking moron," which if you were to look up in the dictionary, would make you think, 'Wow; I'm so like that."

Thus don't get out any books, including dictionaries. Enjoy the bliss of ignorance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No. Merely the non scientists who compile these lists and interpret the myriad snippets from, for example, an immunologist who posits that our appendixes may serve a purpose of storing beneficial bacteria. Not an evolutionary biologist, nor a genecist, but a doc dealing with immune diseases, who may or may not be a Creationist (I doubt very much he is.) But the list source you quote, indeed seems to be and was merely requoting another religionist and apparent evolution-denier.

So in fact, what you have, is bullshit. Whether one or 100 vestigial organs, etc prove to not be vestigial, at some point, IT DOES NOT MEAN ALL VESTIGIALTIES ARE WRONG. The animal kingdom, of which we are members, are rife with vestigialities.

1. I ask you to put you money where your mouth is, i.e., can you document that those scientists who exposed the fraud were all religious folk, and you, correctly answered
"No."

2. So...you admit you made it up....but then continue. You went to government schools, huh?


3 ."Not an evolutionary biologist, nor a genecist, ...."
And, you are which of the above?


a. How about "A 2011 study showed that the appendix also helps generate, guide and train white blood cells, especially for fetuses and children. Valerie O’Loughlin, a professor of medical sciences at Indiana University, said it is “the site where a type of white blood cell called b-lymphocytes can be recognized and where the newborn and young child’s body can start to recognize certain pathogens that are in the [gastrointestinal] tract.”

Professor of medical sciences a notch below you as well?



4. "...who may or may not be a Creationist (I doubt very much he is.)"

Do you realize how schizo you sound here?

5. "But the list source you quote, indeed seems to be and was merely requoting another religionist and apparent evolution-denier."

See if you get this: non-science folks, i.e., 'secular science' dismiss any evidence that doesn't comport with their pre-determined belief.
Sounds like that would be you, huh?


6. BTW, this, from the OP: "History is littered with body parts that were called "useless" simply because medical science had yet to understand them, Laitman (director of anatomy and functional morphology at New York City's Mount Sinai School of Medicine and president-elect of the American Association of Anatomists( said. Vestigial Organs Not So Useless After All, Studies Find'

....was from those 'oh-so-religious nut' over at National Geographic.
Go ahead, click on the link.



So…you motto is ‘I ain’t much for fancy book-learnin’....?

No. That's not what the "scientist" said. (Fraud exposed!) They're merely suggesting some benefit may come from appendixes, etc. Then abject fucking retards (Creationists) distort it, and say, essentially, what you're attributing to the doc who thinks he might be onto something; maybe with peer review, it'll hold up. Who knows? But indeed, the doc is not saying what you're concluding: vestigials are a fraud. If I'm wrong, quote him and show me.

But then, it's not determined that things are vestages of our earlier stages in evolution are thus, merely because folks come to realize that haven't the foggiest what good some organ serves. They go deeper, and find other species with the same or a remarkably similar organ which has evolved some more, where it serve a real valuable purpose in nature, which for early humanoid species, would have have been real valuable, too. Thus we have them, even though today, they're unneeded, to do what they do in other species. (why it evolved) And indeed, appendixes are thus, even still. But even if they prove to not be, and evolved in us differently and for a different reason, it does not mean vestigials are bunk, nor that evolution, which is supported myriad other shit, is now invalid.

In fact, thinking that, would make one an "abject fucking moron," which if you were to look up in the dictionary, would make you think, 'Wow; I'm so like that."

Thus don't get out any books, including dictionaries. Enjoy the bliss of ignorance.

Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.

 

[Koios]

1. I ask you to put you money where your mouth is, i.e., can you document that those scientists who exposed the fraud were all religious folk, and you, correctly answered
"No."

2. So...you admit you made it up....but then continue. You went to government schools, huh?


3 ."Not an evolutionary biologist, nor a genecist, ...."
And, you are which of the above?


a. How about "A 2011 study showed that the appendix also helps generate, guide and train white blood cells, especially for fetuses and children. Valerie O’Loughlin, a professor of medical sciences at Indiana University, said it is “the site where a type of white blood cell called b-lymphocytes can be recognized and where the newborn and young child’s body can start to recognize certain pathogens that are in the [gastrointestinal] tract.”

Professor of medical sciences a notch below you as well?



4. "...who may or may not be a Creationist (I doubt very much he is.)"

Do you realize how schizo you sound here?

5. "But the list source you quote, indeed seems to be and was merely requoting another religionist and apparent evolution-denier."

See if you get this: non-science folks, i.e., 'secular science' dismiss any evidence that doesn't comport with their pre-determined belief.
Sounds like that would be you, huh?


6. BTW, this, from the OP: "History is littered with body parts that were called "useless" simply because medical science had yet to understand them, Laitman (director of anatomy and functional morphology at New York City's Mount Sinai School of Medicine and president-elect of the American Association of Anatomists( said. Vestigial Organs Not So Useless After All, Studies Find'

....was from those 'oh-so-religious nut' over at National Geographic.
Go ahead, click on the link.



So…you motto is ‘I ain’t much for fancy book-learnin’....?

No. That's not what the "scientist" said. (Fraud exposed!) They're merely suggesting some benefit may come from appendixes, etc. Then abject fucking retards (Creationists) distort it, and say, essentially, what you're attributing to the doc who thinks he might be onto something; maybe with peer review, it'll hold up. Who knows? But indeed, the doc is not saying what you're concluding: vestigials are a fraud. If I'm wrong, quote him and show me.

But then, it's not determined that things are vestages of our earlier stages in evolution are thus, merely because folks come to realize that haven't the foggiest what good some organ serves. They go deeper, and find other species with the same or a remarkably similar organ which has evolved some more, where it serve a real valuable purpose in nature, which for early humanoid species, would have have been real valuable, too. Thus we have them, even though today, they're unneeded, to do what they do in other species. (why it evolved) And indeed, appendixes are thus, even still. But even if they prove to not be, and evolved in us differently and for a different reason, it does not mean vestigials are bunk, nor that evolution, which is supported myriad other shit, is now invalid.

In fact, thinking that, would make one an "abject fucking moron," which if you were to look up in the dictionary, would make you think, 'Wow; I'm so like that."

Thus don't get out any books, including dictionaries. Enjoy the bliss of ignorance.

Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.

Good info. Thanks.

Meanwhile, how's that quote coming along where scientists say "Vestigiality is a fraud."?

 

[PoliticalChic]

No. That's not what the "scientist" said. (Fraud exposed!) They're merely suggesting some benefit may come from appendixes, etc. Then abject fucking retards (Creationists) distort it, and say, essentially, what you're attributing to the doc who thinks he might be onto something; maybe with peer review, it'll hold up. Who knows? But indeed, the doc is not saying what you're concluding: vestigials are a fraud. If I'm wrong, quote him and show me.

But then, it's not determined that things are vestages of our earlier stages in evolution are thus, merely because folks come to realize that haven't the foggiest what good some organ serves. They go deeper, and find other species with the same or a remarkably similar organ which has evolved some more, where it serve a real valuable purpose in nature, which for early humanoid species, would have have been real valuable, too. Thus we have them, even though today, they're unneeded, to do what they do in other species. (why it evolved) And indeed, appendixes are thus, even still. But even if they prove to not be, and evolved in us differently and for a different reason, it does not mean vestigials are bunk, nor that evolution, which is supported myriad other shit, is now invalid.

In fact, thinking that, would make one an "abject fucking moron," which if you were to look up in the dictionary, would make you think, 'Wow; I'm so like that."

Thus don't get out any books, including dictionaries. Enjoy the bliss of ignorance.

Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.

Good info. Thanks.

Meanwhile, how's that quote coming along where scientists say "Vestigiality is a fraud."?

Are you admitting that you didn't understand the OP?

 

[Koios]

Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.

Good info. Thanks.

Meanwhile, how's that quote coming along where scientists say "Vestigiality is a fraud."?

Are you admitting that you didn't understand the OP?

Nope. Just not finding in it what you contend (Scientist saying "Vestigiality = fraud; evolution disproved." in essence, even.)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Good info. Thanks.

Meanwhile, how's that quote coming along where scientists say "Vestigiality is a fraud."?

Are you admitting that you didn't understand the OP?

Nope. Just not finding in it what you contend (Scientist saying "Vestigiality = fraud; evolution disproved." in essence, even.)

I never expected any less: close your little eyes, and chant 'is not, is not.'


Pod people.

 

[Koios]

Are you admitting that you didn't understand the OP?

Nope. Just not finding in it what you contend (Scientist saying "Vestigiality = fraud; evolution disproved." in essence, even.)

I never expected any less: close your little eyes, and chant 'is not, is not.'


Pod people.

Nope. Wide open and on pins and fucking needles in giddy anticipation of you backing up what you claim.

Go hog wild.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nope. Just not finding in it what you contend (Scientist saying "Vestigiality = fraud; evolution disproved." in essence, even.)

I never expected any less: close your little eyes, and chant 'is not, is not.'


Pod people.

Nope. Wide open and on pins and fucking needles in giddy anticipation of you backing up what you claim.

Go hog wild.

The OP is chock full of quotes, links, sources that 'back up what is claimed'.


You....not so much: simply 'is not, is not.'


When you come up with a quality response…just give me a call…I’ll be ice skating in Hell.

 

[Koios]

I never expected any less: close your little eyes, and chant 'is not, is not.'


Pod people.

Nope. Wide open and on pins and fucking needles in giddy anticipation of you backing up what you claim.

Go hog wild.

The OP is chock full of quotes, links, sources that 'back up what is claimed'.


You....not so much: simply 'is not, is not.'


When you come up with a quality response…just give me a call…I’ll be ice skating in Hell.

Yeah; I picked up on that. Problem is, none say what you said they did. See how that works?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nope. Wide open and on pins and fucking needles in giddy anticipation of you backing up what you claim.

Go hog wild.

The OP is chock full of quotes, links, sources that 'back up what is claimed'.


You....not so much: simply 'is not, is not.'


When you come up with a quality response…just give me a call…I’ll be ice skating in Hell.

Yeah; I picked up on that. Problem is, none say what you said they did. See how that works?

I didn't "say what you said."

I gave their quotes.

Seems you not comprehending what a direct quote is.

 

[Koios]

The OP is chock full of quotes, links, sources that 'back up what is claimed'.


You....not so much: simply 'is not, is not.'


When you come up with a quality response…just give me a call…I’ll be ice skating in Hell.

Yeah; I picked up on that. Problem is, none say what you said they did. See how that works?

I didn't "say what you said."

I gave their quotes.

Seems you not comprehending what a direct quote is.

Yeah; but bear with me, please, PolChik!!!

I'm a moron and need your help. So please, if you would, just quote it again, where it says what you asserted.

TIA,
-K

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah; I picked up on that. Problem is, none say what you said they did. See how that works?

I didn't "say what you said."

I gave their quotes.

Seems you not comprehending what a direct quote is.

Yeah; but bear with me, please, PolChik!!!

I'm a moron and need your help. So please, if you would, just quote it again, where it says what you asserted.

TIA,
-K

Immunologist William Parker at Duke University Medical Center said, “Maybe it’s time to correct the textbooks. Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a vestigial organ” (LiveScience, Aug. 24, 2009).

 

[Koios]

I didn't "say what you said."

I gave their quotes.

Seems you not comprehending what a direct quote is.

Yeah; but bear with me, please, PolChik!!!

I'm a moron and need your help. So please, if you would, just quote it again, where it says what you asserted.

TIA,
-K

Immunologist William Parker at Duke University Medical Center said, “Maybe it’s time to correct the textbooks. Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a vestigial organ” (LiveScience, Aug. 24, 2009).

Yes. I read that part, too. And I even spoke to it once or maybe even twice, when I agreed that if we are wrong about that one organ being vestigial, which is yet to a concensus opinion, that in no way equates to what you assert, which was:

Vestigiality is a FRAUD, and thus evolution DID NOT happen. (absurd conclusion based on what little "evidence" you provide)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah; but bear with me, please, PolChik!!!

I'm a moron and need your help. So please, if you would, just quote it again, where it says what you asserted.

TIA,
-K

Immunologist William Parker at Duke University Medical Center said, “Maybe it’s time to correct the textbooks. Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a vestigial organ” (LiveScience, Aug. 24, 2009).

Yes. I read that part, too. And I even spoke to it once or maybe even twice, when I agreed that if we are wrong about that one organ being vestigial, which is yet to a concensus opinion, that in no way equates to what you assert, which was:

Vestigiality is a FRAUD, and thus evolution DID NOT happen. (absurd conclusion based on what little "evidence" you provide)

Did you note that National Geographic agreed re: vestigial organs?


"....and thus evolution DID NOT happen"

That may be a logical conclusion, but was not the point in this thread.

Rather, the statement is a somewhat perfidious way of changing the nature of the OP.
Since the OP is absolutely true....
...folks like you try ever so hard to morph it into a different argument.

Actually, you fear what might very well be the conclusion....that's the reason for your attempted sleight of hand.
And your fear is well grounded....because, as it says in the OP, vestigiality lies at the heart of evolutionary theory.
Makes it just that much harder to defend the theory, huh?


True?

 

[Koios]

Immunologist William Parker at Duke University Medical Center said, “Maybe it’s time to correct the textbooks. Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a vestigial organ” (LiveScience, Aug. 24, 2009).

Yes. I read that part, too. And I even spoke to it once or maybe even twice, when I agreed that if we are wrong about that one organ being vestigial, which is yet to a concensus opinion, that in no way equates to what you assert, which was:

Vestigiality is a FRAUD, and thus evolution DID NOT happen. (absurd conclusion based on what little "evidence" you provide)

Did you note that National Geographic agreed re: vestigial organs?


"....and thus evolution DID NOT happen"

That may be a logical conclusion, but was not the point in this thread.

Rather, the statement is a somewhat perfidious way of changing the nature of the OP.
Since the OP is absolutely true....
...folks like you try ever so hard to morph it into a different argument.

Actually, you fear what might very well be the conclusion....that's the reason for your attempted sleight of hand.
And your fear is well grounded....because, as it says in the OP, vestigiality lies at the heart of evolutionary theory.
Makes it just that much harder to defend the theory, huh?


True?

No. NG is now on the evolution-denier list? Fuck me in the ass with a formerly vestigial gift from God.

Astonishing discovery, PolChik. Ever think of writing a book? Maybe, On the origin of NG going all Creationist and shit

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes. I read that part, too. And I even spoke to it once or maybe even twice, when I agreed that if we are wrong about that one organ being vestigial, which is yet to a concensus opinion, that in no way equates to what you assert, which was:

Vestigiality is a FRAUD, and thus evolution DID NOT happen. (absurd conclusion based on what little "evidence" you provide)

Did you note that National Geographic agreed re: vestigial organs?


"....and thus evolution DID NOT happen"

That may be a logical conclusion, but was not the point in this thread.

Rather, the statement is a somewhat perfidious way of changing the nature of the OP.
Since the OP is absolutely true....
...folks like you try ever so hard to morph it into a different argument.

Actually, you fear what might very well be the conclusion....that's the reason for your attempted sleight of hand.
And your fear is well grounded....because, as it says in the OP, vestigiality lies at the heart of evolutionary theory.
Makes it just that much harder to defend the theory, huh?


True?

No. NG is now on the evolution-denier list? Fuck me in the ass with a formerly vestigial gift from God.

Astonishing discovery, PolChik. Ever think of writing a book? Maybe, On the origin of NG going all Creationist and shit

See....you didn't learn....and the vulgar language gives it away.

...now I'm gonna have to spank you again.


Your attempt to change the OP from 'no vestigial organs' to 'no evolution' is....what
...disingenuous?

...sleazy?


....the mark of a loser?


But...don't be lazy as well! Write an OP of your choice.

 

[newpolitics]

1. Why the heck would you deprive me of the amusement of proving what a dim-wit you are???
Stick to your own baliwick!

"....backed only by the opinions of some scientists."

Now say "duh..."



2. "Any moron looking at the anatomy of a human can see a tail bone that is no longer expressed genetically, although every so often, the dormant gene controlling what was the tail will be activated and human babies will develop tails. This tailbone alone falsifies your premise."

Now for your remedial:

In 1994, however, renowned anatomy professor David Menton produced evidence disproving the idea that the coccyx is vestigial. “[M]ost modern biology textbooks give the erroneous impression that the human coccyx has no real function other than to remind us of the ‘inescapable fact’ of evolution,” Menton wrote in Essays on Origins.

He explained that among the key functions of the coccyx is its acting as an anchor point for several converging muscles from the ring-like arrangement of the pelvic bones. “The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs” (ibid). Removal of the coccyx often causes incontinence and serious difficulties with sitting, standing or giving birth.

The evolutionary faithful long considered the tailbone vestigial and pointed to it as evidence against creation. But the tailbone, too, was placed in the body for a purpose."
Evolution?s ?Unnecessary? Organs - theTrumpet.com


3. QED...you're not just "Any moron..."
No indeed....you're a special variety of same.

Keep up the good work.

Your calling me a moron, and you doubt the evidence for evolution? Presumably you are a Christian creationist who read a 2000 year old book and beleieves the creation fairy tale. It's easy to criticize competing theories, however, trying showing evidence for your god. considering you have Zero evidence for your own claims, your position is laughable. add to it the utter bitchiness with which you present yourself and you have full blown idiocy. you Might want to get that checked.

Your little story about the coccyx is also idiotic. The argument is not that the coccyx has no purpose at all. Of course the base of a tailbone will be used for anchoring muscles. The question is? Did the tailbone used to be the base of a tale? The answer, verified through DNA, is use, proving the tailbone to be vestigial as far as being the vase for an appendage. That a vestigial organ still has a purpose does not mean it is not vestigial, necessarily. Evolution will find ways to was to utilize everything so calories are not wasted and efficiency is achieved. The appendix being used to grow bacteria is not what appendixes are use for in other species. It's vestigial status has been utilized as best as possible. It's pretty simple idea, yet you are so indoctrinated by religious conservatism, you wouldn't know truth of it smacked you in the face

1. "and you doubt the evidence for evolution?"

I note your attention span is that of a ferret on a double espresso.

Again....the question under discussion is vestigial organs.




2. "Presumably you are...."

Here is the unmitigated proof that you are a moron.
What difference the personal beliefs of any who provide facts, evidence???

Presumably you were so angry over the 9/11 attacks that you've stopped using Arabic numerals. What time is it...X after V?
Moron.


3. "Zero evidence for your own claims,..."
Not my claims....
....and evidence can be found in the OP.
Moron.


4. "It's vestigial status has been utilized..."
You mean 'proven'?
If you understood science, you'd realize one doen't prove an organ has
no function.....
....one can only say that no function has been found, to date.
Of course, that is not the case for the appendix.
Illiterate.


5. "It's pretty simple idea, yet you are so indoctrinated by religious conservatism, you wouldn't know truth of it smacked you in the face "

Well, I must say I've enjoyed playing Cagney, with the half grapefruit in yours.

Except, you haven't provided ANY EVIDENCE to that necessarily leads to your conclusion. If you understood a thing about deductive reasoning, you'd know that. My guess is you don't want to admit how half ass your evidence base really is, so you make up for the difference with presumption, inductive reasoning, and a really bad attitude. Nice try. This thread is a total fail. I point out your ridiculous beliefs just as you name call on "liberal progressive Marxists." So, don't complain when people do the same to you. The point is your evidence doesn't support your conclusion. You obfuscate this which a bitchy attititude and some bullying tactics, but the gaping holes in your logic are plain to see, and as such, your assertion are totally unconvincing to anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Although, it is always entertaining to watch the hard right ideologues try to make sense of everything in their narrow minded worldview.

An appendix harboring good bacteria is not evidence that the appendix is not vestigial. You would expect some use out of a vestigial organ in order to maximize fitness. Muscles being attached to the coccyx is not evidence that it is not vestigial. All you have done is listed the attributes if these vestiges and given some people's interpretation and listing it as gospel. It's understandable coming from a sheep who is so used to taking everything at face value and employing confirmation bias to support an untenable worldview in the age if science.