Vestigial Organs as Proof of Evolution

[SmarterThanHick]

Two things came up about this thread.

First: Using the term "Darwinian Evolution" in a discussion on evolution is like using the term "Franklin Electricity" in a discussion on iPad technology. Yes, the man broke ground. No, the entirety of the science is not still reliant on the initial ideas.

Second: Attempting to discredit one aspect of an insurmountable amount of evidence does not disprove all evidence. Let me dumb this down a bit:
Prosecution: this man is guilty of murder. We have fingerprints, his blood on the victim, hair samples, semen samples, eye witness accounts, and an HD video recording of the event from 10 angles.
Defense: Wait, he was wearing gloves, you don't have fingerprints!
Prosection: oh, that's correct, sorry for the mistake.

Does that make the man innocent now?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Two things came up about this thread.

First: Using the term "Darwinian Evolution" in a discussion on evolution is like using the term "Franklin Electricity" in a discussion on iPad technology. Yes, the man broke ground. No, the entirety of the science is not still reliant on the initial ideas.

Second: Attempting to discredit one aspect of an insurmountable amount of evidence does not disprove all evidence. Let me dumb this down a bit:
Prosecution: this man is guilty of murder. We have fingerprints, his blood on the victim, hair samples, semen samples, eye witness accounts, and an HD video recording of the event from 10 angles.
Defense: Wait, he was wearing gloves, you don't have fingerprints!
Prosection: oh, that's correct, sorry for the mistake.

Does that make the man innocent now?

Seems you are not smarter than hick.

1. "Contrary to many assumptions, evolutionary theory did not begin in 1859 with Charles Darwin and The Origin of Species. Rather, evolution-like ideas had existed since the times of the Greeks, and had been in and out of favor in the periods between ancient Greece and Victorian England. Indeed, by Darwin's time the idea of evolution - called "descent with modification" - was not especially controversial, and several other evolutionary theories had already been proposed. Darwin may stand at the beginning of a modern tradition, but he is also the final culmination of an ancient speculation."

2. Carolus Linnaeus, or Carl Linné (1707-1778), is considered the father of modern taxonomy for his work in hierarchical classification of various organisms. At first, he believed in the fixed nature of species, but he was later swayed by hybridization experiments in plants, which could produce new species. However, he maintained his belief in special creation in the Garden of Eden, consistent with the Christian doctrine to which he was quite devoted. He still saw the new species created by plant hybridization to have been part of God's plan, and never considered the idea of open-ended, undirected evolution not mediated by the divine.
Pre-Darwinian Theories of Evolution


3. Actually, it was Herbert Spencer who developed a theory of evolution before Darwin and is credited with coining the phrase ‘the survival of the fittest'. He saw the process everywhere, not only in nature…but in human society as well. Spencer embraces other materialist thinkers, such as Marx and Nietzsche. Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinist or Libertarian Prophet?, by Peter Richards

A number of earlier theories existed...back to the Greeks....that included the idea of a Creator.


4. "Attempting to discredit one aspect of an insurmountable amount of evidence does not disprove all evidence."
Of course you are wrong here, as well.
a. The theory is hardly on of "insurmountable amount of evidence," which is why it upsets you when anyone questions it.


b. The OP is very specific. It is about the fallacy of vestigial organs....and this is beyond question.
If you believe that destroys the Darwinian theory, well, so be it.

 

[Koios]

Oh fuck; not this one being dug back up. Sigh...

 

[SmarterThanHick]

1. "Contrary to many assumptions, evolutionary theory did not begin in 1859 with Charles Darwin and The Origin of Species. Rather, evolution-like ideas had existed since the times of the Greeks, and had been in and out of favor in the periods between ancient Greece and Victorian England. Indeed, by Darwin's time the idea of evolution - called "descent with modification" - was not especially controversial, and several other evolutionary theories had already been proposed. Darwin may stand at the beginning of a modern tradition, but he is also the final culmination of an ancient speculation."

2. Carolus Linnaeus, or Carl Linné (1707-1778), is considered the father of modern taxonomy for his work in hierarchical classification of various organisms. At first, he believed in the fixed nature of species, but he was later swayed by hybridization experiments in plants, which could produce new species. However, he maintained his belief in special creation in the Garden of Eden, consistent with the Christian doctrine to which he was quite devoted. He still saw the new species created by plant hybridization to have been part of God's plan, and never considered the idea of open-ended, undirected evolution not mediated by the divine.
Pre-Darwinian Theories of Evolution


3. Actually, it was Herbert Spencer who developed a theory of evolution before Darwin and is credited with coining the phrase ‘the survival of the fittest'. He saw the process everywhere, not only in nature…but in human society as well. Spencer embraces other materialist thinkers, such as Marx and Nietzsche. Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinist or Libertarian Prophet?, by Peter Richards

A number of earlier theories existed...back to the Greeks....that included the idea of a Creator.

Nor did Franklin invent the lightbulb. I never said either invented the ideas they are commonly associated with. I said they broke ground. Or do you disagree that both are important in their fields? Wait, for that matter, are you making any point whatsoever?

4. "Attempting to discredit one aspect of an insurmountable amount of evidence does not disprove all evidence."
Of course you are wrong here, as well.
a. The theory is hardly on of "insurmountable amount of evidence," which is why it upsets you when anyone questions it.


b. The OP is very specific. It is about the fallacy of vestigial organs....and this is beyond question.
If you believe that destroys the Darwinian theory, well, so be it.

Upsets me when people question it? I actually enjoy when people question it. That's how science works. Plus, pointing out your shortsightedness amuses me. So please continue.

As for the OP, it is a gross generalization about vestigial organs. Take the appendix, for example. This was at one time seen as a completely vestigial organ. Today, it is acknowledged as having some hand in immunity. Does this mean it is not vestigial OR that ALL aspects of the body once claimed vestigial now "don't count"? Even IF we could generalize that and claim all "vestigial" parts don't support evolution, does that mean evolution is disproved? This is silly reasoning, but it is the underlying point of the OP: wrong in multiple ways. So to correct the points you have wrong:

1. Function does NOT negate vestigiality.
2. Negating vestigiality of one part does NOT negate all vestigiality.
3. Negating all vestigiality does not disprove evolution.
4. You completely ignored genetic vestigiality.

Start asking questions, because it's clear you don't understand this topic.

 

[Big_D2]

I'm a little confused. The OP clearly stated what a vestigial organ is and then bring up old arguments from ill-informed creationists, such as the appendix has a function.

Yes, the appendix does have a function but that doesn't mean it isn't vestigial. It is vestigial in the fact that it doesn't perform its original function.

I was watching a debate on the creationism/evolution topic that included the professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Tennessee. He said that the appendix does have a function but since it lost its original function, then that is what made it vestigial. If it had no function at all then we would have lost it through evolution a long time ago.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Contrary to many assumptions, evolutionary theory did not begin in 1859 with Charles Darwin and The Origin of Species. Rather, evolution-like ideas had existed since the times of the Greeks, and had been in and out of favor in the periods between ancient Greece and Victorian England. Indeed, by Darwin's time the idea of evolution - called "descent with modification" - was not especially controversial, and several other evolutionary theories had already been proposed. Darwin may stand at the beginning of a modern tradition, but he is also the final culmination of an ancient speculation."

2. Carolus Linnaeus, or Carl Linné (1707-1778), is considered the father of modern taxonomy for his work in hierarchical classification of various organisms. At first, he believed in the fixed nature of species, but he was later swayed by hybridization experiments in plants, which could produce new species. However, he maintained his belief in special creation in the Garden of Eden, consistent with the Christian doctrine to which he was quite devoted. He still saw the new species created by plant hybridization to have been part of God's plan, and never considered the idea of open-ended, undirected evolution not mediated by the divine.
Pre-Darwinian Theories of Evolution


3. Actually, it was Herbert Spencer who developed a theory of evolution before Darwin and is credited with coining the phrase ‘the survival of the fittest'. He saw the process everywhere, not only in nature…but in human society as well. Spencer embraces other materialist thinkers, such as Marx and Nietzsche. Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinist or Libertarian Prophet?, by Peter Richards

A number of earlier theories existed...back to the Greeks....that included the idea of a Creator.

Nor did Franklin invent the lightbulb. I never said either invented the ideas they are commonly associated with. I said they broke ground. Or do you disagree that both are important in their fields? Wait, for that matter, are you making any point whatsoever?

4. "Attempting to discredit one aspect of an insurmountable amount of evidence does not disprove all evidence."
Of course you are wrong here, as well.
a. The theory is hardly on of "insurmountable amount of evidence," which is why it upsets you when anyone questions it.


b. The OP is very specific. It is about the fallacy of vestigial organs....and this is beyond question.
If you believe that destroys the Darwinian theory, well, so be it.

Upsets me when people question it? I actually enjoy when people question it. That's how science works. Plus, pointing out your shortsightedness amuses me. So please continue.

As for the OP, it is a gross generalization about vestigial organs. Take the appendix, for example. This was at one time seen as a completely vestigial organ. Today, it is acknowledged as having some hand in immunity. Does this mean it is not vestigial OR that ALL aspects of the body once claimed vestigial now "don't count"? Even IF we could generalize that and claim all "vestigial" parts don't support evolution, does that mean evolution is disproved? This is silly reasoning, but it is the underlying point of the OP: wrong in multiple ways. So to correct the points you have wrong:

1. Function does NOT negate vestigiality.
2. Negating vestigiality of one part does NOT negate all vestigiality.
3. Negating all vestigiality does not disprove evolution.
4. You completely ignored genetic vestigiality.

Start asking questions, because it's clear you don't understand this topic.

1. "Negating all vestigiality does not disprove evolution."
Where does the OP say it does?
Read more carefully.

2. "Negating vestigiality of one part does NOT negate all vestigiality."
Actually, the OP suggests that there are no vestigial organs.

3. Did you notice that item #7 is from National Geographic?

4. What is this inordinate fear you adherents have that the theory may be....less than perfect?
Many scientists find it flawed.

a. David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (Evolution, 28:467)

b. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)


But....if it represents your religion, I can see why you'd ignore the above.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

1. "Negating all vestigiality does not disprove evolution."
Where does the OP say it does?
Read more carefully.

So of the four massive points I made about how your argument fails, you address....... TWO. Great. And did you disprove my claim? No. You only suggest it shouldn't be part of the argument. But to address this failed attempt at misdirection, I will contend that the OP does insinuate that negating vestigiality disproves evolution. In fact you state "to find comfort in what we believe to be true [about evolution], one must incorporate new facts, into our beliefs. Case in point, vestigial organs." You go on to ask what "believers in Darwinian evolution" do given your incorrect stance on vestigiality.

Darwinian evolution. lol.

2. "Negating vestigiality of one part does NOT negate all vestigiality."
Actually, the OP suggests that there are no vestigial organs.

And it's still incorrect, and continues to prove you don't understand what the term actually means. But that was one of my main 4 points you decided to overlook. By the way, you make several references to 160 or 180 vestigial organs. Can you name more than 30 organs in the human body? How about 180 organs?

3. Did you notice that item #7 is from National Geographic?

I did. You should actually read your own reference. It doesn't support your claim. It supports mine, and again shows you don't understand what the term "vestigial" actually means. I mean, did you actually read this article? Did you overlook the sentences that start with things like: "The appendix evolved" and "The fact that our bodies evolved while humans lived short lives hunting and gathering is one key to understanding many "useless" body parts". Please, read your own sources.

4. What is this inordinate fear you adherents have that the theory may be....less than perfect?
Many scientists find it flawed.

I'm just quivering in fear! Oh my! How it scares me that some backwater hick doesn't understand how to read their own sources!

a. David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (Evolution, 28:467)

Yes. There are missing pieces to the fossil record. Yes, there are things in science we don't know. No, it doesn't negate evolution. More importantly, and yet another point you continue to pretend doesn't exist: while the fossil support is incomplete - yet not contradictory, the genetic support is complete. Lucky for us, we don't live in 1960, so we don't need to rely only on fossil evidence.

Here let me help you deal with the points you can't even begin to contest: close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and hum really loudly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Negating all vestigiality does not disprove evolution."
Where does the OP say it does?
Read more carefully.

So of the four massive points I made about how your argument fails, you address....... TWO. Great. And did you disprove my claim? No. You only suggest it shouldn't be part of the argument. But to address this failed attempt at misdirection, I will contend that the OP does insinuate that negating vestigiality disproves evolution. In fact you state "to find comfort in what we believe to be true [about evolution], one must incorporate new facts, into our beliefs. Case in point, vestigial organs." You go on to ask what "believers in Darwinian evolution" do given your incorrect stance on vestigiality.

Darwinian evolution. lol.

2. "Negating vestigiality of one part does NOT negate all vestigiality."
Actually, the OP suggests that there are no vestigial organs.

And it's still incorrect, and continues to prove you don't understand what the term actually means. But that was one of my main 4 points you decided to overlook. By the way, you make several references to 160 or 180 vestigial organs. Can you name more than 30 organs in the human body? How about 180 organs?


I did. You should actually read your own reference. It doesn't support your claim. It supports mine, and again shows you don't understand what the term "vestigial" actually means. I mean, did you actually read this article? Did you overlook the sentences that start with things like: "The appendix evolved" and "The fact that our bodies evolved while humans lived short lives hunting and gathering is one key to understanding many "useless" body parts". Please, read your own sources.

4. What is this inordinate fear you adherents have that the theory may be....less than perfect?
Many scientists find it flawed.

I'm just quivering in fear! Oh my! How it scares me that some backwater hick doesn't understand how to read their own sources!

a. David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (Evolution, 28:467)

Yes. There are missing pieces to the fossil record. Yes, there are things in science we don't know. No, it doesn't negate evolution. More importantly, and yet another point you continue to pretend doesn't exist: while the fossil support is incomplete - yet not contradictory, the genetic support is complete. Lucky for us, we don't live in 1960, so we don't need to rely only on fossil evidence.

Here let me help you deal with the points you can't even begin to contest: close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and hum really loudly.

1. "...does insinuate..."
Retreat?
Smart.

2. "And it's still incorrect, and continues to prove you don't understand what the term..."
Really?
Well, then, you should scurry on over to National Geographic...and straighten 'em out.
Don't be dissuaded if they laugh at you.


3. ""The appendix evolved"
It's about vestigial organs....not evolution.

4. "...some backwater hick..."
"David B. Kitts, David Ross Boyd Professor of Geology and the History of Science,..."
OU History of Science

Oh....and they mentioned you, too. Under 'jerks.'


5. Oh....and you were counting points not covered?
Seems you missed this one:
b. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)

So, evolution remains a matter of faith....as in any religion, huh?
Don’t forget to leave your number and the very moment your opinion becomes important to me, I’ll be sure to call.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Re: 1. No need to retreat from a point you're not actually making. Here, let's make this easy. Do you feel your claim regarding vestigiality has anything to do with refuting evolution? Or is your point, irregardless of referencing darwin and evolution in your point, completely isolated from evolution?

Re: 2. No no. THEY understand what the term means. YOU, on the other hand, do not. You're not really following this too well, even though I'm not the first person pointing it out....

Re: 3. This is YOUR source. YOUR source is making points about evolution and vestigiality. See response point 2 above if this is still confusing you.

Re: 4. Once again, YOU don't understand your own sources. Did you really think I was referencing someone else? Laughable.

Re: 5. I addressed this point already. You seemed to get into your bad habbit of not reading things and then flailing to bad conclusions. Here, I'll copy and paste it from within your own post:

Yes. There are missing pieces to the fossil record. Yes, there are things in science we don't know. No, it doesn't negate evolution. More importantly, and yet another point you continue to pretend doesn't exist: while the fossil support is incomplete - yet not contradictory, the genetic support is complete. Lucky for us, we don't live in 1960, so we don't need to rely only on fossil evidence.

Let me know if you have another point to make.

Re: 6. Actually, you're the only one here talking about faith. Nice try though. I see you're taking my advice about fingers in ears and using it to your disadvantage quite nicely.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Re: 1. No need to retreat from a point you're not actually making. Here, let's make this easy. Do you feel your claim regarding vestigiality has anything to do with refuting evolution? Or is your point, irregardless of referencing darwin and evolution in your point, completely isolated from evolution?

Re: 2. No no. THEY understand what the term means. YOU, on the other hand, do not. You're not really following this too well, even though I'm not the first person pointing it out....

Re: 3. This is YOUR source. YOUR source is making points about evolution and vestigiality. See response point 2 above if this is still confusing you.

Re: 4. Once again, YOU don't understand your own sources. Did you really think I was referencing someone else? Laughable.

Re: 5. I addressed this point already. You seemed to get into your bad habbit of not reading things and then flailing to bad conclusions. Here, I'll copy and paste it from within your own post:

Yes. There are missing pieces to the fossil record. Yes, there are things in science we don't know. No, it doesn't negate evolution. More importantly, and yet another point you continue to pretend doesn't exist: while the fossil support is incomplete - yet not contradictory, the genetic support is complete. Lucky for us, we don't live in 1960, so we don't need to rely only on fossil evidence.

Let me know if you have another point to make.

Re: 6. Actually, you're the only one here talking about faith. Nice try though. I see you're taking my advice about fingers in ears and using it to your disadvantage quite nicely.

"Do you feel your claim regarding vestigiality has anything to do with refuting evolution? Or is your point,..."

Be honest....you don't want to 'make this easy,' you want to write your own OP.

Go ahead.

But don't try to pretend that this is other than the fear that the vestigial organ argument is over.
First....any argument other than one of whether there are vestigial organs belongs elsewhere.
It remains for you to explain your fear....and your need to expand the frame of reference.


I think I've proven my case.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Re: 1. No need to retreat from a point you're not actually making. Here, let's make this easy. Do you feel your claim regarding vestigiality has anything to do with refuting evolution? Or is your point, irregardless of referencing darwin and evolution in your point, completely isolated from evolution?

Re: 2. No no. THEY understand what the term means. YOU, on the other hand, do not. You're not really following this too well, even though I'm not the first person pointing it out....

Re: 3. This is YOUR source. YOUR source is making points about evolution and vestigiality. See response point 2 above if this is still confusing you.

Re: 4. Once again, YOU don't understand your own sources. Did you really think I was referencing someone else? Laughable.

Re: 5. I addressed this point already. You seemed to get into your bad habbit of not reading things and then flailing to bad conclusions. Here, I'll copy and paste it from within your own post:

Yes. There are missing pieces to the fossil record. Yes, there are things in science we don't know. No, it doesn't negate evolution. More importantly, and yet another point you continue to pretend doesn't exist: while the fossil support is incomplete - yet not contradictory, the genetic support is complete. Lucky for us, we don't live in 1960, so we don't need to rely only on fossil evidence.

Let me know if you have another point to make.

Re: 6. Actually, you're the only one here talking about faith. Nice try though. I see you're taking my advice about fingers in ears and using it to your disadvantage quite nicely.

"...the genetic support is complete."

Nonsense and untrue.


1. In “Science,” 1975, M-C King and A.C. Wilson published an exhaustive paper estimating the degree of similarity between the human and the chimpanzee genome. This documented the degree of similarity between the two! Hence, we must be one with apes! But…in the second part of their thesis King and Wilson describe honestly the deficiencies of such an idea:

“ The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of
life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of
the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38). Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38). Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the
two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39) . So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).”
http://academic.reed.edu/biology/pr...431s05_examples/king_wilson_1975(classic).pdf



2. There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels on ball bearing.

"In a research survey published in 2001, the evolutionary biologist Joel Kingsolver reported that in sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was virtually no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. “Important issues about selection,” he remarked with some understatement, “remain unresolved.”

Of these important issues, I would mention prominently the question of whether natural selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

So, this is natural selection at work? Blakeslee observes, with solemn incomprehension, “the creatures mutated but showed only modest increases in complexity.” Which is to say, they showed nothing of interest at all. This is natural selection at work, but it is hardly work that has worked to intended effect.

What these computer experiments do reveal is a principle far more penetrating than any that Darwin ever offered:
There is a sucker born every minute."

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190



3. "while the fossil support is incomplete - yet not contradictory, the genetic support is complete."
There is a sucker born every minute.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

"Do you feel your claim regarding vestigiality has anything to do with refuting evolution? Or is your point,..."

Be honest....you don't want to 'make this easy,' you want to write your own OP.

Go ahead.

But don't try to pretend that this is other than the fear that the vestigial organ argument is over.
First....any argument other than one of whether there are vestigial organs belongs elsewhere.
It remains for you to explain your fear....and your need to expand the frame of reference

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 genetic support is complete."

Nonsense and untrue.


1. In “Science,” 1975

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?

 

[newpolitics]

Speciation has been demonstrated in the lab. It is clear you don't understand what speciation means PC. Hint, it is not when a duck turns into a non-duck.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Do you feel your claim regarding vestigiality has anything to do with refuting evolution? Or is your point,..."

Be honest....you don't want to 'make this easy,' you want to write your own OP.

Go ahead.

But don't try to pretend that this is other than the fear that the vestigial organ argument is over.
First....any argument other than one of whether there are vestigial organs belongs elsewhere.
It remains for you to explain your fear....and your need to expand the frame of reference

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 genetic support is complete."

Nonsense and untrue.


1. In “Science,” 1975

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.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

couldn't help but notice you once again avoided a rather simple clarification question about the OP: does the OP suggest that the case for or against vestigiality has anything to do with evolution?

Maybe the concept of yes and no is too difficult for you?

As for your 40 year old source, my point is simply that we have updated information since 4 decades ago that you may want to look into before failing to form a coherent point again.

 

[Koios]

"Do you feel your claim regarding vestigiality has anything to do with refuting evolution? Or is your point,..."

Be honest....you don't want to 'make this easy,' you want to write your own OP.

Go ahead.

But don't try to pretend that this is other than the fear that the vestigial organ argument is over.
First....any argument other than one of whether there are vestigial organs belongs elsewhere.
It remains for you to explain your fear....and your need to expand the frame of reference

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 genetic support is complete."

Nonsense and untrue.


1. In “Science,” 1975

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.

 

[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.

 

[boedicca]

Certain vestigal organs are proof of De-Evolution.

For example, Truthmattersnot has a Vestigal Brain. She is DEVO.

 

[Againsheila]

Just a question, how far back does our written word go? Pictures of people? What's changed in all that time? How long does it take to "evolve"? Okay more than one question, still, I would be interested in hearing the answer. Has science ever had a species evolve in a scientific setting?

 

[Koios]

Certain vestigal organs are proof of De-Evolution.

For example, Truthmattersnot has a Vestigal Brain. She is DEVO.

De-evolution would be the reverse of what's happened thus far, i.e, you slowly (despite your attempt to greatly speed the process) returning to that of a primate species.