More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,019
Reaction score
653
Points
315
Another Evidence of Evolution.
Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
One rarely mentioned but very telling.
Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.

Heavily Edited incl Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Prediction 2.1: Anatomical vestiges


Some of the most renowned Evidence for evolution are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...
[.......]
Geoffroy was at a loss for why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ", yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.

Confirmation:
There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence, snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles. Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity. Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...
Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes....
[.......]
The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth).
Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted [*]. These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death [*]

Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix.
While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."

Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,
the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back. Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""
[.......]

How many Millions of H sapiens and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.
Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.
Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.
`​
 
Last edited:

Freewill

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
31,158
Reaction score
5,054
Points
1,130
All the examples given were not of vestige organs change which resulted in a different specie. Maybe early man did have a larger appendix because of diet, but they were still man.

here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution? Survival of the fittest? As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die. Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition. Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest. In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?
 

Gen0

Rookie
Joined
Jun 28, 2015
Messages
35
Reaction score
1
Points
1
Location
Milky Way Galaxy
Primates and humans are very common. Theres about 97.8% genome difference. The difference includes less hair, smaller teeth/bones/muscles, and surprisingly the smallest difference is in the brain. Apes cannot "question things" like humans can. The power of "why" help creat religion and science to explain the unexplainable in the world around us. Such as earthquakes,volcanic eruptions, or hurricanes were seen as signs from gods and their displeasure of the humans. Or the forces unseen such as gravity, which in turn we learned to over come it through mathematics and science
 
OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,019
Reaction score
653
Points
315
All the examples given were not of vestige organs change which resulted in a different specie. Maybe early man did have a larger appendix because of diet, but they were still man.

here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution? Survival of the fittest? As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die. Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition. Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest. In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?
Your post is Incoherent 70 IQ Gibrish.
'Survival of the fittest' is a moving target. Fittest for a Changing environment

ie, If the earth gets colder, (ie, Ice Ages), OTHER creatures will survive better and thrive and the others diminish, ADAPT or die.

Similarly, and Also contrarily to your goofy response..
Lions are stronger than antelope.
But if antelope didn't get/evolve faster and have enough babies, they would die out.. and then the Lions would too.
So there is a balance of Predator and Prey, and also Fauna and Flora/Plants that they eat.
IOW, Food and supply... that makes something "Fittest" for that ecosystem, climate, period in time.
When the climate changes, (or a meteor hits the earth) everything changes.
So what's "driving" evolution are the Vaguerys of earth's conditions and an evolutionary balance/adaptation/mutation that let's food and supply both survive/coexist.

`
 
Last edited:

Gen0

Rookie
Joined
Jun 28, 2015
Messages
35
Reaction score
1
Points
1
Location
Milky Way Galaxy
here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution? Survival of the fittest? As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die. Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition. Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest. In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?
When you say "programmed" i am taking it as you know about the watch maker. if not here it is... Earth is very complicated, how is it possible to contain such complexities in which it works so well together. Ah! this is a no brainier, there must be a divine power that "programmed" this to be,hence the watch maker was born for he knows all. Every little details in the watch is perfectly placed for gears to rotate in such a small confined space that the only answer for all the complexities was created by the divine watch maker.

I hope that answers your question who programmed animals to put procreation before survival.
 

Freewill

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
31,158
Reaction score
5,054
Points
1,130
All the examples given were not of vestige organs change which resulted in a different specie. Maybe early man did have a larger appendix because of diet, but they were still man.

here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution? Survival of the fittest? As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die. Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition. Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest. In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?
Your post is Incoherent 70 IQ Gibrish.
'Survival of the fittest' is a moving target. Fittest for a Changing environment

ie, If the earth gets colder, (ie, Ice Ages), OTHER creatures will survive better and thrive and the others diminish, ADAPT or die.

Similarly, and Also contrarily to your goofy response..
Lions are stronger than antelope.
But if antelope didn't get/evolve faster and have enough babies, they would die out.. and then the Lions would too.
So there is a balance of Predator and Prey, and also Fauna and Flora/Plants that they eat.
IOW, Food and supply... that makes something "Fittest" for that ecosystem, climate, period in time.
When the climate changes, (or a meteor hits the earth) everything changes.
So what's "driving" evolution are the Vaguerys of earth's conditions and an evolutionary balance/adaptation/mutation that let's food and supply both survive/coexist.

`
Since your mind is closed you mock and say nothing.
 

Freewill

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
31,158
Reaction score
5,054
Points
1,130
here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution? Survival of the fittest? As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die. Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition. Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest. In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?
When you say "programmed" i am taking it as you know about the watch maker. if not here it is... Earth is very complicated, how is it possible to contain such complexities in which it works so well together. Ah! this is a no brainier, there must be a divine power that "programmed" this to be,hence the watch maker was born for he knows all. Every little details in the watch is perfectly placed for gears to rotate in such a small confined space that the only answer for all the complexities was created by the divine watch maker.

I hope that answers your question who programmed animals to put procreation before survival.
Evolutionary theory does not explain the creation of life, it can not. But most to ascribe to the theory apparently believes it can and does. the complexity of life and man himself seems to rule out chance.
 
OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,019
Reaction score
653
Points
315
Freewill said:
Evolutionary theory does not explain the creation of life, it can not. But most to ascribe to the theory apparently believes it can and does. the complexity of life and man himself seems to rule out chance.
DUH that's correct!

As I said just the other day to another Numb Nuts Godist:
Scientific Creationism Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

DOH!
Evolution does NOT deal with the opening spark of life. That's separate and called "abiogenesis."
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Evolution deals with, and has Extensive evidence For, all changes thereafter. That body of evidence (intermediate species, etc) Grows yearly both in Fossil remains and in new sciences like Isotopic dating, DNA, etc.​
so...
You WHIFFED/showed Blinding IGNORANCE on EVERYTHING in this string: Evolution.

`
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,345
Reaction score
7,231
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution? Survival of the fittest? As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die. Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition. Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest. In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?
When you say "programmed" i am taking it as you know about the watch maker. if not here it is... Earth is very complicated, how is it possible to contain such complexities in which it works so well together. Ah! this is a no brainier, there must be a divine power that "programmed" this to be,hence the watch maker was born for he knows all. Every little details in the watch is perfectly placed for gears to rotate in such a small confined space that the only answer for all the complexities was created by the divine watch maker.

I hope that answers your question who programmed animals to put procreation before survival.
Evolutionary theory does not explain the creation of life, it can not. But most to ascribe to the theory apparently believes it can and does. the complexity of life and man himself seems to rule out chance.
Mr. Freewill Your vast ignorance is once again apparent. Abiogenisis is not part of evolutionary science. Therefore, the theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain the origin of life. Evolution only comes into play when the chemicals start replicating in a manner that creates a unique organism, something that remains close to the same through many generations. Chemisty and physics do not operate by chance. And abiogenisis is not a matter of chance, but of the elements acting in the manner that the rules of this universe dictate.
 

Freewill

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
31,158
Reaction score
5,054
Points
1,130
here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution? Survival of the fittest? As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die. Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition. Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest. In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?
When you say "programmed" i am taking it as you know about the watch maker. if not here it is... Earth is very complicated, how is it possible to contain such complexities in which it works so well together. Ah! this is a no brainier, there must be a divine power that "programmed" this to be,hence the watch maker was born for he knows all. Every little details in the watch is perfectly placed for gears to rotate in such a small confined space that the only answer for all the complexities was created by the divine watch maker.

I hope that answers your question who programmed animals to put procreation before survival.
Evolutionary theory does not explain the creation of life, it can not. But most to ascribe to the theory apparently believes it can and does. the complexity of life and man himself seems to rule out chance.
Mr. Freewill Your vast ignorance is once again apparent. Abiogenisis is not part of evolutionary science. Therefore, the theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain the origin of life. Evolution only comes into play when the chemicals start replicating in a manner that creates a unique organism, something that remains close to the same through many generations. Chemisty and physics do not operate by chance. And abiogenisis is not a matter of chance, but of the elements acting in the manner that the rules of this universe dictate.
WTF you said what I said. Nothing happens by chance, we agree. And chemistry does not explain the creation of life and the complexity of life except to say it was chemistry. You do understand that science is the attempt to understand the already established laws of Universe?
 

Freewill

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
31,158
Reaction score
5,054
Points
1,130
Freewill said:
Evolutionary theory does not explain the creation of life, it can not. But most to ascribe to the theory apparently believes it can and does. the complexity of life and man himself seems to rule out chance.
DUH that's correct!

As I said just the other day to another Numb Nuts Godist:
Scientific Creationism Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

DOH!
Evolution does NOT deal with the opening spark of life. That's separate and called "abiogenesis."
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Evolution deals with, and has Extensive evidence For, all changes thereafter. That body of evidence (intermediate species, etc) Grows yearly both in Fossil remains and in new sciences like Isotopic dating, DNA, etc.​
so...
You WHIFFED/showed Blinding IGNORANCE on EVERYTHING in this string: Evolution.

`
Who mentioned God? Oh right it was you and your ilk. You have stunk up the place with the usual talking points, you have them down well.
 

Freewill

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
31,158
Reaction score
5,054
Points
1,130
Primates and humans are very common. Theres about 97.8% genome difference. The difference includes less hair, smaller teeth/bones/muscles, and surprisingly the smallest difference is in the brain. Apes cannot "question things" like humans can. The power of "why" help creat religion and science to explain the unexplainable in the world around us. Such as earthquakes,volcanic eruptions, or hurricanes were seen as signs from gods and their displeasure of the humans. Or the forces unseen such as gravity, which in turn we learned to over come it through mathematics and science
There is almost no difference between a Volkswagen beetle and a dump truck.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,345
Reaction score
7,231
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution? Survival of the fittest? As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die. Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition. Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest. In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?
When you say "programmed" i am taking it as you know about the watch maker. if not here it is... Earth is very complicated, how is it possible to contain such complexities in which it works so well together. Ah! this is a no brainier, there must be a divine power that "programmed" this to be,hence the watch maker was born for he knows all. Every little details in the watch is perfectly placed for gears to rotate in such a small confined space that the only answer for all the complexities was created by the divine watch maker.

I hope that answers your question who programmed animals to put procreation before survival.
Evolutionary theory does not explain the creation of life, it can not. But most to ascribe to the theory apparently believes it can and does. the complexity of life and man himself seems to rule out chance.
Mr. Freewill Your vast ignorance is once again apparent. Abiogenisis is not part of evolutionary science. Therefore, the theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain the origin of life. Evolution only comes into play when the chemicals start replicating in a manner that creates a unique organism, something that remains close to the same through many generations. Chemisty and physics do not operate by chance. And abiogenisis is not a matter of chance, but of the elements acting in the manner that the rules of this universe dictate.
WTF you said what I said. Nothing happens by chance, we agree. And chemistry does not explain the creation of life and the complexity of life except to say it was chemistry. You do understand that science is the attempt to understand the already established laws of Universe?
Have you ever looked at the complexity exhibited in minerals? As far as understanding what science is, I have finished courses in Geology, Chemistry, Biology, and Physics. And, yes, natural laws can and has created some very complex systems.
 

Vikrant

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
8,302
Reaction score
1,062
Points
245
Location
The U.S.
Primates and humans are very common. Theres about 97.8% genome difference. The difference includes less hair, smaller teeth/bones/muscles, and surprisingly the smallest difference is in the brain. Apes cannot "question things" like humans can. The power of "why" help creat religion and science to explain the unexplainable in the world around us. Such as earthquakes,volcanic eruptions, or hurricanes were seen as signs from gods and their displeasure of the humans. Or the forces unseen such as gravity, which in turn we learned to over come it through mathematics and science
Humans are just one of the many primates that exist today. We are not similar to primates; we are in fact primates.

---

...

Genetic research of the last few decades suggests that humans and all living primates evolved from a common ancestor that split from the rest of the mammals at least 65 million years ago.

...


History Travel Arts Science People Places Smithsonian

 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
22,217
Reaction score
4,369
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution? Survival of the fittest? As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die. Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition. Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest. In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?
Their genes did.

Evolution can be thought of as working at the gene level instead of the species level. That is, a species is simply a tool that genes use to produce more genes like themselves. What the genes do can be detrimental to the species, but if it's beneficial to the genes themselves, then the genes get passed on.

So, for example, say you had that species with genes for limited reproduction, so they didn't compete with each other. Eventually a mutant gene would arise that allowed for unlimited reproduction. Since there would be no competition (at first) for the offspring with that gene, they'd multiple wildly, and the fast-reproduction gene would quickly come to dominate in the population, even if it caused harm to the species as a whole. That gene doesn't "care" if it harmed the species; it only wants to reproduce itself, no matter what the cost to the species.
 

LittleNipper

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
4,444
Reaction score
477
Points
130
If by evolution, you are suggesting the means by which man became man, then you are batting at the wind. There is no proof. If; however, you are suggesting that selected traits can be bred, then of course this is very true. One can breed tallness, shortness, build, hair and skin color. It might also be possible to breed an intellectual or an idiot. However, I you treat a smart child like a moron --- there is a real chance he will not reach his or her fullest potential.
 

Derideo_Te

Je Suis Charlie
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
20,461
Reaction score
7,960
Points
360
If by evolution, you are suggesting the means by which man became man, then you are batting at the wind. There is no proof. If; however, you are suggesting that selected traits can be bred, then of course this is very true. One can breed tallness, shortness, build, hair and skin color. It might also be possible to breed an intellectual or an idiot. However, I you treat a smart child like a moron --- there is a real chance he will not reach his or her fullest potential.
:cuckoo:

Breeding is evolution!
 

LittleNipper

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
4,444
Reaction score
477
Points
130
If by evolution, you are suggesting the means by which man became man, then you are batting at the wind. There is no proof. If; however, you are suggesting that selected traits can be bred, then of course this is very true. One can breed tallness, shortness, build, hair and skin color. It might also be possible to breed an intellectual or an idiot. However, I you treat a smart child like a moron --- there is a real chance he will not reach his or her fullest potential.
:cuckoo:

Breeding is evolution!
Breeding is manipulation. However, a plant is a plant, a moth is a moth, a fruit fly remains a fruit fly, and bacteria stays bacteria. Each kind is unique and bound by God.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top