For Creationists: What about DNA evidence?

[Amill]

I challenge deniers of evolution to watch videos by AronRa

 

[Autodidact]

Or God did something else (or many somethings else), and we are misinterpreting it/them as evolution.

And how do you think we might go about figuring that out? Do you think the scientific method might be helpful?

 

[Autodidact]

A vestigial organ is a rudimentary structure in humans corresponding to a functional structure or organ in ancestral animals.

No. It does not have to be in humans; they appear in most creatures.

In the late 1800s scientists listed 180 vestigial organs in humans. By 1999 this list had shrunk to 0.

Baloney.

Now a revisionist definition is sometimes used. Now they say that a vestigial organ is any part of an organism that has diminished in size during it's evolution due to the fact that it isn't being used anymore or it's use is diminished.

More baloney. The definition has not changed significantly, and there are several vestigial structures in humans alone, such as your ear muscles and tailbone.

In the past, scientists stated that the tonsils were vestigial organs.

And science has discovered that they're not. Did you have a point?

Speaking of evolution, science is constantly evolving and changing it's theories - which is, I believe, fantastic and to be expected. Something would be seriously wrong with the process if this wasn't the case.

Yup. Again, any point here?

But keep in mind, it's very hard for scientists, or anyone else for that matter, to approach a topic in a totally objective manner. We all bring our agendas and preconcieved notions to our studies, whether we admit to it or not.

Fortunately we've discovered the scientific method, the best method yet devised for minimizing the effect of our biases.

Are you disputing the validity of ToE, or just posting random stuff about science?

 

[Autodidact]

The definition I gave of vestigial organs came directly from Answers.com:

vestigial organ: Definition from Answers.com

Please give your definition of the term.

I strongly disagree with Answers.com that vestigiality is confined to humans. Other than that it's not bad. Here's wiki:

Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms which have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution. These may take various forms such as anatomical structures, behaviors and biochemical pathways.

 

[Autodidact]

Here's another source - which supports my assertion that the definition has CHANGED in recent years:
Vestigial organ - New World Encyclopedia

See paragraph 2 which clearly states this by using the term "modern conceptions of the term..."

In evolutionary biology and comparative anatomy, "vestigiality" in a species describes organs (vestigial organs), structures (vestigial structures), behaviors, and biochemical pathways that have seemingly lost all or most of an original function present in ancestor species. These structures are typically in a degenerate, atrophied, or rudimentary condition,

This is a good current definition. It is not restricted to humans.

The part of your post that is completely wrong (besides only being interested in people for some odd reason) is your statement that humans have no vestigial features. We have several. For example, goose bumps.

 

[Autodidact]

By the way, I am not opposed to the theory of evolution. It may very well have a lot of truth to it and this does not contradict my Christian faith.

What I AM opposed to is revisionist history and science - and I will call ******** on anyone who asserts that most scientists do not bring their own agendas and beliefs to the research center.

Of course they do, they're people. But by using the scientific method, the affect of these agendas are minimized better than by any other method we've invented.

 

[Autodidact]

In my earlier post, I made it clear that science continues to evolve and theories change as new information is gathered. Of course scientific theories are revised as knowledge increases.

This is not REVISING the HISTORY of a theory. THAT is what I am opposed to.

Otherwise known as conveniently forgetting that some incredibly stupid theories have been paraded as factual or almost certainly factual by scientists.

You know - it's ok for a theory to be explored and then debunked - just don't act like the theory itself didn't exist to begin with.

What on earth does this have to do with this thread?

 

[Amill]

Science can permit magical explanations. Take evolution for example. As far as I can see, it's hocus pocus in excelsis.

Evolution is amazing, it is mind boggling, but it's not like scientists just stopped at accepting that Evolution is the real deal. This is why they spend thousands of hours researching HOW it occurs, what factors played a role, and all while still finding stacks of evidence in fossils and genetics that verify common ancestry. And they know they are just getting into this stuff, especially at a genetic level.

Or God did something else (or many somethings else), and we are misinterpreting it/them as evolution.

FFS, I knew I should'n't have made manatees with fingernails, some dinosaurs with feathers, fish that can breathe air, and snakes that have hip bones! I can't believe they actually thought that lifeforms all had common ancestors!

And even if the thought of common ancestry hadn't occurred to us, there still isn't evidence for creation. You cannot take an unbiased look into biology and come to a creation conclusion. There's absolutely no direct evidence for it. The only evidence creationists use today is the gaps in our knowledge, or their "evidence" is all a lie and has already been debunked.

 

[Kathryn]

What on earth does this have to do with this thread?

It was an answer to a particular post (which I quoted). It was a specific answer to a specific post on this thread.

 

[Kathryn]

And science has discovered that they're not. Did you have a point?
Yup. Again, any point here?

Fortunately we've discovered the scientific method, the best method yet devised for minimizing the effect of our biases.

Are you disputing the validity of ToE, or just posting random stuff about science?[/

Sigh - often when I post a statement, it is directly in response to another thread. No, Auto, I am not going to go back and repost and quote and dissect each of these other threads to explain these points again - especially not on this topic, which frankly doesn't interest me all that much, since I am not even disputing the theory of evolution.

My remarks about the definition of the term vestigial organs were drawn from the first page of a Google search - I'll be the first to admit it!

And why doesn't the ToE interest me more? Because it has absolutely no bearing on my religious beliefs, and I'm just not that into that branch of science - it just ain't my thang.

You know - some people just aren't all that fascinated with the topic. On the other hand, if you want to discuss Hitler's top echelon, the idiosyncracies of Henry the Vlll's wives, or the 8 different Greek words that the KJV translates into the word "slavery" then I'm all in.

 

[Autodidact]

Sigh - often when I post a statement, it is directly in response to another thread. No, Auto, I am not going to go back and repost and quote and dissect each of these other threads to explain these points again - especially not on this topic, which frankly doesn't interest me all that much, since I am not even disputing the theory of evolution.

My remarks about the definition of the term vestigial organs were drawn from the first page of a Google search - I'll be the first to admit it!

And why doesn't the ToE interest me more? Because it has absolutely no bearing on my religious beliefs, and I'm just not that into that branch of science - it just ain't my thang.

You know - some people just aren't all that fascinated with the topic. On the other hand, if you want to discuss Hitler's top echelon, the idiosyncracies of Henry the Vlll's wives, or the 8 different Greek words that the KJV translates into the word "slavery" then I'm all in.

Maybe you should post in those threads and avoid confusion.

 

[Kathryn]

Maybe you should post in those threads and avoid confusion.

Nyahhh, I like perusing all sorts of threads and discussing topics that are even outside my usual interests. So I'll read and respond to whatever thread piques my curiosity.

Who knows - I may learn something interesting!

In fact, that's one of the things I like about this forum - Occasionally I'm encouraged to read up on a subject that formerly didn't intrigue me much.

I'm not here simply to bolster my own opinions or push my own agenda - I actually do like to learn new things and be challenged.

For instance - I thought to myself: "Hmmm, I've read a little about vestigial organs before - I don't remember it being a very scintillating topic but I'll look into it again." Just for the record, I found it just as boring a topic this week as I found it ten years ago.

The members here that get me interested in such topics are usually the ones who are not sarcastic and inflammatory though. There's something about that sophomoric style of "debate" that I don't respect. Whatever point they are trying to make is simply lost in their rhetoric.

That's how I feel about it.

 

[MSizer]

A vestigial organ is a rudimentary structure in humans corresponding to a functional structure or organ in ancestral animals.

In the late 1800s scientists listed 180 vestigial organs in humans. By 1999 this list had shrunk to 0. Now a revisionist definition is sometimes used. Now they say that a vestigial organ is any part of an organism that has diminished in size during it's evolution due to the fact that it isn't being used anymore or it's use is diminished.

In the past, scientists stated that the tonsils were vestigial organs.

Speaking of evolution, science is constantly evolving and changing it's theories - which is, I believe, fantastic and to be expected. Something would be seriously wrong with the process if this wasn't the case.

But keep in mind, it's very hard for scientists, or anyone else for that matter, to approach a topic in a totally objective manner. We all bring our agendas and preconcieved notions to our studies, whether we admit to it or not.

That is flat out false. Vestigial organs are not unique in humans, and they're found all over the planet. I don't know if you just did a quick google and grabbed the first thing that supported your opinion, but whatever your source was, it's a poor one. Whale pelvic bones, fingernails on manatees, those are two I can think of off the top of my head. I'm pretty sure too, although I'd have to verify, that the human appendix is still considered vestigial too.

 

[themadhair]

I'm not here simply to bolster my own opinions or push my own agenda - I actually do like to learn new things and be challenged.

This must be why you choose to drop a pile of gosa onto a thread and scuttle away when said gosa gets challenged. But never mind. You got to utter your bile and even managed to get a few cracks in about science and scientists, as well as hypocritically engaging in a bit of that scientific revisionism you claimed to despise. But never mind – you can always lay claim to that moral high ground while you slink out the back door without ever allowing yourself to learn something.

 

[bsdl]

I belong to a grp. that discusses everything having to do with religions and their beliefs and non-beliefs. I stumbled on this site today. I am an atheist, now after many years of soul searching and Catholic guilt. I can't believe we atheists are still a minority, worldwide, and that most people believe in the nonsense and superstition and myth of the so-called holy books. I've searched for rational reasons to believe in some sort of god and have found 0. I am happy that I no longer believe malarky.

 

[Autodidact]

This must be why you choose to drop a pile of gosa onto a thread and scuttle away when said gosa gets challenged. But never mind. You got to utter your bile and even managed to get a few cracks in about science and scientists, as well as hypocritically engaging in a bit of that scientific revisionism you claimed to despise. But never mind – you can always lay claim to that moral high ground while you slink out the back door without ever allowing yourself to learn something.

gosa?!

 

[themadhair]

gosa?!

Gosa = crap

 

[Amhairghine]

there are several vestigial structures in humans alone, such as your ear muscles and tailbone.

We have many vestigial organs that have been modified by mutation into organs that have different functions. Pre-vertebrate chordates (amphioxus) had no bones, its body was supported by a cartilaginous rod called a Notochord. Human embryos have a notochord before the bony skeleton is formed. Usually the human notochord is recycled by several regulatory genes to make way for the bony vertebrae of our modern vertebrate back bone. However, occasionally some clumps of notochord are not recycled. They remain in the vertebral column or clivus of the brain base. Some are just dormant, but some are stimulated to regrow more notochord. That forms a tumour called a Chordoma. These are often located in the bone under the human brain stem. The Tumour thus can push into the brainstem where it can cause death unless surgically removed. The Chordoma is a true vestigial organ.

Most vertebrates have a tail. Primates had tails until they evolved into the Apes (of which Humans are members of the Ape family.) We normally do not have tails. But we do have tails with several vertebrae in our early embryonic stages (so do chickens) that measures 1/6 the length of the human embryo. Occasionally the foetus matures and is born with a visible tail with or without vertebrae. These are true vestigial organs. All humans actually have a short tail called a coccyx. I have one and so do you. It has vertebral bodies sometimes fused. It is rarely seen because thick flesh of the buttocks hide it. It is a definite vestigial organ.

Humans in the early embryonic stages have gill slits of primitive gill tissue similar to that which precedes mature gills in modern fish. but most like those of primitive fish (agnathic eels and fish, Hag fish, Lampreys). However, we have groups of regulatory genes that turn on other genes that recycle the gill tissue into inner ear bones and (Branchial Clefts become parts of posterior jaw, hyoid bone for the tongue attachment, sinus tracts. and the thyroid attachments. When a branchial cleft cyst persists into adulthood it is called a "cystic tumour" sometimes with an opening out of the side of the neck.

Body hair is a sort of vestigial organ. Some ethnic groups have very little and others have a greater amount. Occasionally babies are born with so much body hair that they are similar to non-humans like chimps and gorillas. They may have given a myth of wolfmen. Like those above, the failure is in genes that regulate the switch turning on or off, other genes. American actor Robin Williams has a definite excess of body hair, which is a vestigial organ from his non-human ape ancestors and ape cousins.

There are a dozen other true vestigial organs in humans that offer powerful evidence for evolution by showing what happens when evolution makes an error.

Amhairghine

 

[Amhairghine]

I am most fascinated by the Neurological vestigial physiology of humans. We know that the human brain evolved in stages advancing anteriorly from medulla to pons, midbrain, Cerebellum, Archaeocortex, Palaeocortex, and Neocortex in layers added one in front of the other.

Anatomically the brainstem is the fish brain. We have a fish brain under our higher vertebrate brains. The brainstem, Archaeocerebellum and Palaeocerebellum are the Amphibian brain. The Diencephalon and Archaeocortex are the reptile brain. Add the Palaeocortex and a small amount of neocortex and you have primitive mammals. Add larger and more complex Neocortex and you have humans and Other AP
ES.

When a human being has the brain stem severed in an accident below the Pons in the Medulla he has a flaccid paralysis like a dead fish. If he is severed mid-brain (Mesencephalon), his reptile and amphibian motor responses are cut off from higher inhibition. That patient when stimulated extends his arms and his legs in the same pattern seen in an alligator. However if the brainstem is severed in the Diencephalon above the Mesencephalon (the motor connections for higher mammals, the comatose patient assumes an involuntary posture with the legs extended but the arms flexed tightly (at shoulder, elbow, wrist, and fingers.) This happens in all primates who have an evolutionary history of arm brachiating (weight support by flexed arms) as well as weight support on extended legs. All of this physiology is vestigial neurological programming reflecting exquisitely on our evolution.

Amhairghine

 

[Dunemeister]

We have many vestigial organs that have been modified by mutation into organs that have different functions. Pre-vertebrate chordates (amphioxus) had no bones, its body was supported by a cartilaginous rod called a Notochord. Human embryos have a notochord before the bony skeleton is formed. Usually the human notochord is recycled by several regulatory genes to make way for the bony vertebrae of our modern vertebrate back bone. However, occasionally some clumps of notochord are not recycled. They remain in the vertebral column or clivus of the brain base. Some are just dormant, but some are stimulated to regrow more notochord. That forms a tumour called a Chordoma. These are often located in the bone under the human brain stem. The Tumour thus can push into the brainstem where it can cause death unless surgically removed. The Chordoma is a true vestigial organ.

Based on your description, it sounds like an incompletely formed organ. If it has formed properly, it would have completey given way to backbone, yes? If this is all it means to be vestigial, then what bearing does it have on evolution?

Most vertebrates have a tail. Primates had tails until they evolved into the Apes (of which Humans are members of the Ape family.) We normally do not have tails. But we do have tails with several vertebrae in our early embryonic stages (so do chickens) that measures 1/6 the length of the human embryo. Occasionally the foetus matures and is born with a visible tail with or without vertebrae. These are true vestigial organs. All humans actually have a short tail called a coccyx. I have one and so do you. It has vertebral bodies sometimes fused. It is rarely seen because thick flesh of the buttocks hide it. It is a definite vestigial organ.

Again, I see this as incomplete formation of an organ. Why view this as a tail, a sign of ancient ancestry? Why not view it as a spanner in the works?

Humans in the early embryonic stages have gill slits of primitive gill tissue similar to that which precedes mature gills in modern fish. but most like those of primitive fish (agnathic eels and fish, Hag fish, Lampreys). However, we have groups of regulatory genes that turn on other genes that recycle the gill tissue into inner ear bones and (Branchial Clefts become parts of posterior jaw, hyoid bone for the tongue attachment, sinus tracts. and the thyroid attachments. When a branchial cleft cyst persists into adulthood it is called a "cystic tumour" sometimes with an opening out of the side of the neck.

Okay, so in the process of development, we pass through a stage where we have a feature that appears quite similar to what another creature has. Again, why assume this shows ancestry? It's interesting to think so, but it's evidence of exactly nothing. It just so happens that, as embryos mature, they pass through this stage.

Body hair is a sort of vestigial organ. Some ethnic groups have very little and others have a greater amount. Occasionally babies are born with so much body hair that they are similar to non-humans like chimps and gorillas. They may have given a myth of wolfmen. Like those above, the failure is in genes that regulate the switch turning on or off, other genes. American actor Robin Williams has a definite excess of body hair, which is a vestigial organ from his non-human ape ancestors and ape cousins.

Again, why assume that? It may simply be that the process of growing a human involves genes that produce hair and other genes that regulate that production. In some cases where everything functions as it ought (normal cases) we get typical amounts of hair; otherwise, not. Again, unless one is already inclined to believe the evolutionary story, these cases don't provide compelling evidence of ancestry.

There are a dozen other true vestigial organs in humans that offer powerful evidence for evolution by showing what happens when evolution makes an error.

On an evolutionary picture, what counts as an "error"? You can only "err" if there is a "right" way of doing things.