Is the vestigial organ argument a vestige of poor science

[ChristineM]

So what your agreeing with is the missing link is still missing?

In the last decades I have seen evolutionists claim
1) birds came from dinos
2) dinos came from birds
3) they both came from a common origin

I guess they're covering all the bases?

but funny thing... usually Tweety Bird comes from T Rex but T Rex is not even bird hipped... stegosaurus and triceratops are bird hipped but don't superficially look like birds so that won't sell I guess.

But is it science?

Missing link? Are creationist still harping on that 100 year old hoax?

The evolution of the homo genus can be traced back close on 3 million years, past that through hominini to nearly 6 million years, to the earliest apes at around 10 million years. Through that and on to the first mammals 85 million years ago. Who needs a straw man when we've got genetics?

Please provide citation for your #2


Your tweety bird nonsense is covered in previous posts

 

[ChristineM]

Unfortunately the missing link is still missing.... so we can't focus on that
Best we can do is make dotted lines where they are assumed and speculate

Whether lizard - bird or ape-human the missing link is still missing

See my avatar? Is that a missing link? By your standards probably, because it fills gap between the earliest humans and modern humans. So not missing, just misunderstood.

By most peoples standards it a fully developed human skull, just different from modern, more evolved human skulls.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is an excellent video that for part of it has a progression of fossils leading up to man. Start at the seven minute part and you only need to watch through the eleventh minute.

Where is the line between human and non-human? Creationists can't agree. In fact in the past some have even moved the lines themselves. Duane Gish famously saying at one point that Homo erectus was 100% ape and then later calling it a man:

Can you spare four minutes and find where a "missing link" is needed?

 

[Jose Fly]

In the last decades I have seen evolutionists claim...

In just this week I've seen you make quantitative claims about "information" but as soon as I asked how you were measuring it you ran away.

I wonder if you realize that you're coming across as the worst stereotype of an internet creationist? Or maybe it's on purpose?

 

[scott777]

Once upon a time the human body was full of so called vestigial organs. Now? arguably zero.

We were taught in school that there is a list of many vestigial organs and this is consistent with evolution and yet... that prediction of evolutionary science appears wrong and there are arguably no vestigial organs

for example:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090730-spleen-vestigial-organs_2.html
Vestigial Organs Not So Useless After All, Studies Find
Maggie Koerth-Baker
for National Geographic News
July 30, 2009
Appendix, tonsils, various redundant veins—they're all vestigial body parts once considered expendable, if not downright useless.

But as technology has advanced, researchers have found that, more often than not, some of these "junk parts" are actually hard at work.

Your confusing 'vestigial' with 'useless'. Vestigial in the biological sense means degenerate. The appendix is not much use in the average human.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Your confusing 'vestigial' with 'useless'. Vestigial in the biological sense means degenerate. The appendix is not much use in the average human.

There is some reason to believe helpful bacteria can be sheltered there
In any case saying the appendix is useless is kinda 'old school' now
same with saying junk DNA is junk... very 'old school'

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is some reason to believe helpful bacteria can be sheltered there
In any case saying the appendix is useless is kinda 'old school' now
same with saying junk DNA is junk... very 'old school'

No, most junk DNA is still "junk". Some of it has a use that was not suspected at first, but from what I have seen even with the very loose redefinition of "functioning" that some have come up with, about 80% of the genome could be safely removed.

Of course your human centered approach is your own downfall. Tell me, are people more complex than bacteria? Than singe celled protozoa? Than other one celled life?

 

[Audie]

There is some reason to believe helpful bacteria can be sheltered there
In any case saying the appendix is useless is kinda 'old school' now
same with saying junk DNA is junk... very 'old school'

Vaguely amusing, from the guy who does "old school" to the
tune of no fewer than 2000 years.

 

[whirlingmerc]

we

Vaguely amusing, from the guy who does "old school" to the
tune of no fewer than 2000 years.

Let me bring you up to date then.. as I was alluding to beneficial bacterial may be preserved there

Appendix may have important function, new research suggests
Date:
January 9, 2017
Source:
Midwestern University
Summary:
The human appendix, a narrow pouch that projects off the cecum in the digestive system, has a notorious reputation for its tendency to become inflamed (appendicitis), often resulting in surgical removal. Although it is widely viewed as a vestigial organ with little known function, recent research suggests that the appendix may serve an important purpose. In particular, it may serve as a reservoir for beneficial gut bacteria.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170109162333.htm

 

[Subduction Zone]

we


Let me bring you up to date then.. as I was alluding to beneficial bacterial may be preserved there

Appendix may have important function, new research suggests
Date:
January 9, 2017
Source:
Midwestern University
Summary:
The human appendix, a narrow pouch that projects off the cecum in the digestive system, has a notorious reputation for its tendency to become inflamed (appendicitis), often resulting in surgical removal. Although it is widely viewed as a vestigial organ with little known function, recent research suggests that the appendix may serve an important purpose. In particular, it may serve as a reservoir for beneficial gut bacteria.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170109162333.htm

What does that have to do with the topic of the thread?

 

[whirlingmerc]

No, most junk DNA is still "junk". Some of it has a use that was not suspected at first, but from what I have seen even with the very loose redefinition of "functioning" that some have come up with, about 80% of the genome could be safely removed.

Of course your human centered approach is your own downfall. Tell me, are people more complex than bacteria? Than singe celled protozoa? Than other one celled life?

y

New research shows what was previously thought junk DNA has many uses, such as regulation of necessary processes.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/05/genes-genome-junk-dna-encode

Junk DNA is very old school kinda like vestigial organs.

"For years, the vast stretches of DNA between our 20,000 or so protein-coding genes – more than 98% of the genetic sequence inside each of our cells – was written off as "junk" DNA. Already falling out of favour in recent years, this concept will now, with Encode's work, be consigned to the history books."

"The international Encode project has found that about a fifth of the human genome regulates the 2% that makes proteins"

 

[Subduction Zone]

y

New research shows what was previously thought junk DNA has many uses, such as regulation of necessary processes.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/05/genes-genome-junk-dna-encode

Junk DNA is very old school kinda like vestigial organs.

"For years, the vast stretches of DNA between our 20,000 or so protein-coding genes – more than 98% of the genetic sequence inside each of our cells – was written off as "junk" DNA. Already falling out of favour in recent years, this concept will now, with Encode's work, be consigned to the history books."

"The international Encode project has found that about a fifth of the human genome regulates the 2% that makes proteins"

These errors of yours were already corrected. Why bring them up again?

 

[whirlingmerc]

These errors of yours were already corrected. Why bring them up again?

It was a response and no they were not errors now.

I was merely pointing out that both the notions of junk DNA and vestigial organs are 'old school'
better knowledge now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was a response and no they were not errors now.

I was merely pointing out that both the notions of junk DNA and vestigial organs are 'old school'
better knowledge now.

Of course they were errors. You failed by referring to Project ENCODE which greatly exaggerated their findings. You failed by not understanding what a vestigial organ is in the first place.

 

[Audie]

we


Let me bring you up to date then.. as I was alluding to beneficial bacterial may be preserved there

Appendix may have important function, new research suggests
Date:
January 9, 2017
Source:
Midwestern University
Summary:
The human appendix, a narrow pouch that projects off the cecum in the digestive system, has a notorious reputation for its tendency to become inflamed (appendicitis), often resulting in surgical removal. Although it is widely viewed as a vestigial organ with little known function, recent research suggests that the appendix may serve an important purpose. In particular, it may serve as a reservoir for beneficial gut bacteria.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170109162333.htm

Pop sci journalism is a source of a
lot of misunderstanding.

"Vestigial" and "non functional"
are not remotely the same thing.

I could go into a lot of explanatory detail,
but you probably are not interested.

 

[Audie]

It was a response and no they were not errors now.

I was merely pointing out that both the notions of junk DNA and vestigial organs are 'old school'
better knowledge now.

"Vestigial" is old school but so is
geometry. Both as are valid as ever.

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh, yet another thread based on exagerated reducionism and misrepresentation of science.

It must be saturday.

 

[whirlingmerc]

"Vestigial" is old school but so is
geometry. Both as are valid as ever.

The latest research suggests the appendix provides a safe reservoir of healthy bacteria

the view that there is no purpose is merely because there was no known purpose -
the old school view

see WebMD
"New research suggests that the seemingly useless organ provides a safe haven for good bacteria to hang out in the gut."

 

[Audie]

The latest research suggests the appendix provides a safe reservoir of healthy bacteria

the view that there is no purpose is merely because there was no known purpose -
the old school view

There are vestigial organs / structures with
no function.

You wont have much luck trying to give science lessons to
people better educated than you.

In China we say, "Dont try to teach the old
monkey how to make faces."

 

[scott777]

I was merely pointing out that both the notions of junk DNA and vestigial organs are 'old school'
better knowledge now.

As I said before, vestigial means degenerate, not useless. So there are still vestigial organs.