Is the vestigial organ argument a vestige of poor science

[Audie]

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

from Berkeley-

So what's not an adaptation? The answer: a lot of things. One example is vestigial structures. A vestigial structure is a feature that was an adaptation for the organism's ancestor, but that evolved to be non-functional because the organism's environment changed.

Fish species that live in completely dark caves have vestigial, non-functional eyes. When their sighted ancestors ended up living in caves, there was no longer any natural selection that maintained the function of the fishes' eyes. So, fish with better sight no longer out-competed fish with worse sight. Today, these fish still have eyes — but they are not functional and are not an adaptation; they are just the by-products of the fishes' evolutionary history.

In fact, biologists have a lot to say about what is and is not an adaptation.

In the comparative vertebrate anatomy class, t he professor
had a bit different way of looking at it, more like a simple
dictionary pov-

a part or organ of an organism that has become reduced or functionless in the course of evolution.

Our claws are much reduced in function, as is our hair.
Mere vestiges of their former apey glory. (Apeie"?)
(Apical"?)

Human hair is much changed in function too of course.

Hind legs on cetaceans or snakes seem entirely w/o
function.

Structural units of a reptile jaw that are much reduced
in size and put to a different use, as part of the inner
ear would be vestigial jaw bones, but with plenty of function still.

 

[scott777]

from Berkeley-

So what's not an adaptation? The answer: a lot of things. One example is vestigial structures. A vestigial structure is a feature that was an adaptation for the organism's ancestor, but that evolved to be non-functional because the organism's environment changed.

Fish species that live in completely dark caves have vestigial, non-functional eyes. When their sighted ancestors ended up living in caves, there was no longer any natural selection that maintained the function of the fishes' eyes. So, fish with better sight no longer out-competed fish with worse sight. Today, these fish still have eyes — but they are not functional and are not an adaptation; they are just the by-products of the fishes' evolutionary history.

In fact, biologists have a lot to say about what is and is not an adaptation.

In the comparative vertebrate anatomy class, t he professor
had a bit different way of looking at it, more like a simple
dictionary pov-

a part or organ of an organism that has become reduced or functionless in the course of evolution.

Our claws are much reduced in function, as is our hair.
Mere vestiges of their former apey glory. (Apeie"?)
(Apical"?)

Human hair is much changed in function too of course.

Hind legs on cetaceans or snakes seem entirely w/o
function.

Structural units of a reptile jaw that are much reduced
in size and put to a different use, as part of the inner
ear would be vestigial jaw bones, but with plenty of function still.

While there's some difference in definitions of 'vestigial', the word 'vestige' seems universally to mean something that has been reduced or has 'less' function than it used to. So it makes sense to extend that to 'vestigial'.

 

[Audie]

While there's some difference in definitions of 'vestigial', the word 'vestige' seems universally to mean something that has been reduced or has 'less' function than it used to. So it makes sense to extend that to 'vestigial'.

So long as it is not used as yet another creo-canard,
about how them evolutionists thought that etc.,
we dont need an exact definition. Biology is
not the place for a whole lot of exactness.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

The number of vestigial structures has not changed. It is only that some functioning has been found for them. I notice that several people have already explained this, but vestigial does not mean without function. It means that the structure does not perform its original function and is a vestige of its former state. The erroneous notion equating vestigial to lack of function is used to falsely disavow the theory of evolution. It is a parlor trick and not a very good one. If you redefine vestigial to mean without function, then finding function refutes consideration of that structure as vestigial. This is not in keeping with the actual meaning and is a sort of a straw man argument.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So long as it is not used as yet another creo-canard,
about how them evolutionists thought that etc.,
we dont need an exact definition. Biology is
not the place for a whole lot of exactness.

Exactly (wink).

 

[Audie]

The number of vestigial structures has not changed. It is only that some functioning has been found for them. I notice that several people have already explained this, but vestigial does not mean without function. It means that the structure does not perform its original function and is a vestige of its former state. The erroneous notion equating vestigial to lack of function is used to falsely disavow the theory of evolution. It is a parlor trick and not a very good one. If you redefine vestigial to mean without function, then finding function refutes consideration of that structure as vestigial. This is not in keeping with the actual meaning and is a sort of a straw man argument.

Wait for it...

 

[Into the Night]

The number of vestigial structures has not changed. It is only that some functioning has been found for them. I notice that several people have already explained this, but vestigial does not mean without function. It means that the structure does not perform its original function and is a vestige of its former state. The erroneous notion equating vestigial to lack of function is used to falsely disavow the theory of evolution. It is a parlor trick and not a very good one. If you redefine vestigial to mean without function, then finding function refutes consideration of that structure as vestigial. This is not in keeping with the actual meaning and is a sort of a straw man argument.

I don't really see how a 'vestigial' organ such as an appendix has anything to do with the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wait for it...

I doubt I will have to wait long.

I've spent my adult life studying biology and I keep seeing these same erroneous claims made over and over. It is as if the claimant is getting them from a list, but either the list doesn't include the rebuttal or they just don't bother to read that part. All this information is readily available. This is the information age, but surprisingly few people bother to get the information.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't really see how a 'vestigial' organ such as an appendix has anything to do with the Theory of Evolution.

The organ is no longer providing the advantage that it originally provided due to some change in the environment. This original function of the structure has lost the protection of natural selection. It has evolved to its present condition that may still have a function, but it is a vestige of the former function. At some future time, it may not function at all or even exist in the species that has it. It could even be that speciation may occur and some descendant species may not have the organ at all. It could just as easily become fodder for some entirely new function and change appropriately in response to selection driving the change.

We just don't know what is going to happen, but the change is evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

from Berkeley-

So what's not an adaptation? The answer: a lot of things. One example is vestigial structures. A vestigial structure is a feature that was an adaptation for the organism's ancestor, but that evolved to be non-functional because the organism's environment changed.

Fish species that live in completely dark caves have vestigial, non-functional eyes. When their sighted ancestors ended up living in caves, there was no longer any natural selection that maintained the function of the fishes' eyes. So, fish with better sight no longer out-competed fish with worse sight. Today, these fish still have eyes — but they are not functional and are not an adaptation; they are just the by-products of the fishes' evolutionary history.

In fact, biologists have a lot to say about what is and is not an adaptation.

In the comparative vertebrate anatomy class, t he professor
had a bit different way of looking at it, more like a simple
dictionary pov-

a part or organ of an organism that has become reduced or functionless in the course of evolution.

Our claws are much reduced in function, as is our hair.
Mere vestiges of their former apey glory. (Apeie"?)
(Apical"?)

Human hair is much changed in function too of course.

Hind legs on cetaceans or snakes seem entirely w/o
function.

Structural units of a reptile jaw that are much reduced
in size and put to a different use, as part of the inner
ear would be vestigial jaw bones, but with plenty of function still.

This is a good point. Vestigial structures don't have to be without function, but they can be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't really see how a 'vestigial' organ such as an appendix has anything to do with the Theory of Evolution.

But you continually demonstrate that you do not understand the scientific method at all.

Here is a simplified flow chart of the scientific method:

Would you like to discuss it?

 

[whirlingmerc]

But you continually demonstrate that you do not understand the scientific method at all.

Here is a simplified flow chart of the scientific method:

View attachment 23088

Would you like to discuss it?

And of course there is also the scientific historical methodologies for cases when the original event is not observable, testable and repeatable. Often the more applicable, less cited regarding creation.

The tailbone is another great example of a supposed no function. Without it your guts would not be supported.... no function? Charles Darwin asserted the appendix and tail bone had no function in 'the descent of man' and was wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And of course there is also the scientific historical methodologies for cases when the original event is not observable, testable and repeatable. Often the more applicable, less cited regarding creation.

The tailbone is another great example of a supposed no function. Without it your guts would not be supported.... no function? Charles Darwin asserted the appendix and tail bone had no function in 'the descent of man' and was wrong.

Why do you continue to use a false definition of "vestigial"? You are not fooling anyone except yourself with that amazingly poor argument. Vestigial does not mean useless. And so what if Darwin was wrong about the tail and the appendix? Though I would like to see the quote with a link. No lying creationist sites allowed of course.

 

[Audie]

And of course there is also the scientific historical methodologies for cases when the original event is not observable, testable and repeatable. Often the more applicable, less cited regarding creation.

The tailbone is another great example of a supposed no function. Without it your guts would not be supported.... no function? Charles Darwin asserted the appendix and tail bone had no function in 'the descent of man' and was wrong.

You do know that Darwin was like, a long time ago?

Lets see if we can agree on a couple of things-

1) Whether Darwin was wrong on some points make
no (0) difference as to whether the theory is correct.

2) "Vestigial" does not and never did mean
the organ has "no function".

It is tiresome to go over the same things over
and over.

So, ok on points one and two?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And of course there is also the scientific historical methodologies for cases when the original event is not observable, testable and repeatable. Often the more applicable, less cited regarding creation.

The tailbone is another great example of a supposed no function. Without it your guts would not be supported.... no function? Charles Darwin asserted the appendix and tail bone had no function in 'the descent of man' and was wrong.

I'm afraid you're repeating a lie, there. Darwin specified in Origin of Species that an organ or appendage that may become rudimentary for one purpose may still serve another. He never said that such organs served NO function:

"An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other. [...] Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct one: in certain fishes the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Many similar instances could be given."
SOURCE: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2009/2009-h/2009-h.htm

 

[Audie]

I'm afraid you're repeating a lie, there. Darwin specified in Origin of Species that an organ or appendage that may become rudimentary for one purpose may still serve another. He never said that such organs served NO function:

"An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other. [...] Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct one: in certain fishes the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Many similar instances could be given."
SOURCE: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2009/2009-h/2009-h.htm

Lets see if Whirl can find the source of his misinformation
for us.

Darwin was I think wrong on his thing about the original
function of the swim bladder

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lets see if Whirl can find the source of his misinformation
for us.

Darwin was I think wrong on his thing about the original
function of the swim bladder

Yes, it seems now that they thought it originally arose as a lung to supplement the gills and later developed into a swim bladder in some fishes. Also some fishes never developed the swim bladder, for example sharks and rays that split off some time ago from what became bony fishes.

 

[Audie]

Yes, it seems now that they thought it originally arose as a lung to supplement the gills and later developed into a swim bladder in some fishes. Also some fishes never developed the swim bladder, for example sharks and rays that split off some time ago from what became bony fishes.

Sharks aint fish

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sharks aint fish

That depends on one's definition of "fish".

 

[Polymath257]

Sharks aint fish

They aren't bony fish, Osteichthyes. But they are cartilaginous fish, Chondrichthyes. Both are considered to be fish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteichthyes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondrichthyes

All are considered to be jawed vertebrates (Gnathostomes).