Is the vestigial organ argument a vestige of poor science

[Revoltingest]

The text is literary

Why do "you people" *, insist religion understands its own texts? What evidence there is zero evidence. So "you people" *, say what religion is as if it's got some clue when 100%of the evidence points in the opposite direction. Hell they even argue that constantly inside religion itself. *they point to each other and proclaim "heretic" which literally means you do not understand the text! !!


*Disclaimer to reduce pantie in bunch effect term is used only in laughing beer swilling good humor kind of way. Not intended to be literally offensive. I find the term funny and accurate about you people.

I don't understand the post.
But I'll add.....
If there are 10 different interpretations of a text, then at best, 9 are wrong.

 

[Valjean]

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

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.

I never heard of spleens or tonsils described as useless. Their function has been known for as long as I can remember.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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

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.

Sounds to me as if the 'vestigial organ argument' is a testament to the reliability of the scientific method. As new information comes to light, scientists alter their understanding accordingly. Because science continued to study the subject of vestigial organs, new evidence has been uncovered that some of these organs have a function that we were previously unaware of. It's a self-correcting method. This is why the scientific method has been BY FAR the most reliable method humans have come across for accurately determining how the physical world functions.

 

[David T]

I don't understand the post.
But I'll add.....
If there are 10 different interpretations of a text, then at best, 9 are wrong.

Mine is always right!!!!

 

[nPeace]

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

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.

a vestige of poor science

No.
a vestige of poor philosophy?
Yes

Example...
Status shift for whale pelvic bones
‘Useless vestiges’ no more, researchers say

...since evolving from land‐dwelling ancestors, [whales and dolphins] lost external hind limbs and evolved a highly reduced pelvis that seems to serve no other function except to anchor muscles that maneuver the penis.
These important functions may explain why cetacean pelvic bones have not been lost through evolutionary time


Yet no one has ever observed a four footed land animal evolve to a whale. it's inferred from a comparison of a few bones of different organisms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.
a vestige of poor philosophy?
Yes

Example...
Status shift for whale pelvic bones
‘Useless vestiges’ no more, researchers say

...since evolving from land‐dwelling ancestors, [whales and dolphins] lost external hind limbs and evolved a highly reduced pelvis that seems to serve no other function except to anchor muscles that maneuver the penis.
These important functions may explain why cetacean pelvic bones have not been lost through evolutionary time


Yet no one has ever observed a four footed land animal evolve to a whale. it's inferred from a comparison of a few bones of different organisms.

Of course we have never observed that. Individual creatures do not evolve. Populations evolve. We have observed that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

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.

New information surfaced. Interesting.

 

[ChristineM]

Science & religion take opposite paths.

Science....
It starts with no information. It begins slowly, making observations & theories.
It tests theories, makes new observations, discovers what is wrong, & revises them.
The understanding continually improves, becoming ever more useful.

Religion....
It starts with scripture giving perfect information about the natural & supernatural worlds.
Sundry groups each read it differently, then making prescriptions & proscriptions.
They descend into differing factions with each claiming to have The Truth.

It's not possible for all of them to be right, so one might think this means most are wrong.
But it's worse than that....they're all not even wrong.

Only one problem here, religion (in this case abrahamic religions) have faith they start with perfect information when in fact they start with bronze age guesswork and do little to improve on that guesswork but argue over interpretation

 

[ChristineM]

No.
a vestige of poor philosophy?
Yes

Example...
Status shift for whale pelvic bones
‘Useless vestiges’ no more, researchers say

...since evolving from land‐dwelling ancestors, [whales and dolphins] lost external hind limbs and evolved a highly reduced pelvis that seems to serve no other function except to anchor muscles that maneuver the penis.
These important functions may explain why cetacean pelvic bones have not been lost through evolutionary time


Yet no one has ever observed a four footed land animal evolve to a whale. it's inferred from a comparison of a few bones of different organisms.

Not a few bones but many along with dna (which cannot lie), comparative anatomy and anthropology. 50 years ago the conclusion was interred, but you are behind the times because it suites your agenda, now, 50 years later things have moved on and the evidence is sound

 

[nPeace]

Sounds to me as if the 'vestigial organ argument' is a testament to the reliability of the scientific method. As new information comes to light, scientists alter their understanding accordingly. Because science continued to study the subject of vestigial organs, new evidence has been uncovered that some of these organs have a function that we were previously unaware of. It's a self-correcting method. This is why the scientific method has been BY FAR the most reliable method humans have come across for accurately determining how the physical world functions.

So does this mean that the scientific method allows for one to start with an idea, and then fit other ideas as evidence, so that the ideas are always evidence for previous ideas? Do I sound confusing?
Sorry about that.

Say for example, I started off with an idea, and to test it I predict an outcome. So after testing the outcome is "verified", later we discover that what was "verified" was actually just thought to be. So now I can come up with an idea to fit the current finding to my idea?
That sort of thing?

Sorry. Hope I haven't lost you.

 

[Milton Platt]

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

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.

No, and it's a good thing we have "science" to discover the true functions of such organs, isn't it?

 

[nPeace]

Not a few bones but many along with dna (which cannot lie), comparative anatomy and anthropology. 50 years ago the conclusion was interred, but you are behind the times because it suites your agenda, now, 50 years later things have moved on and the evidence is sound

Good. Someone who appears to be able to help me out. Could you provide the DNA data. I already saw the artwork.
Please don't just link me to a page. Forum rules say

always provide a citation and limit your quotation to a paragraph or two rather than quoting the entire content (see Rule 4 for additional guidelines)

Also could you show me how the bones are not inferred.

 

[QuestioningMind]

So does this mean that the scientific method allows for one to start with an idea, and then fit other ideas as evidence, so that the ideas are always evidence for previous ideas? Do I sound confusing?
Sorry about that.

Say for example, I started of with an idea, and to test it I predict an outcome. So after testing the outcome is "verified", later we discover that what was "verified" was actually just thought to be. So now I can come up with an idea to fit the current finding to my idea?
That sort of thing?

Sorry. Hope I haven't lost you.

Yes, that's how the scientific method works. You start out with an idea or hypothesis. You then find a means of testing that hypothesis that can be replicated by others. Based upon the results of testing your hypothesis, which may suggest that the hypothesis is flawed, someone can use those result to come up with another hypothesis. They would then have to devise a means of testing this new hypothesis. A hypothesis that has repeatedly been found to be accurate over time can eventually become a scientific theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So does this mean that the scientific method allows for one to start with an idea, and then fit other ideas as evidence, so that the ideas are always evidence for previous ideas? Do I sound confusing?
Sorry about that.

Say for example, I started off with an idea, and to test it I predict an outcome. So after testing the outcome is "verified", later we discover that what was "verified" was actually just thought to be. So now I can come up with an idea to fit the current finding to my idea?
That sort of thing?

Sorry. Hope I haven't lost you.

You seem to have a flawed idea on what was verified. Are the whale's hip bones vestigial? Yes, they are. They are no longer used for walking. Does that mean that they can no longer have a use? No. You appear to have the typical creationist strawman of what a vestigial organ is.


Now can we find more and more confirming evidence as times goes on? Of course we can. Does that mean absolutely that an event has happened? No, in the sciences all beliefs are conditional. But when it comes to the theory of evolution refuting it would be on the same order as refuting the theory of gravity. It is extremely unlikely that that will ever happen. Instead we will find more and more evidence that tells us that the diversity of life is the product of evolution.

 

[ChristineM]

Good. Someone who appears to be able to help me out. Could you provide the DNA data. I already saw the artwork.
Please don't just link me to a page. Forum rules say

Ah you mean a citation like @whirlingmerc didn't provid, gotya

Do you have 4 years or so free so study at university because (and you know but consider yourself to be sarcastic) that the RF servers are not big enough to hold the DNA data

However

Cows are more closely related to whales than to pigs, says a genetic study that suggests a new place for whales in the evolutionary family tree.

Prior studies have indicated that whales, along with dolphins and porpoises, are rather closely related to hoofed mammals with an even number of toes. That group includes pigs, hippos, camels, cows, deer, giraffes and sheep.

The previous studies implied that a cow is more closely related to a whale than to a horse.

But even-toed mammals were thought to be more closely related to each other than any of them were to whales. The new study challenges that idea. It says hippos and cud-chewing mammals like cows, sheep and deer are more closely related to whales, dolphins and porpoises than they are to other even-toed mammals like pigs and camels.

The work is presented in the Aug. 14 issue of the journal Nature by scientists from Japan. They reached their conclusions by studying details of genetic material.

Edit
You could also learn from a more in depth study but i doubt you will even try https://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~aging/srep17.pdf

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah you mean a citation like @whirlingmerc didn't provid, gotya

Do you have 4 years or so free so study at university because (and you know but consider yourself to be sarcastic) that the RF servers are not big enough to hold the DNA data

However

Cows are more closely related to whales than to pigs, says a genetic study that suggests a new place for whales in the evolutionary family tree.

Prior studies have indicated that whales, along with dolphins and porpoises, are rather closely related to hoofed mammals with an even number of toes. That group includes pigs, hippos, camels, cows, deer, giraffes and sheep.

The previous studies implied that a cow is more closely related to a whale than to a horse.

But even-toed mammals were thought to be more closely related to each other than any of them were to whales. The new study challenges that idea. It says hippos and cud-chewing mammals like cows, sheep and deer are more closely related to whales, dolphins and porpoises than they are to other even-toed mammals like pigs and camels.

The work is presented in the Aug. 14 issue of the journal Nature by scientists from Japan. They reached their conclusions by studying details of genetic material.

Aah, the good old days when DNA could not be read. Those were the days when creationists thought that DNA would spell the death knell for evolution. Turns out it is now the strongest evidence ever for the theory.

 

[ChristineM]

Aah, the good old days when DNA could not be read. Those were the days when creationists thought that DNA would spell the death knell for evolution. Turns out it is now the strongest evidence ever for the theory.

'tiz also the death knell for many convicted murderers.

DNA does not lie no matter how hard creationists (and murderers*) wish it did

* Not only murderers but DNA analysis is now so easy and cheap to obtain and read that its it can even be used to check your own ancestry.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, that's how the scientific method works. You start out with an idea or hypothesis. You then find a means of testing that hypothesis that can be replicated by others. Based upon the results of testing your hypothesis, which may suggest that the hypothesis is flawed, someone can use those result to come up with another hypothesis. They would then have to devise a means of testing this new hypothesis. A hypothesis that has repeatedly been found to be accurate over time can eventually become a scientific theory.

Thanks. Can you give me one example in science of this, outside of the theory of evolution - one example that fits what you understand me to be saying.

 

[Skwim]

What is the "vestigial organ argument", please? I have never heard of it. Can you quote some references, or provide some links, for me to read what it is?

Taking "vestigial" here to indicate organs that are not useful, the vestigial organ argument is one sometimes made to 1) show the incompetence of god the creator (it indicates a not very intelligent designer), or 2) given a claimed competent god who would have designed a perfect human body, this can't be the case because useless organs give lie to that assertion, therefore the perfect god of Abraham doesn't exist, or 3) Both of the above show why creationism doesn't make sense and evolution is right: during evolution we came to no longer need these organs and that in time they'll probably disappear.

Back to the OP.
It's true that several vestigial organs, those that no longer function as they once did, continue to exist because they've developed new uses. This would be in accordance with the notion of vestigiality.

"Vestigiality is the retention during the process of evolution of genetically determined structures or attributes that have lost some or all of their ancestral function in a given species."​

But those organs for which no useful purpose has been found also qualify as vestigial. Among these are male breast nipples, and extrinsic ear muscles used by prehominids to move their ears.

Those vestigial organs that have been found to have a purpose after all include the vermiform appendix and the thymus gland.

So, while there are some "vestigial" organs and structures for which a use has been found, there are still quite a few that remain useless.

.

 

[ChristineM]

Thanks. Can you give me one example in science of this, outside of the theory of evolution - one example that fits what you understand me to be saying.

The device you used to post is an example of the scientific method. From early hypothesis about quantum mechanics, revised and improved to the millions of semiconductors making the multiprocessor machine that allows you to mock science online