Vestigial organs. Not good evidence for special creation. Good evidence for evolution.

[wattsr1]

Hi All,


Vestigial organs (snakes legs, whales legs, emus wings) are very good evidence for common descent with modification. It is easy to understand that, as an organ loses function, it continues to get passed on from generation to generation.

While it is as easy to understand that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfect designer could make a non functioning or partially functioning organ, it is very, very hard to know:-

1) why this would be done (given that such a designer could make any thing), and

2) how this would be done.

However the why and the how are easy to understand from an evolutionary point of view.


Thus, like the nested hierarchy, they are not good evidence for special creation, any more than rain and wind are. However, like the nested hierarchy, they are good evidence for a naturalistic system of common descent with modification.



Regards, Roland

[rogue06]

Hi All,


Vestigial organs (snakes legs, whales legs, emus wings) are very good evidence for common descent with modification. It is easy to understand that, as an organ loses function, it continues to get passed on from generation to generation.

While it is as easy to understand that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfect designer could make a non functioning or partially functioning organ, it is very, very hard to know:-

1) why this would be done (given that such a designer could make any thing), and

2) how this would be done.

However the why and the how are easy to understand from an evolutionary point of view.


Thus, like the nested hierarchy, they are not good evidence for special creation, any more than rain and wind are. However, like the nested hierarchy, they are good evidence for a naturalistic system of common descent with modification.



Regards, Roland

The vestigial hind limbs seen in some whales and especially in their extinct ancestors is to me especially obvious evidence in support of the evolutionary explanation that they descended from terrestrial mammals.

Further, it appears we seem to have some vestigial organs ourselves including our appendix and wisdom teeth.

[wattsr1]

The vestigial hind limbs seen in some whales and especially in their extinct ancestors is to me especially obvious evidence in support of the evolutionary explanation that they descended from terrestrial mammals.

Further, it appears we seem to have some vestigial organs ourselves including our appendix and wisdom teeth.

What I would love to see is Jorge and Seer explain them.

Naturally, God did it because God wanted to do it, does explain the existence these things. But offering evidence for these two "explanations" is always missing and so they are little more than made up stories.



Regards, Roland

[mig_killer2]

The vestigial hind limbs seen in some whales and especially in their extinct ancestors is to me especially obvious evidence in support of the evolutionary explanation that they descended from terrestrial mammals.

Further, it appears we seem to have some vestigial organs ourselves including our appendix and wisdom teeth.

dude, wisdom teeth are not vestigial. I can sell my wisdom teeth on the black market. therefore they are useful, therefore they are not vestigial.

[wattsr1]

dude, wisdom teeth are not vestigial. I can sell my wisdom teeth on the black market. therefore they are useful, therefore they are not vestigial.

You need to look up the definition of vestigial Mk2.


Regards, Roland

PS I do understand that you left off the smiley. But vestigial means "non functional or having some, but reduced function".

[Tiggy]

You need to look up the definition of vestigial Mk2.


Regards, Roland

PS I do understand that you left off the smiley. But vestigial means "non functional or having some, but reduced function".

Important to note vestigial means "non functional or having some, but reduced of the ORIGINAL function". There is nothing that says that a vestigial feature can't pick up a new secondary function through standard evolutionary processes. The coccyx may indeed still function as a muscle anchor point, but its original function as part of a longer tail structure is no longer there.

[wattsr1]

Important to note vestigial means "non functional or having some, but reduced of the ORIGINAL function". There is nothing that says that a vestigial feature can't pick up a new secondary function through standard evolutionary processes. The coccyx may indeed still function as a muscle anchor point, but its original function as part of a longer tail structure is no longer there.

That is an important distinction that I had not quite realized. I need to be careful in how I see the word "reduced". In a sense, there could be real and important functioning indeed. It is just that the reduction is with respect to the original function. Thanks Tiggy.


Regards, Roland

[mig_killer2]

you guys are stoopid. Its clear that the coccyx and wisdom teeth were evolved so I could sell them on the black market.

at least that's what I heard in bio class "so basically lucy jumped down from a tree and sold her wisdom teeth and coccyx on the black market"

[Tiggy]

you guys are stoopid. Its clear that the coccyx and wisdom teeth were evolved so I could sell them on the black market.

at least that's what I heard in bio class "so basically lucy jumped down from a tree and sold her wisdom teeth and coccyx on the black market"

Bet you got a good price for your cerebral cortex.








I keed! I keed! :

- T

[MooseOnTheLoose]

you guys are stoopid.

Well said.

[wattsr1]

you guys are stoopid.

Well said.

Jorge reckons the same thing too. I think Seer might, as well.



Regards, Roland

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Jorge reckons the same thing too. I think Seer might, as well.

So what has that got to do with me?

Banter aside though.

We obtain our adult teeth long before we've stopped growing. I thought wisdom teeth came through to plug gaps once the jaws were fully developed. I'm no dentist though.

On the question of the appendix: couldn't it be the start of an evolutionary change as opposed to the remains of one? Presumably you believe that man will evolve into an entirely different creature over the course of time and as such shouldn't the 'buds' of these changes start to manifest? Couldn't the appendix be on its way to delevoping a primary function as opposed to the secondary one Tiggy suggested? Unless you know for sure what role the appendix once played of course. But if the human body is full of redundant parts as you believe then there must be some evidence of entirely new bits and pieces on the way.

Just a thought for the pot.

[wattsr1]

So what has that got to do with me?

They agree with you.

On the question of the appendix: couldn't it be the start of an evolutionary change as opposed to the remains of one?

Yes and no.

I think they think it is the remains of one because they can track it back (via the nested hierarchy of related animals) to a fully functioning system. It could be the start of an evolutionary change in that there is no reason for a vestigial organ not taking on a new function - as you suggest below.

Presumably you believe that man will evolve into an entirely different creature over the course of time ...

We don't know that. We could become extinct. Maybe, like the coelacanth we are in a period of stasis. Besides, see my commentary below about inferring from history v predicting the future with respect to these kinds of things.

.. and as such shouldn't the 'buds' of these changes start to manifest? Couldn't the appendix be on its way to delevoping a primary function as opposed to the secondary one Tiggy suggested?

Bit of confusion here MOTL. That primary function would still be called a "secondary" one. "Primary" does not mean "most important" in this context. It means "original".

In the context of it taking on a new function, you could be correct here. It could be. It's just that I don't know how we could infer this with much certainty (see my comment on inferring from history versus inferring the future below). Possibly examples do exist in the fossil record, but nothing comes to mind. Certainly at the level of the gene such examples exist - of a gene starting out doing one thing and later evolving to do an entirely different thing altogether. For example, some molecules involved in sight, I believe have an evolutionary origin that has nothing to do with sight. Over the course of millions of years they ended up becoming crucial for sight.

I am having a look at an article on the evolution of eyes at the moment and it explores these kinds of issues.

Unless you know for sure what role the appendix once played of course.

Well I think we do know because it is not AFAICT, nearly as useless in other animals. It is a definite aid, housing bacteria that create enzymes for digesting food. So by tracing it back though the nested hierarchy of related organisms, we can infer that it did serve a purpose in a common ancestor, most of which has been lost now in humans but not other related animals. (It does, I believe, play some role in humans in helping fight disease. However, I have several relatives who are still alive and kicking and who have no appendix. Unless cut out in earlier years, its presence could have killed them.)

But if the human body is full of redundant parts as you believe then there must be some evidence of entirely new bits and pieces on the way.

We can see where parts came from by looking back. But we cannot see where parts are going, by looking forward. (This is the same as saying that we can see where we came from by looking back, but we cannot see where we are going by looking forward. We cannot really look forward in this context. You for example may, in the next 10 seconds become an atheist. A meteorite may wipe you from existing. We don't know. But in principle we can, by looking at surviving evidence from your history, see where you came from. You were not an atheist and a meteorite did not wipe you out. And so it is with evolution (with caveats).

Just a thought for the pot.

And a good thought too.



Regards, Roland

[Faid]

Conserning wisdom teeth, here's what the AAOMS (American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons) has to say:

http://www.aaoms.org/wisdom_teeth.php

Anthropologists note that the rough diet of early humans resulted in the excessive wear of their teeth. Normal drifting of the teeth to compensate for this wear ensured that space was available for most wisdom teeth to erupt by adolescence. The modern diet, which is much softer, and the popularity of orthodontic tooth straightening procedures produce a fuller dental arch, which quite commonly doesn't leave room for the wisdom teeth to erupt, thereby setting the stage for problems when the final four molars enter the mouth.

Must the Tooth Come Out if it Hasn't Caused Any Problems Yet?

Not all problems related to third molars are painful or visible. Damage can occur without your being aware of it.

As wisdom teeth grow, their roots become longer, the teeth become more difficult to remove and complications become more likely. In addition, impacted wisdom teeth are more likely to cause problems as patients age.

No one can predict when third molar complications will occur, but when they do, the circumstances can be much more painful and the teeth more difficult to treat. It is estimated that about 85% of third molars will eventually need to be removed.

Must the Tooth Come Out if it Hasn't Caused Any Problems Yet?

Not all problems related to third molars are painful or visible. Damage can occur without your being aware of it.

As wisdom teeth grow, their roots become longer, the teeth become more difficult to remove and complications become more likely. In addition, impacted wisdom teeth are more likely to cause problems as patients age.

No one can predict when third molar complications will occur, but when they do, the circumstances can be much more painful and the teeth more difficult to treat. It is estimated that about 85% of third molars will eventually need to be removed.

So the situation is pretty clear. In response, Creationists beat around the bush by quoting papers that say that prophylactic removal is not cost-efficient, or that it's connected with implications- as if that's the problem, and not that wisdom teeth cause problems in the first place.

They also throw some more red herrings around, such as that wisdom teeth don't cause frontal crowding of the arch as often as was once thought- or that some molars never manage to form, so no problem apparently. It's a sad display, really.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Oh I see, so wisdom teeth served a useful purpose until humans invented braces and junk food. That figures!