Edtharan Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 there are no such things as a vestigal organs Ever heard of the appendix? Ever heard of the tail-bone? We all have them and they serve no purpose in us. However, they did have a purpose in our ancestor species, and thus are vestigial in us.
mooeypoo Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 ! Moderator Note Thread split to its own discussion. Here's a nice article about the top 10 useless limbs (or "Vestigial organs"):http://www.livescience.com/11317-top-10-useless-limbs-vestigial-organs.htmlThe summarized list is:The Appendix. Male Breast tissue and Nipples Fake Sex in Virgin Whiptail Lizards (Vestigial Behavior) The Sexual Organs of Dandelions Wisdom Teeth in Humans The Blind Fish Astyanax Mexicanus The Human Tailbone (Coccyx) Erector Pili and Body Hair Hind Leg Bones in Whales The Wings on Flightless Birds (And there *are* more.)There are also some design flaws in the human body. Seeing as the most common reason for the opposition to "vestigial organs" is the claim that a designed body (from a designer) would be perfect, these, too, would fit that definition. That is, our eyes have an inherent engineering flaw by having a permanent blindspot; our waste reclimation plumbing is mixed with our sexual organs (what happened there, eh?); Our larynx is too highly placed - which leads to quite a number of common deaths by choking, and there are more and more.So here they are, the vestigial organs. Do you have any alternative explanation for their existence, crazynutsx, or are you just here to pot empty statements without backing them up? 1
mississippichem Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) So here they are, the vestigial organs. Do you have any alternative explanation for their existence, crazynutsx, or are you just here to pot empty statements without backing them up? I'm thinking the same. This guy doesn't have any evidence or good arguments. He gets pinned in one thread, so he starts another like we aren't going to go after him in a new thread. there are no such things as a vestigal organs C'mon man, this is just getting silly. Ever notice how prevalent back problems are in humans? Our backs are incredibly poorly designed for upright walking. Either we evolved from a species that walked on all fours, or God is a horrible engineer. What use does the appendix have? I'm not letting you ignore this one. Address it. You've yet to offer any argument for any of your numerous threads. Your empty statements are not getting anywhere with any of us. If you really want to convince us, put some effort into your arguments. How would you like it if I came to your forum and posted: "Creationism is wrong, there is no such thing as a God" You would think that I didn't have any better arguments. Edited June 10, 2011 by mississippichem
Moontanman Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 •Fake Sex in Virgin Whiptail Lizards (Vestigial Behavior) I'm not sure I agree with this one, if I recall correctly the mating behavior has to occur before the lizards can lay eggs. Even though no genetic material is exchanged the act of mating (can we say orgasm?) triggers hormones which then trigger egg production but no males required If it was vestigial behavior then it shouldn't be necessary for the survival of the lizards. Are my thoughts on this close?
Phi for All Posted June 11, 2011 Posted June 11, 2011 there are no such things as a vestigal organs This kind of denial is rampant in the creationist camp. Iirc, the Creationist Museum in Petersburg, KY has a whale skeleton that has the vestigial hind leg bones removed. "Hey, if we take them off, you can't see them so there's no such thing, right?" 2
Weirdmaskman Posted June 11, 2011 Posted June 11, 2011 Vestigial organs are evidences of Evolution. Some organisms have structures or organs that seem to serve no useful function. E.g, tail bone in human *at the end of the spine,* tiny pelvic bones and limb bones in some snakes, presense of eyes in some cave_dwelling salamanders even though member of the species are completely blind. Vestigial organs can be viewed as evidence for evolution; organisms having vestigial structures probably share a common ancestry with organisms in which the homologous structure is function. Hope i'v made a point here, Whats ur view?..
mooeypoo Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 This kind of denial is rampant in the creationist camp. Iirc, the Creationist Museum in Petersburg, KY has a whale skeleton that has the vestigial hind leg bones removed. "Hey, if we take them off, you can't see them so there's no such thing, right?" And then we're accused of being rude when we say they're intellectually dishonest. This is just ridiculous. It's one thing to argue and debate the interpretation of the facts (though there's not much to do that in Evolution since it's established in *so many* angles) but hiding facts you know work against you is plainly lying. Thousands of Creationists follow leaders that lie to their faces, and then tell them that Science is dogmatic. I don't think I'll ever understand that. ~mooey
Ophiolite Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 It might be useful to carefully draw the distinction between vestigial = having no function at all, and vestigial = having, perhaps, a minor function, but one different from its original. Crazynutz may be arguing past you all, and he past you. The tenor of remarks here reminds me of how I am treated when espousing evolutionary theory on creationist sites. It is unseemly, undignified and counter productive.
mooeypoo Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 It might be useful to carefully draw the distinction between vestigial = having no function at all, and vestigial = having, perhaps, a minor function, but one different from its original. Crazynutz may be arguing past you all, and he past you. The tenor of remarks here reminds me of how I am treated when espousing evolutionary theory on creationist sites. It is unseemly, undignified and counter productive. I would agree with you if the OP would have cooperated and, say, post any form of answer other than hit-and-run posting. We do have other creationists that received a better treatment. Our frustration isn't against "creationists". It's again random posting for the sake of random posting.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now