Vestigial Body Parts debunked as "Proof" of Evolution

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Woody1, May 30, 2017.

  1. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    I'm referring to an old thread from the 2009 archives -- where I originally provided a logical proof that the universe was created by an outside "force" or "God" in the OP:
    Scientists Deem Creation to Be the Most Rational Explanation of Universe

    The OP left the atheists spinning their wheels, so the conversation diverged to evolution. I could not provide answers to three of their points at the time, and I said new information has a way of changing old hypotheses like it did with Recapitulation Theory -- that was once taught as gospel when I was in Biology class and was debunked later:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory .

    It is also a false analogy to use so-called "vestigial" body parts as proof of evolution -- as I will show. It would be inefficient for the body to carry extra "useless" baggage. So here we are 8 years later and three evolutionary "proofs" are wavering.

    Human Appendix serves important function for the human digestive system:

    The appendix was once thought to be an organ of no importance, and proof of an evolutionary past for humans, but it maintains an adequate supply of beneficial bacteria that are vital for human digestion.
    http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/news/20071012/appendix-may-have-purpose#1
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170109162333.htm
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090820175901.htm

    Whale Pelvis serves reproductive function

    The male whale has muscles attached from the pelvis to the penis that give it roto-rooter action like twin kite-strings.
    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/promiscuous-whales-make-good-use-pelvises-180952620/

    Muscles that produce Human Goose pimples are vital for regeneration and for removing wetness from the skin


    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sc...anation-of-universe.46031/page-12#post-799359

    It causes hair to stand on end, (to stand out). On a human that is generally quite hairless overall, it doesn't have much of an effect - but on an animal that has a lot of hair it serves a very important function. When they get a moment of fear, the papillae squeezes together causing the hair to stand on end. This makes the animal look a lot bigger than it is, and thus possibly prevent an enemy from attacking. During moments of cold, the same process occurs keeping the body better insulated.

    However, we humans have the most hair on our heads, and we don't get goosebumps on the scalp. Our head-hair doesn't fluff out from an emotional stimulus, or from the cold -- where it would be most effective in the evolutionary sense. http://www.futurity.org/goose-bump-muscle-1324242-2/

    In addition, animals with a lot of body hair do not usually have sweat glands, whereas humans have sweat glands. One purpose of goosebumps is to facilitate sweat removal for the human body when the blood vessels constrict beneath the skin. As blood moves to other parts of the body, where it is needed to fight or to stay warm, there is a chill that causes the goose pimples to raise up and wick up perspiration so it will evaporate away from the body. Goosebumps as an emotional response help to move the blood where it needs to go, including sexual arousal.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,373
    Unless evolution hasn't gotten around to it yet. Some examples:

    Pelvises on whales
    Hind legs on snakes and dolphins
    Ostrich wings
    Human tails
    Human caecum
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Pelvis on whale: used in reproductive function -- see previous post
    Human tails i.e coccyx: important linkage for several body muscles. Humans could not remain seated long without one:
    http://www.innerbody.com/image_skelfov/skel38_new.html
    Human caecum: part of the appendix -- see previous post

    Wait another 9 years and we'll probably see new information about hind legs on snakes and dolphins, and ostrich wings, just like the ones that were "solid proof" of evolution, and now debunked.

    I found the more I used peer-reviewed medical-anatomy-papers to read up on the appendix, and on goose-bumps, the more I heard things like "It is believed to be an evolutionary remnant by some". LOL

    Analogy is the weakest form of a logical proof, and vestigial organs look like they fall in the same category. The ones that were debunked show the inherent weaknesses.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,101
    Where do you get the idea that there is such a thing as an evolutionary "proof"? No theory is ever proved in science.

    But thanks for posting this under Religion at least.
     
  8. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,235
    Jeeze, how embarrasing.

    I know that ostriches do not really hide their heads in the sand, but it seems the same cannot be said of you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Are you back now because in the age of Trump it is again OK to shout your ignorance from the roof tops?
     
  9. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    A friend of mine and an expert witness at the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial" - Dr. Kirtley Mather - stated at the trial: "Creation and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive; creation is a fact and evolution is a process." IMO, Dr. Mather's statement is true. Being a scientific theist, it is reasonable (for me) to presume that God (in whatever form) may utilize many 'processes', mechanisms, mathematics, and physical laws to design and attain his desired outcomes; we have 'discovered' some of these (processes), but certainly have many more to go . . . . enjoy the 'hunt'!
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,101
    What or whom are you quoting, when you speak of "solid proof" of evolution?
     
  11. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Do you actually have an intelligent point to make, or should I bump you until you find a baby-sitter?
     
  12. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Good observation. I agree with the small steps of evolution at the speciation level. The big steps are harder to get your arms around. What does "more evolved" mean? I've always struggled with that concept, even when I was an agnostic and I was completely sold on evolution in my biology classes.
     
  13. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    It was argued extensively in the archived thread. There are 14 pages of it.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,373
    And whale femurs? What do they do? How about dolphin and snake legs?
    And tails? What do they do? Why are some humans born with tails, but others can live without them?
    Nope; it's separate from the appendix. Google any anatomy book. In grazers it serves as a pouch to allow cellulose to ferment. We don't graze any more so it's going away.
     
  15. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Hmmm.... the archived OP started out in the Religion forum as proof that an outside force or God created the universe. Atheists couldn't tackle that point very well, so they changed the subject to evolution and went on for several pages. Here I picked up where I left off, because I can't post to that thread any longer -- and you tell me it is off subject. Why didn't somebody tell them that?
     
  16. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    That is a very good one for him.
     
  17. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,208
    So humans are "designed" for sitting?
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,101

    I've just read it (it is from 2005) and can find no trace of that phrase being used in relation to evolution. And in fact only about 4-5 pages of the thread were about evolution.

    Are you making up straw men to attack here, or do you have a poor memory, or have I missed an instance of the phrase somewhere?
     
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,101
    On the contrary, I complimented you for posting in the correct place.

    It is a terribly common error with creationists for them to think that things are "proved" in science, but this shows a lack of understanding of the philosophy of science. Observations (if reproducibly confirmed) are facts, but theories are always provisional. A theory in science is a model of reality that explains observations and enables future observations to be predicted. But theories are constantly being updated and adjusted in the light of new discovery. So they cannot be "proved".

    It really does not matter if someone discovers that some vestigial organ performs a previously unknown function in an organism. The theory is then revised, we all learn and move on. This does not somehow threaten the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is corroborated by a mass of evidence of all sorts and it continually makes predictions, ranging from similarities in genetic material between species* to the rocks in which different sorts of fossils might be expected to be found. It could be considered false if someone were to discover rabbit fossils in the Cambrian or something, but that not so far happened. So the model works and we will continue to use it on that basis, refining it as we go.

    * Occasionally really interesting surprises turn up that enable bits of the jigsaw to be fitted better, for example the DNA finding that the closest land relative of the whale is the hippopotamus. This makes perfect sense when you think of it, but it took DNA evidence to discover it. I love it!
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2017
  20. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    HUMOR HERE --->Well . . . let me think for a moment, Woody . . . . . 'more evolved' might be the conclusion most would reach about you and I when readers compare us to many of the so-called 'experts' on Sciforums, eh? . . . . . AND lately, I've had my doubts about YOU! . . . . . HAHA!<- -- HUMOR HERE

    I guess 'more evolved' is what persons (or aliens? other?) might classify themselves as compared to what they perceive as 'less evolved' . . . . . a very subjective observation, I might note!! I always felt my old Irish Setter, Jake, felt much 'more evolved' than he considered me!
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,373
    Yep. The only really objective definition of "more evolved" is "makes a better fit into an ecological niche." It's somewhat counterintuitive that (for example) a cockroach might be more evolved than a whale, but if it is a better fit into an existing niche - then it is.

    (You could also define "more evolved" as "having spent more time evolving" but since we've all spent about the same amount of time evolving that doesn't help much.)
     
  22. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    I agree! . . . perhaps we (humans) oft try to equate more 'temporally (quantitatively) evolved' with more 'qualitatively evolved'? Human mental evolution is a good example of this misunderstanding, IMO!
     
  23. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    In my father's children no one was allergic to rag weeds , I come here to this country USA, by some exposure to ragweed , my system evolved into becoming allergic to ragweed and others. Now my son born in the USA as been part of my genes ( evolved to allergy ) he is allergic to ragweed.
    So this is not a major evolution , but could be considered as minor evolution . The same I consider as minor evolution Muscular dystrophy
     

Share This Page