Creationists cant answer....

[Baggins]

Function of the Cecum

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/ebookprint.php?id=787

In humans, the cecum's main functions are to absorb fluids and salts that remain after completion of intestinal digestion and absorption and to mix its contents with a lubricating substance, mucus. The cecum's internal wall is composed of a thick mucous membrane through which water and salts are absorbed. Beneath this lining is a deep layer of muscle tissue that produces churning and kneading motions.

James, it isn't only having no function that makes an organ vestigial, and organ can also be vestigial if it no longer has the function for which it was originally designed, like the caecum and the appendix.

Read the definitions.

 

[TheManeki]

Function of the Cecum

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/ebookprint.php?id=787

In humans, the cecum's main functions are to absorb fluids and salts that remain after completion of intestinal digestion and absorption and to mix its contents with a lubricating substance, mucus. The cecum's internal wall is composed of a thick mucous membrane through which water and salts are absorbed. Beneath this lining is a deep layer of muscle tissue that produces churning and kneading motions.

I noticed on the front page of http://www.becomehealthynow.com/ that the website's purpose is to "assist you in finding natural solutions to health problems without the use of drugs or surgery."

While the site may be legit, that phrase makes me wonder if they are hyping snake oil.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Th caecum had a function in our ancestors that it no longer has in us, therefore it fits the definition of vestigial as used by scientists

Sorry, it does have a valid and current function. See the link from the doctor I posted. Are you really going to try to go back the whole ways to birds to say the cecum is a vestigal organ? Are you that desperate? Are you conceding that in the primates it has a purpose?

The appendix is part of the caecum and falls under the same definition of vestigiality.

Sorry, most scientists don't believe the appendix is a vestigal organ now. Are you stuck in science from 40 years ago?

All this proves is that you are still unaware of the definition of vestigial, and are too proud to actually go and look it up in the links that I have given.

I am aware of the definition. However, I am also aware of people like you trying to make organs vestigal when they are really not i.e appendix and the cecum.

The fact you haven't just shows that you know you are wrong but just can't admit it.

Nope, you are the one that has been proven wrong

I have seen this in creationists time and time again, they will swear blind that he sky is green in the face of all evidence, in the face of definitions of blue and green and photographs of the sky.

I have seen evolutionists lie and make up evidence to try to fool people..and even put forth incorrect informatiom..such charlatans.

seriously go and read the definitions, with citations, that I provided and slink away.

Haha slink away when you have been owned?

You are only making it worse for yourself

I think you were looking in the mirror when you typed that.

 

[Baggins]

vestigial. a. Of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a vestige; like a mere trace of what has been; also, rudimentary. In biology vestigial has a specific application to those organs or structures which are commonly called rudimentary, and are rudimentary in fact, but which are properly regarded, not as beginnings or incipient states, but as remains of parts or structures which have been better developed in an earlier stage of existence of the same organismm, or in lower preceding organisms, and have aborted or atrophied, or become otherwise reduced or rudimental in the evolution of the individual or of the species.
(The Century Dictionary: An Encyclopedic Lexicon of the English Language 1911)

 

[Baggins]

Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost."
(The Story of Evolution, Joseph McCabe, 1912, p.264)

estige n. 2. Biol Specif., a small, degenerate, or imperfectly developed part or organ which has been more fully developed in an earlier stage of the individiual or in a past generation.
(Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language 1957)

 

[Baggins]

When structures undergo a reduction in size together with a loss of their typical function, that is, when they become vestigial, they are quite commonly considered to be degenerate and functionless. But Simpson has recently pointed out that this need not be true at all: the loss of the original function may be accompanied by specialization for a new function.
(Evolution: Process and Product, E. O. Dodson, 1960)

"It is incorrect to state that to be vestigial an organ must be non-functional ... it is not essential that a vestigial organ be totally without function."
(Naylor 1982)

 

[Baggins]

vestige A degenerate anatomical structure or organ that remains from one more fully developed and functional in an earlier phylogenetic form of the individual.
(Dictionary of Bioscience 1997)

vestigial Occuring in a rudimentary condition, as a result of evolutionary reduction from a more elaborated, functional character state in an ancestor.
( Futuyma 1998, from the Glossary)

 

[Baggins]

Vestigial Organs and Structures
Vestigial organs and structures (also called vestigia, rudiments, or remnants) are reduced body parts or organs, often without visible function in the derived bearers, that were fully developed and functioning in earlier members of that phylogenetic lineage. These structures, sometimes described as atrophied or degenerate, are usually small in comparison with their relative size in ancestral generations or in closely related species. ... vestigial structures may have acquired new, less obvious functions that differ from the original ones. Hence, a vestigium should not generally be considered without function, or only with respect to its ancestral, adult roles.
(Encyclopedia of Evolution 2002, pp 1131-1133)

 

[Baggins]

Vestiges The feature is an adult remnant of a feature (a homologue) that is more fully formed in an ancestor and/or in a related taxon. Evidence of a vestige is some element of phylogenetic continuity of the feature and shared developmental mechanisms with ancestral or related taxa that have the fully formed feature. Vestiges either are non-functional or may have a different function from the fully formed ancestral feature. If fully developed, the adult feature would be classified as a homologue.
(Hall 2003)

Have you got it yet James?

 

[jamesrwright3]

When structures undergo a reduction in size together with a loss of their typical function, that is, when they become vestigial, they are quite commonly considered to be degenerate and functionless. But Simpson has recently pointed out that this need not be true at all: the loss of the original function may be accompanied by specialization for a new function.
(Evolution: Process and Product, E. O. Dodson, 1960)

"It is incorrect to state that to be vestigial an organ must be non-functional ... it is not essential that a vestigial organ be totally without function."
(Naylor 1982)

LOL so now since very few. if any of the original 100 or so original vestigal organs listed by evolutionists are still considered vestigal, they have to change the original definition to include organs that are functional or have a new function. This is getting laughable.

 

[jamesrwright3]

James, it isn't only having no function that makes an organ vestigial, and organ can also be vestigial if it no longer has the function for which it was originally designed, like the caecum and the appendix.

Read the definitions.

I am glad you used the word designed. Sorry, evolutionists are now grasping for straws when it comes to vestigal organs since many of them can no longer be considered vestigal. I find it laughable that you believe these organs have a new function. How long did it take science to figure out the appendix had a function in HUMANS...and we supposedly know a lot about medicine. Any evidence they did not play the same role in other primates?

 

[Baggins]

Sorry, it does have a valid and current function. See the link from the doctor I posted. Are you really going to try to go back the whole ways to birds to say the cecum is a vestigal organ? Are you that desperate? Are you conceding that in the primates it has a purpose?

Of course I'd concede that, it has no bearing on its vestigiality.

Would you concede that it no longer has the same function in us that it did in our ancestors and so it is therefore vestigial?

Sorry, most scientists don't believe the appendix is a vestigal organ now. Are you stuck in science from 40 years ago?

All scientists believe the appendix is vestigial, if they understand the term. Most scientists would concede that it has utility in modern humans.

That doesn't stop it being vestigial, as you'd know if you were able to comprehend the definitions.

I am aware of the definition. However, I am also aware of people like you trying to make organs vestigal when they are really not i.e appendix and the cecum.

In that case do you understand the definition? It would seem that you don't

Nope, you are the one that has been proven wrong

The definitions I have given show me to be right and you to be wrong, That is no suprise.

I have seen evolutionists lie and make up evidence to try to fool people..and even put forth incorrect informatiom..such charlatans.

And yet you are unable to give examples, how sad. The examples of creationists lying appear on this site daily. I have already seen a claim that java man was a fraud on this site today.

Haha slink away when you have been owned?

No you will eventually slink away because what choice do you have in the face of definitions from dictionaries both standard and scientific and from biological text books showing you to be wrong.

I think you were looking in the mirror when you typed that.

I was looking at the computer screen actually what do you look at when you type?

 

[Baggins]

LOL so now since very few. if any of the original 100 or so original vestigal organs listed by evolutionists are still considered vestigal, they have to change the original definition to include organs that are functional or have a new function. This is getting laughable.

The definition there is from 1960. When exactly are you claiming that this redefinition occured?

The definition has been the same since before I was born.

Wriggling James?

I love it

 

[Baggins]

I am glad you used the word designed. Sorry, evolutionists are now grasping for straws when it comes to vestigal organs since many of them can no longer be considered vestigal. I find it laughable that you believe these organs have a new function. How long did it take science to figure out the appendix had a function in HUMANS...and we supposedly know a lot about medicine. Any evidence they did not play the same role in other primates?

Stop trying to change the subject, just slink off as predicted.

I used the word designed because i believe they were designed by natural selection.

What word should I use to define the design of organs by natural processes?

I can't think of a better one, honed perhaps? Nope I like designed


I find it laughable that you think our caecums and appendixes still digest plant material.

But be my guest and try living on grass if you wish

Not looking great for you on this thread James.

I am off to the gym to hone my body to fight creationism

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry the cecum is definitely not vestigal.

Does the human vermiform appendix house bacteria which are vital to breaking down cellulose in the human diet? If no, then the HVA is a vestigial organ.

I guess people are in desperate need to label anything as vestigal..my leg can be removed, and I still would be able to get around..maybe my leg is vestigal.

Your leg serves the same function as seen in other species. It does not have a rudimentary function, therefore it is not vestigial.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am glad you used the word designed.

Why? Evolution produces design.

Sorry, evolutionists are now grasping for straws when it comes to vestigal organs since many of them can no longer be considered vestigal.

Since when does the human vermiform appendix house bacteria used to digest cellulose? When did this happen?

How long did it take science to figure out the appendix had a function in HUMANS...and we supposedly know a lot about medicine. Any evidence they did not play the same role in other primates?

An organ can have function and still be vestigial, just as a burned out TV can still function as a boat anchor. A vestigial organ is an organ that serves a rudimentary function compared to the same organ in other species. This is how Darwin defined "vestigial".

 

[jamesrwright3]

Of course I'd concede that, it has no bearing on its vestigiality.

Would you concede that it no longer has the same function in us that it did in our ancestors and so it is therefore vestigial?

Can't say that for certain. If you are assuming natural selection was the mechanism by which it changed functions, can you tell me what deleterious effect on the survivial of distant (the apes have an appendix) primates the original form had? Simple disuse does not mean it decreases the chance of survivability on the part of a species. It actually has to have a negative effect on survivability. I can't see why still having a cecum would decrease the survivability of the species.

I also find it hard to believe that something used to digest food would suddenly change its function into something that has a positive effect on the immune system, maintains gut flora, and also helps fetal development by producing hormones. You actually have to go back to non-primates to find species that do not have a veriform appendix.So instead of becoming a vestigal organ which usually connotes a decrease in functionality, the appendix actually took on multiple positive new roles and probably has more functionality than the original cecum

That doesn't stop it being vestigial, as you'd know if you were able to comprehend the definitions.

I am able to comprehend the definitions quite fine.
There is a question of whether or not it is vestigal and regardless, vestigal organs do not either prove or disprove evoltion..and that is according to evowiki..not some creationist site.

In that case do you understand the definition? It would seem that you don't

I do understand it

The definitions I have given show me to be right and you to be wrong, That is no suprise.

Sure, if you start to use expanded definitions of vestigality and believe that vestigal organs can actually increase in functionality from their previous incarnations which goes against the conventional wisdom

And yet you are unable to give examples, how sad. The examples of creationists lying appear on this site daily. I have already seen a claim that java man was a fraud on this site today.

Piltdown man and Java Man was a fraid-Dubois admitted that the skull cap was that of a silver gibbon.

No you will eventually slink away because what choice do you have in the face of definitions from dictionaries both standard and scientific and from biological text books showing you to be wrong.

Nope..not slinking away at all.

 

[Baggins]

Can't say that for certain

.

Are you claiming that you can digest grass via a bacteria colony in your caecum?

If not then we can say that for certain.

If you are assuming natural selection was the mechanism by which it changed functions, can you tell me what deleterious effect on the survivial of distant (the apes have an appendix) primates the original form had?

Nope. I have no idea, but if we no longer ate grass then there is no need for the caecum to be maintained and in that case genetic drift could make it into the vestigial structure it is today.

Simple disuse does not mean it decreases the chance of survivability on the part of a species. It actually has to have a negative effect.

Doesn't. If a structure is no longer used genetic drift can change it .

I also find it hard to believe that something used to digest food would suddenly change its function into something that has a positive effect on the immune system, maintains gut flora, and also helps fetal development by producing hormones.

I would imagine that it had those secondary functions before the primary function became vestigial and that they were maintained.

You actually have to go back to non-primates to find species that do not have a veriform appendix.

A good piece of evidence for common descent I'd say

So instead of becoming a vestigal organ which usually connotes a decrease in functionality, the appendix actually took on multiple positive new roles and probably has more functionality than the original cecum

Nope. I would like to see evidence that the caecum in grass eating animals does not have all the extra uses that still exist in the human caecum before I'd concede that.

My contention is that the vestigial nature of the human caecum is because it has lost the ability to digest cellulose. I say nothing about any other functions attributed to it.

I am able to comprehend the definitions quite fine.

Really? And yet you still try and maintain that you are correct, I'd say either you don't understand it or you are completely unable to admit any error, like many other creationists, so you will waffle on for ever further and further from the subject and hope that no one notices.

There is a question of whether or not it is vestigal and regardless, vestigal organs do not either prove or disprove evoltion..and that is according to evowiki..not some creationist site.

evowiki is some creationist site.

So are you admitting, finally, that the human caecum and appendix are vestigial then?

I do understand it

So you admit that the human caecum/appendix falls within the scientific definition of a vestigial organ then.

Fine, if you'd just said that in the first place we could all be eating our tea now.

Sure, if you start to use expanded definitions of vestigality and believe that vestigal organs can actually increase in functionality from their previous incarnations which goes against the conventional wisdom

I wasn't using an expanded definition, I was using the scientific definition that was extant before my birth, decades before my birth.

No one has provided evidence that the caecum has increased functionality aside from the loss of grass digestion in humans.

You certainly haven't. I would contend, unless shown evidence otherwise, that this functionality exists in grass digesting caecums as well, and even if it didn't it would change the vestigiality of the structure in humans

Piltdown man and Java Man was a fraid-Dubois admitted that the skull cap was that of a silver gibbon.

I suggest you read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Man

Java Man is the name given to fossils discovered in 1891 at Trinil on the banks of the Bengawan Solo River in East Java, Indonesia, one of the first known specimens of Homo erectus. Its discoverer, Eugène Dubois, gave it the scientific name Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/gibbon.html

It is a common creationist lie, and one that you shouldn't repeat now that you have been put straight.

Many creationists (and some evolutionists) state that Eugene Dubois decided in the 1930's that the Java Man skullcap was merely that of a large gibbon [1]. Not usually stated, but implied, is that he had abandoned his claims for it as a human ancestor and decided that it had nothing to do with human evolution. Here is what Dubois actually said, in papers published in 1935 and 1937:

"Pithecanthropus [Java Man] was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the gibbons, however superior to the gibbons on account of its exceedingly large brain volume and distinguished at the same time by its faculty of assuming an erect attitude and gait [2]. It had the double cephalization [ratio of brain size to body size] of the anthropoid apes in general and half that of man."

"It was the surprising volume of the brain - which is very much too large for an anthropoid ape, and which is small compared with the average, though not smaller than the smallest human brain - that led to the now almost general view that the "Ape Man" of Trinil, Java was really a primitive Man. Morphologically, however, the calvaria [skullcap] closely resembles that of anthropoid apes, especially the gibbon."

"... I still believe, now more firmly than ever, that the Pithecanthropus of Trinil is the real 'missing link'."

"E. Dubois: On the gibbon-like appearance of Pithecanthropus erectus. While possessing many gibbon-like characteristics, P. erectus fills the previously vacant place between the Anthropomorphae and man as regards cephalic coefficient. (Amsterdam Royal Acad., Proc 38, No 6, June 1935)". (Reported in Nature, 136:234, Aug 10 1935)

Answers in Genesis has now abandoned the claim that Dubois dismissed Java Man as a gibbon, and now lists it in their Arguments we think creationists should NOT use web page.

Nope..not slinking away at all.

Good for you, more sport for the rest of us

 

[LittleNipper]

.

Are you claiming that you can digest grass via a bacteria colony in your caecum?

If not then we can say that for certain.




Nope. I have no idea, but if we no longer ate grass then there is no need for the caecum to be maintained and in that case genetic drift could make it into the vestigial structure it is today.




Doesn't. If a structure is no longer used genetic drift can change it .





I would imagine that it had those secondary functions before the primary function became vestigial and that they were maintained.




A good piece of evidence for common descent I'd say




Nope. I would like to see evidence that the caecum in grass eating animals does not have all the extra uses that still exist in the human caecum before I'd concede that.

My contention is that the vestigial nature of the human caecum is because it has lost the ability to digest cellulose. I say nothing about any other functions attributed to it.





Really? And yet you still try and maintain that you are correct, I'd say either you don't understand it or you are completely unable to admit any error, like many other creationists, so you will waffle on for ever further and further from the subject and hope that no one notices.




evowiki is some creationist site.

So are you admitting, finally, that the human caecum and appendix are vestigial then?




So you admit that the human caecum/appendix falls within the scientific definition of a vestigial organ then.

Fine, if you'd just said that in the first place we could all be eating our tea now.




I wasn't using an expanded definition, I was using the scientific definition that was extant before my birth, decades before my birth.

No one has provided evidence that the caecum has increased functionality aside from the loss of grass digestion in humans.

You certainly haven't. I would contend, unless shown evidence otherwise, that this functionality exists in grass digesting caecums as well, and even if it didn't it would change the vestigiality of the structure in humans




I suggest you read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Man



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/gibbon.html

It is a common creationist lie, and one that you shouldn't repeat now that you have been put straight.











Good for you, more sport for the rest of us

I love the evolutionist's use of the term 'IF," it must be scientific only when they use it....

 

[Vene]

I love the evolutionist's use of the term 'IF," it must be scientific only when they use it....

I just love how creationists don't even bother to read the context of the post and just make assumptions.

And James, you want something with absolutely no use, look up the plantaris muscle. Please, tell me what it does. Actually, anybody is welcome to tell me.