Evolution conflict and division

[o_mlly]

The theory of evolution only suggests changes in degree. That is, by small steps that accumulate through time.

Yes. Again, we have no disagreement on micro-evolution events.

Evolution occurs at a species to species level. Or by speciation. The theory never suggests anything otherwise. Just small changes that over millions of years, accumulate.

If "species to species level" means that every "species" is no more than a small change (micro-evolution) from other species then we agree. But I don't think that is what you were arguing.

I think the disagreement involves the claim that un-directed mutations over time produce a novel creature. Changes that are minor (imperceptible) in short time periods produce in longer periods of time a radical (perceptible) different creature, labeled as a new "species" within a genus. Although all "species" within a genus are supposed to be "similar", there are no objective criteria for grouping "species" into genera nor are there objective criteria to assign a creature to a genera. How many genera claim only one species?

Evolutionary change through time is not done by events disconnected from prior events. Because future mutations involve a genome that retains past mutations.

Perhaps "disconnected" was a poor choice of words. The probabiltiy of mutation event n+1 is independent of the mutation event n from the virutally same probabiltiy space. Your math, I suggest, would apply to perhaps the mutuation of a clone several times in sequence.

And I don't see any logical fallacies here. If we define macro evolution as evolution at a species level, then if it is observed, then that's simply what it is, by definition.

I think that takes us back to the tautological and definitional problems of the words "species" and "macro-evolution".

That is my example. How can my example prove itself wrong?

I beleive you wrote that the hybrid should be strerile but it was not.

Speciation is just reproductive isolation as a product of mutation and descent with modification. And that's just a reality and fact of nature. So I'm not sure what there is to speculate on here.

While you and I are demonstrably different in kind than a bonobo or any other ape, to claim we evolved from them is pure specualtion.

RIP: Charlie Kirk

 

[o_mlly]

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a proof.

True. If only other evolutionists would stop their dogmatic claims as if evolution was a proven fact.

Among available explanations, evolution is the best scientific account we have for why and how new species form.

I agree iff we agree that "scientific account" is synonymous with "materialistic account". But there is a more coherent and complete account to consider.

Alternatively, if we define macroevolution simply as evolutionary change at or above the species level (speciation), then the “fallacy” disappears:

If P (speciation is true), then Q (new species will arise).
Q (new species are observed to arise).
Therefore P (speciation is true).

That isn’t a fallacy, it’s just observation.

Same fallacy. The truth of consequent does not prove the truth of the conditional.

If P (I make a sandwich), then Q (I assemble bread with fillings).
Q (I assembled bread with fillings).
Therefore P (I made a sandwich).

If the terms mean the same thing, then there is no fallacy. There is only observation.

I'm not sure I get the point. No inferred conclusion to refute.

If we agree, as I think we do, that materialism's explanation for the diverity of life has a future, ie., that it is not a proof, then we can conclude the exchange on a postive note. Thanks again.

 

[Job 33:6]

True. If only other evolutionists would stop their dogmatic claims as if evolution was a proven fact.

Ok, so your argument from logic is, to be fair, fallacious. It doesn't apply to scientific theories because theories are not derived in such a way.

I agree iff we agree that "scientific account" is synonymous with "materialistic account". But there is a more coherent and complete account to consider.

All science is materialistic or empirical by nature. You can't have a scientific account if the concept being described is supernatural or immaterial. There would be nothing to measure.

Just like when you hire a plumber, the plumber does material work. He doesn't do magic to fix your sink.

You say that you have a more coherent and complete account for how species arise and change over time. What account is that? Please don't say "God did it" because that's not science and it doesn't say anything about what God actually did. Everyone here is Christian, so we all believe "God did it". But what do you have to offer in terms of a mechanism, as a competing theory to evolution?

If we agree, as I think we do, that materialism's explanation for the diverity of life has a future, ie., that it is not a proof, then we can conclude the exchange on a postive note. Thanks again.

Evolution is not materialism. Everyone here is Christian. Evolution is simply the mechanism in which God used to create life. That's not materialism, that's evolutionary creation or theistic evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

True. If only other evolutionists would stop their dogmatic claims as if evolution was a proven fact.

You're confusing evolution (an observed phenomenon, "descent with modification", change in allele frequencies in a population) with the theory that explains it. We see populations evolving everywhere. I think you've also confused evolution with common descent. Evolution is an observed fact, while universal common descent is an inference from evidence. Plate tectonics is an observed fact. Pangaea is an inference from evidence. There is a theory of plate tectonics that explains what we see.

Does that help?

I agree iff we agree that "scientific account" is synonymous with "materialistic account".

Science is methodologically naturalistic. It seeks physical causes for physical phenomena. So far, nothing humans can do works better for understanding the physical universe. However, science is entirely blind to whatever is beyond the physical universe. For that, you need other ways of knowing. If your faith won't bring you to God, science can't help you.

Same fallacy. The truth of consequent does not prove the truth of the conditional.

Simplified:
"If speciation is observed, then speciation is true."
"We have observed new species evolve."
"Therefore, speciation is true."

Science's explanation for the diversity of life is that living systems have the capacity to evolve over time to adapt to different environments. Which so far, has been validated by all evidence gathered.

 

[River Jordan]

While you and I are demonstrably different in kind than a bonobo or any other ape, to claim we evolved from them is pure specualtion.

Do you really think evolutionary biologists just sit around all day and speculate? They have absolutely no evidence that humans are related to other primates and they instead base their conclusions on nothing but imagination? You really think that?

If only other evolutionists would stop their dogmatic claims as if evolution was a proven fact.

LOL!!! You say that just after you acknowledge the reality of microevolution. Come on, at least keep your own arguments straight.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes. Again, we have no disagreement on micro-evolution events.

If "species to species level" means that every "species" is no more than a small change (micro-evolution) from other species then we agree. But I don't think that is what you were arguing.

I think the disagreement involves the claim that un-directed mutations over time produce a novel creature. Changes that are minor (imperceptible) in short time periods produce in longer periods of time a radical (perceptible) different creature, labeled as a new "species" within a genus. Although all "species" within a genus are supposed to be "similar", there are no objective criteria for grouping "species" into genera nor are there objective criteria to assign a creature to a genera. How many genera claim only one species?

Perhaps "disconnected" was a poor choice of words. The probabiltiy of mutation event n+1 is independent of the mutation event n from the virutally same probabiltiy space. Your math, I suggest, would apply to perhaps the mutuation of a clone several times in sequence.

I think that takes us back to the tautological and definitional problems of the words "species" and "macro-evolution".

I beleive you wrote that the hybrid should be strerile but it was not.

While you and I are demonstrably different in kind than a bonobo or any other ape, to claim we evolved from them is pure specualtion.

RIP: Charlie Kirk

I would say that based on this post, your concern isn't with macro-evolution. Rather your concern is with common descent. My example given earlier with chromosome duplication in plants is an instance of sterilization.

And with that said, I would just defer to my last post. Evolution is a theory. It's not a concept argued as a logical proof. If you feel as though you have a better explanation for the evidence we see in terms of the fossil record or DNA phylogenies supporting common descent, (hopefully more than just "God did it") then you're welcome to offer that.

 

[o_mlly]

I would say that based on this post, your concern isn't with macro-evolution. Rather your concern is with common descent. ...

It's not an either or proposition. If there is no macro-evolution, as I hold, then there can be no common descent.

If you feel as though you have a better explanation for the evidence we see in terms of the fossil record or DNA phylogenies supporting common descent, (hopefully more than just "God did it") then you're welcome to offer that.

The truth on the question of diversity of life is singular.

Let say we played the game of "Clue". The truth is that "Mr. White" did the deed with His "Word", "Nowhere". But the deck we play with has no "Mr. White", no "Word" and no "Nowhere". That deck is stacked against the truth. It'll be a never ending game in which many trumped up charges, always false, will be made on the questions of who, where, and how.

Switching realms, in the religion of science, I'm getting an idea how a Galileo may have felt.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's not an either or proposition. If there is no macro-evolution, as I hold, then there can be no common descent.

Since macroevolution has been observed, that is not a concern.

That deck is stacked against the truth.

It's stacked against your particular interpretation of the truth. Which is quite a different thing. God is the creator of nature. Why would He make it opposed to the truth? Yes, I know some YECs have declared that God put fossils and other evidence in the rock to test our faith. But my God is trustworthy, so that story won't work with me.

 

[Job 33:6]

It's not an either or proposition. If there is no macro-evolution, as I hold, then there can be no common descent.

Ultimately, sounds like you're ok with small changes over time. Like changes that would result in dogs evolving from wolves, or foxes and coyotes being related, or even maybe alligators and crocodiles being related. But it sounds like you're concerned by the idea of something like terrestrial animals evolving into whales.

The truth on the question of diversity of life is singular.

Let say we played the game of "Clue". The truth is that "Mr. White" did the deed with His "Word", "Nowhere". But the deck we play with has no "Mr. White", no "Word" and no "Nowhere". That deck is stacked against the truth. It'll be a never ending game in which many trumped up charges, always false, will be made on the questions of who, where, and how.

Science isn’t in the business of proposing explanations where there’s no evidence. If you’re playing Clue and there’s no “Mr. White” card in the deck, then there’s nothing to actually examine. You can’t play a card you don’t have.

Now suppose I do have a card, “Mr. Purple”, and he’s holding a bloody wrench. Even if my explanation isn’t 100% correct, it’s still a stronger play than invoking “Mr. White,” for whom we have no card and no evidence. Just like in a real murder case: if there are fingerprints on a weapon that match a person, that person is always a more probable suspect than some hypothetical figure backed only by hearsay.

The same applies if we say “Mr. White is Jesus” and all agree that Jesus is God. Fine, but you still need a mechanism. You need the weapons, the tools, the actual explanation. It isn’t enough to just say “Mr. White did it.” If everyone agrees on Mr. White but I still hold the bloody wrench, then “Mr. White with the wrench” remains the best explanation until you can produce your own weapon card.

That’s the key: you need mechanisms. Otherwise, your belief reduces to hearsay, a faith statement. It’s like saying Mr. White used a pistol, but no pistol card exists. If pressed on why you believe that, you have nothing tangible to point to. Meanwhile, the wrench card is sitting right there on the table.

Science advances by playing the cards we actually have, the evidence and mechanisms, not by leaning on unseen cards we only wish existed.

 

[sfs]

As to the topic of this thread, diversity of living creatures explained through secondary causes, to which the probability of speciation events would be critical, do any of your papers address and put forward such a simulation study? You have posted that the parameters of the study I cited are questionable. If so, what parameters would you employ in such a simulation to constrain the output? (I am still interested in the code one could employ to generate a random number.)

The probability of speciation isn't worth simulating, since we see every step in the process in current populations -- it clearly happens and happens frequently. I would not attempt to simulate something like the development of the eye, since there are too many directions that selection can take a species, depending on what environment it faces and which mutations occur first, and since we have too poor a knowledge of most of the relevant parameters.

What we can do is note how often multiple mutational routes turn out to be available to achieve a particular trait change (answer: very often) and observe how quickly selection can drive change. For morphological changes in animals, what we see is that typical (inferred) morphological change in the fossil record is much slower than (inferred) change during adaptive radiations (as when a lineage invades a new environment or when many ecological niches open up after a mass extinction), which in turn is much slower than the observed change in invasive species, which in turn is much slower than the observed change in artificial settings when experiments are done on natural selection. So there is no hint that the inferred rate of change is somehow difficult for natural selection and normal genetic variation to achieve. That, coupled with the overwhelming evidence -- from biogeography, from morphology, from fossils, and above all from genetics -- that species share common ancestors, provides compelling evidence for the reality of common descent and the role in it of random genetic variation and natural selection.

As this is a Christian only forum, may I assume you accept that God had some role in bringing about the diversity of life, but that mankind merely evolved from other animals, that abstract thinking evolved, that there were no first and only homo sapiens created directly by God?

Yes to the first; I don't know what's 'mere' about evolution, but yes, we clearly evolved from other animals; all the evidence I've seen to date indicates that abstract thinking evolved; genetic evidence is very strong that humans have had a population size greater than 2 for at least 500,000 years.

My turn... I would like to know what alternative explanations there are for what we see in living things, aside from evolution. Take what we see on the Hawaiian Islands. According to geology, they're between half a million and five million years old. How old do you think they are? There were no native reptiles or amphibians on the islands when humans arrived and only one mammal, a species of bat. Why this state of affairs? There were numerous species of birds called honeycreepers in Hawaii, of quite varied characteristics, e.g.

Genetically, however, these birds are all more closely related to one another than to any other bird in the world (and are most related to rosefinches outside the islands). Why? Similarly for the 800 species of fruit fly on the island, which are all most closely related to one another. Why?

 

[o_mlly]

But it sounds like you're concerned by the idea of something like terrestrial animals evolving into whales.

Animals from animals? Not so much. Man from animals? Much.

All living organisms evolved from a common ancestor. No.

Science isn’t in the business of proposing explanations where there’s no evidence.

What are the limits of scientific knowledge? Normally science comes to its propositions only indirectly, ie., observing effects and speculating (inferring) causes. Their propositions are validated by, and grounded in, experience and, therefore, can only be contingent, ie., dependent on the next improved observation of more cogent reasoning. The phrase "science facts" is an oxymoron.

Relying on the principle of verification, scientists will not admit any non-analytic or non-empirical claim as they think those claims are meaningless. Perhaps the most devastatingly illogicality in their position is that the verification principle itself seemed to fail its own test—it could not be verified either logically or empirically, suggesting that by its own standards, it was meaningless.

So, science is quite limited in its claim to knowledge. We have other means to come to the truth of things. I am more certain of things I know by faith than by science. Posters in this thread; indeed, in this forum, suggests they are as well.

 

[Job 33:6]

Animals from animals? Not so much. Man from animals? Much.

Well, that's a battle that's already lost. Allowing for the evolution of animals but not people? But the evidence is the same for both. What makes the evidence for human evolution different from the animal kingdom?

Have you examined yourself in a mirror? What do you think of the fact that you have a tail bone. You don't find that odd?

So much time has passed that many people have simply forgotten how God created them.

 

[Job 33:6]

What are the limits of scientific knowledge? Normally science comes to its propositions only indirectly, ie., observing effects and speculating (inferring) causes. Their propositions are validated by, and grounded in, experience and, therefore, can only be contingent, ie., dependent on the next improved observation of more cogent reasoning. The phrase "science facts" is an oxymoron.

Relying on the principle of verification, scientists will not admit any non-analytic or non-empirical claim as they think those claims are meaningless. Perhaps the most devastatingly illogicality in their position is that the verification principle itself seemed to fail its own test—it could not be verified either logically or empirically, suggesting that by its own standards, it was meaningless.

So, science is quite limited in its claim to knowledge. We have other means to come to the truth of things. I am more certain of things I know by faith than by science. Posters in this thread; indeed, in this forum, suggests they are as well.

Well, you can complain as long as you want. If you don't have a pistol card, then whatever it is that you're arguing for will never be meaningful because you have no evidence for it. Theologically it can be meaningful, but what would it's value be in terms of science?

What is the value of arguing that Mr White used a pistol if there is no pistol, no bullets, no gunshot sound, nothing at all?

As long as Mr. White is standing there next to the body holding a pipe wrench, the pipe wrench will always be the most probable candidate for the tool that Mr. White used.

Likewise, if you have God using some unknown card, a card that cannot be seen, or touched, or smelled, essentially no card at all, then why would this belief be any better than an alternative in which God uses a card that is sitting right there in your hand? If Mr. White has a wrench in his hand, why believe that he used a pistol?

And I don't need to go on a long philosophical tangent to say that.

 

[o_mlly]

The probability of speciation isn't worth simulating, since we see every step in the process in current populations -- it clearly happens and happens frequently.

The debatable issue is not whether or not we observe a diversity of living creatures. The issue is, "how did that diversity come to be?".

I would not attempt to simulate something like the development of the eye, since there are too many directions that selection can take a species, depending on what environment it faces and which mutations occur first, and since we have too poor a knowledge of most of the relevant parameters.

The evolutionist's claim is that only mutation is un-directed; selection is directed (toward survival and reproduction), no? So in any hostile environment, for sentient animals the complex sense of sight provides an advantage for survival. But since "there are too many directions that selection can take", a gradual change evolution theory cannot explain the necessary complexity of an evolved functioning eye?

What we can do is note how often multiple mutational routes turn out to be available to achieve a particular trait change (answer: very often) and observe how quickly selection can drive change.

It seems logical that selection delimits the available mutational routes. Within that limit, those mutational routes remain random, yes? So, how many mutational routes are available? If the number of random mutational routes is not significantly smaller than the number of possible random mutations before selection weans them then I don't see much progress in the discussion on gradual evolution explaining the functioning eye.

For morphological changes in animals, what we see is that typical (inferred) morphological change in the fossil record is much slower than (inferred) change during adaptive radiations (as when a lineage invades a new environment or when many ecological niches open up after a mass extinction), which in turn is much slower than the observed change in invasive species, which in turn is much slower than the observed change in artificial settings when experiments are done on natural selection.

No argument that radical changes in a creature's environment affect its survival and reproduction. No argument that radical changes in ecology accelerate (or decelerate) micro-evolutionary events. However, the evolution of a functioning eye via accumulated micro-evolutionary events needs evidence. The rate of change is not that evidence.

So there is no hint that the inferred rate of change is somehow difficult for natural selection and normal genetic variation to achieve. That, coupled with the overwhelming evidence -- from biogeography, from morphology, from fossils, and above all from genetics -- that species share common ancestors, provides compelling evidence for the reality of common descent and the role in it of random genetic variation and natural selection.

Many, not all scientists agree. However, the explanation via evolution for a functioning eye in sentient creatures or the flagellum at the cellular level remains unanswered. (Behe)

Yes to the first; I don't know what's 'mere' about evolution, but yes, we clearly evolved from other animals; all the evidence I've seen to date indicates that abstract thinking evolved; genetic evidence is very strong that humans have had a population size greater than 2 for at least 500,000 years.

We observe effects and logically infer their causes. What are the effects of abstract thinking? Our evidence is solely those observed effects. So, what is the bais for the claim that "all the evidence (observed effects) ... to date indicates that abstract thinking evolved"? What animals use syntactical speech? What animals bury their dead? What animals draw their abstractions? What animals possess the freedom to act against their instinctive tendencies?

My turn... I would like to know what alternative explanations there are for what we see in living things, aside from evolution.

Genesis 1 I think has the explanation almost spot on:

Then God said: Let the earth bring forth vegetation​

Let the earth bring forth every kind of living creature: tame animals, crawling things, and every kind of wild animal.​

Then God said: Let us make* human beings in our image​

What are life's characteristic manifestations? What are its chief forms? What is the inner nature of the source of vital activity?

Vegetation manifests the universal and basic phenomena of life: nutrition, growth, and decay. The second kind of life, the animal kingdom, adds sentience and locomotion The highest kind of life is mind or reason, exerting itself in thought or rational activity. This last properly belongs to man. The source of vitality in all creatures resides in its soul, its animating and harmonizing principle.

You admit to the (non-scientific) omnipotent Creator (a theistic-evolution) but it also appears that you constrain His omnipotence to that which limited human observations and fallible reason can reach on its own. So, the scientific method is quite limited in its discovery of truth. Further, the science jetisons metaphyical principles as guardrails to its claims and admits (I think too much) unwarranted specualtion and imagination to its claims.

Genetically, however, these birds are all more closely related to one another than to any other bird in the world (and are most related to rosefinches outside the islands). Why? Similarly for the 800 species of fruit fly on the island, which are all most closely related to one another. Why?

Micro-evolution.

 

[o_mlly]

Well, that's a battle that's already lost. Allowing for the evolution of animals but not people? But the evidence is the same for both. What makes the evidence for human evolution different from the animal kingdom?

See above.

Have you examined yourself in a mirror? What do you think of the fact that you have a tail bone. You don't find that odd?

Not at all. It serves as an attachment point for various muscles and ligaments and helps support the body when sitting.

So much time has passed that many people have simply forgotten how God created them.

To forget implies that one previously possessed that which was forgotten. So, just how does God infuse a rational soul?

I will now leave the thread and thank those who engaged me in this worthwhile topic.

 

[Job 33:6]

Animals from animals? Not so much. Man from animals? Much.

All living organisms evolved from a common ancestor. No.

What are the limits of scientific knowledge? Normally science comes to its propositions only indirectly, ie., observing effects and speculating (inferring) causes. Their propositions are validated by, and grounded in, experience and, therefore, can only be contingent, ie., dependent on the next improved observation of more cogent reasoning. The phrase "science facts" is an oxymoron.

Relying on the principle of verification, scientists will not admit any non-analytic or non-empirical claim as they think those claims are meaningless. Perhaps the most devastatingly illogicality in their position is that the verification principle itself seemed to fail its own test—it could not be verified either logically or empirically, suggesting that by its own standards, it was meaningless.

So, science is quite limited in its claim to knowledge. We have other means to come to the truth of things. I am more certain of things I know by faith than by science. Posters in this thread; indeed, in this forum, suggests they are as well.

Science is provisional. It always works with the best evidence available and updates when better evidence comes along. It’s the reason science actually progresses instead of getting stuck.

Science relies on testable, repeatable evidence. That’s why we can build airplanes, cure diseases, and send spacecraft across the solar system. Because our “cards” work in practice.

Faith may give someone personal certainty, but that doesn’t put a card on the table. In Clue terms, believing Mr. White (God) used a pistol (Intelligent design?) when no pistol card exists will never be a stronger explanation than pointing to the wrench card (evolution) that’s sitting right there in your hand. Science plays the cards in hand. Faith is like playing with invisible cards.

So yes, science is limited. But it’s limited to the real, the testable, the usable. And that’s exactly why it has explanatory power.

And none of this is about faith in God. We both view Mr. White as the character of interest. But at least at this point in time, the wrench card is the card in-hand.

 

[sfs]

The issue is, "how did that diversity come to be?".

While we can never prove that anything isn't the result of some kind of miracle, we can ask whether what we observe is the sort of thing we expect to occur naturally, given the processes we know about. When it comes to genetic differences between species, what we observe is very much what we would expect if the differences were the result of random mutations. There are multiple lines of evidence leading to this conclusion; I've described one of them here: Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - Article - BioLogos

The evolutionist's claim is that only mutation is un-directed; selection is directed (toward survival and reproduction), no? So in any hostile environment, for sentient animals the complex sense of sight provides an advantage for survival. But since "there are too many directions that selection can take", a gradual change evolution theory cannot explain the necessary complexity of an evolved functioning eye?

I'm not sure what you're asking. What I meant was, some other change might be more important than a slight improvement in eyesight for a particular species, and might take precedence, or some other change to the eye might be more important, or there might be some developmental constraint that makes a particular change to retinas be difficult to achieve. Organisms are too complex and their interaction with their environment far too complex for us to intelligently model the way a specific trait is going to evolve.

So, how many mutational routes are available? If the number of random mutational routes is not significantly smaller than the number of possible random mutations before selection weans them then I don't see much progress in the discussion on gradual evolution explaining the functioning eye.

Mutational routes to what? Again, I'm not sure what you're asking. To achieve a small change in some particular trait, there might be anywhere from zero to thousands of random mutations possible, while the total number of possible mutations is in the billions.

However, the evolution of a functioning eye via accumulated micro-evolutionary events needs evidence. The rate of change is not that evidence.

In the absence of any reason at all to think there's a limit to how much change can accumulate, yes, the rate is indeed evidence. If the question is whether I could have gotten here from a hundred miles away today by natural means, the fact that I'm in a car that routinely drives at 70 miles an hour is relevant information.

So, what is the bais for the claim that "all the evidence (observed effects) ... to date indicates that abstract thinking evolved"?

The evidence that abstract thinking, very much including language, is a product of brain activity, coupled with the evidence that our brains evolved.

What are life's characteristic manifestations? What are its chief forms? What is the inner nature of the source of vital activity?

Vegetation manifests the universal and basic phenomena of life: nutrition, growth, and decay. The second kind of life, the animal kingdom, adds sentience and locomotion The highest kind of life is mind or reason, exerting itself in thought or rational activity. This last properly belongs to man. The source of vitality in all creatures resides in its soul, its animating and harmonizing principle.

Restating an Aristotelean understanding of life doesn't answer my questions. How old are the Hawaiian Islands? Was life specially created there, or did it arrive from elsewhere?

Micro-evolution.

That's a heck of a lot of change for microevolution, including the kind of change that creationists insist is impossible.

 

[The Barbarian]

The issue is, "how did that diversity come to be?".

Genetics has the answer. Common descent. And we know the method is accurate, because we can check it with organisms of known descent.

To forget implies that one previously possessed that which was forgotten. So, just how does God infuse a rational soul?

That is beyond science. If faith won't convince you of that, science can't help you.

Not at all. It serves as an attachment point for various muscles and ligaments and helps support the body when sitting.

What it doesn't do is communicate with others of our species, or provide balance when running. It is vestigial, no longer serving its former function. The muscles are also vestigial, pretty much locked into their positions. The coccygeus, for example, mainly supports other structures, but does not move them.