Evolution is a story

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So, function A is evolved because of environment A1.
Then the environment changed to B1, so the conditions of A1 is gone.
Then the evolution deal with B1 and develop function B.
The question is: why is the function A still needed. It is simply a waste of energy. So the function of A should fade away.

But we do not see that in life evolution.

Yes, we do. There's even a specific name for the fading remains of an organ or other part of the body that is no longer advantageous - 'vestigial'. It's not unusual for evolution to adapt or repurpose such an item to new function, but there are plenty of examples where it hasn't - such as the atrophy of eyes and loss of pigmentation in creatures that have adopted a cave-dwelling life, the reduced pelvic bones of snakes, the hidden vestigial legs in some whales, the shriveled wings of flightless birds, etc. Here are some in humans (the appendix is controversial).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So, evolution is false.

What makes you think that? In the case of moles, the eyes are no longer a selective advantage, and so genetic drift will cause them to lose function; but they also become a disadvantage, the delicate tissue being liable to damage and infection, so reducing the exposed surface becomes a selective advantage, eventually resulting in a complete covering of skin. All evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, we do. There's even a specific name for the fading remains of an organ or other part of the body that is no longer advantageous - 'vestigial'. It's not unusual for evolution to adapt or repurpose such an item to new function, but there are plenty of examples where it hasn't -

We know the idea of vestige is wrong. They all have important functions to the life form. And the examples of vestige are just a few exceptions. If evolution is true, this feature should be very very commonly found in every life forms, and every one of them should be a true vestige.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No. In most cases, function A still exist. It only add function B onto it. And the new life has both function A and B.

And? So I forgot something. That still doesn't prove your point that evolution doesn't work.

 

[Speedwell]

We know the idea of vestige is wrong. They all have important functions to the life form. And the examples of vestige are just a few exceptions. If evolution is true, this feature should be very very commonly found in every life forms, and every one of them should be a true vestige.

So if vestigial forms exist then evolution is false. On the other hand, if vestigial forms don't exist then evolution is false.

 

[juvenissun]

What makes you think that? In the case of moles, the eyes are no longer a selective advantage, and so genetic drift will cause them to lose function; but they also become a disadvantage, the delicate tissue being liable to damage and infection, so reducing the exposed surface becomes a selective advantage, eventually resulting in a complete covering of skin. All evolution.

Why do we have deep sea fishes? It makes no sense to me.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why do we have deep sea fishes? It makes no sense to me.

Because they live there!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We know the idea of vestige is wrong. They all have important functions to the life form.

He just told you that it is not unusual for evolution to repurpose such parts to a new function.

"vestigal" doesn't imply "useless".

Do you even read the posts you are replying to?

And the examples of vestige are just a few exceptions. If evolution is true, this feature should be very very commonly found in every life forms, and every one of them should be a true vestige.

The animal kingdom is literally filled with such things.
Did you ever get goosebumps? Guess what those are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do we have deep sea fishes? It makes no sense to me.

If fish could talk, they'ld probably say things like "why do we have land creatures? it makes no sense to me."

 

[juvenissun]

So if vestigial forms exist then evolution is false. On the other hand, if vestigial forms don't exist then evolution is false.

If true vestiges exist in all life forms, then evolution might be true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If true vestiges exist in all life forms, then evolution might be true.

Then evolution is true. Great.
Can we move on?

By the way: chickens have inactive DNA to build teeth. Just another random example. For the lulz

 

[Jimmy D]

If true vestiges exist in all life forms, then evolution might be true.

Really, are you sure it wouldn't be possible evidence for common design?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We know the idea of vestige is wrong. They all have important functions to the life form.

I just gave you some examples of vestigial features that don't have important functions

And the examples of vestige are just a few exceptions.

Wait, you can't have it both ways. First you say the idea is wrong and they all have important functions, and in the next sentence you say vestiges are exceptions...

If evolution is true, this feature should be very very commonly found in every life forms, and every one of them should be a true vestige.

Vestigial features are commonly identifiable in living things. Just because you're ignorant of them doesn't mean they don't exist. They form a strong independent thread of evidence for evolution, and can often help identify relationships between close lineages.

They're not identifiable in every life form because simple organisms generally don't have the resources to carry redundant features, so they are either adapted, rapidly lost, or the organism dies out. Fast-breeding organisms (usually simple too) can rapidly adapt or lose redundant features. Features that don't involve bone or cartilage are also much more rapidly lost or adapted to new purposes, so are also only identifiable for short periods of evolutionary time.

If you count features that have changed function, then almost all of every living thing is vestigial - which is why the term is usually reserved for features that are present but no longer have a significant function.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why do we have deep sea fishes? It makes no sense to me.

How do you go from the eyes of moles to questions about deep sea fish?

What is it you find confusing about the existence of deep sea fish?

 

[juvenissun]

Really, are you sure it wouldn't be possible evidence for common design?

We do not have data. Why should we worry about possibility?

 

[juvenissun]

Vestigial features are commonly identifiable in living things. Just because you're ignorant of them doesn't mean they don't exist. They form a strong independent thread of evidence for evolution, and can often help identify relationships between close lineages.

They're not identifiable in every life form because simple organisms generally don't have the resources to carry redundant features, so they are either adapted, rapidly lost, or the organism dies out. Fast-breeding organisms (usually simple too) can rapidly adapt or lose redundant features. Features that don't involve bone or cartilage are also much more rapidly lost or adapted to new purposes, so are also only identifiable for short periods of evolutionary time.

If you count features that have changed function, then almost all of every living thing is vestigial - which is why the term is usually reserved for features that are present but no longer have a significant function.

I do not know any vestigial organ except the suggested appendix of human. I was told it is useless since I was a child. But just 15 (?) years ago, the medical field started to discover that it has some vital functions. So, if you say other animals have some useless vestiges, I really have hard time to believe that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I do not know any vestigial organ except the suggested appendix of human. I was told it is useless since I was a child. But just 15 (?) years ago, the medical field started to discover that it has some vital functions. So, if you say other animals have some useless vestiges, I really have hard time to believe that.

Humans have a vestigial tailbone but no tail.

 

[juvenissun]

How do you go from the eyes of moles to questions about deep sea fish?

What is it you find confusing about the existence of deep sea fish?

I know little about mole. But I always found deep sea oceanic life facinating. Why would they want to migrate (evolve) from shallow sea to deep sea?

 

[juvenissun]

Humans have a vestigial tailbone but no tail.

I think the tailbone is also a very important part to human. It is not a vestige.
Does Neanderthals have a longer tailbone?

 

[Vaccine]

--- invented by man
--- in order to exclude God from his life.

Dr Henry M. Morris III
ICR.ORG

True/False ?

Got to define term otherwise most evolutionists retreat into the unassailable position of microevolution. If by evolution you mean change over time that's observed, harmless, and nobody has a problem with that. If by evolution you mean that we share a common ancestor with apes, that is indeed a matter of belief, a belief meant to exclude God from his creation. Darwin never meant to include God, this is what he said about the reference to a creator in his book:
"But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion & used Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant “appeared” by some wholly unknown process."