Vestigial Organs, and the creationist partial definition

[Late_Cretaceous]

I did a google search on vestigial organs.
What I found was quite disturbing.
The only websites that try and make the claim that vestigial = useless are pro-creation websites. How odd, since any true definition of the term VO clearly states that a vestigial will can be either having reduced function, or totally nonfuctional. In fact many sites will provide examples of vestigial organs with important functions (such as the pineal gland in humans which produces melatonin).
Now, the question is; is this an innocent mistake? How can one evolution-denier after another keep on conveniently leaving out the same crucial bit of information regarding the definition of VO? Without providing the full definition, is the only way thier arguement holds up. Is it just one big coincidence,
or is it another example of creationist dishonesty?
How can anyone justify lying to support thier personal interpretation of the bible?

Definition 1:
vestigial organ
Any part of an organism that has diminished in size during its evolution because the function it served decreased in importance or became totally unnecessary. Examples are the human appendix and the wings of the ostrich.
A Dictionary of Biology, Oxford University Press, © Market House Books Ltd 2000

Note: Ostrich wings are vestigial since they are not used for flying. They do have a function, however in defence.

Definition 2:
vestigial organ

Any structure within an organism that has become reduced in both size and function during evolutionary time. Vestigial organs are useful in evolutionary studies since they can be used to infer relationships with ancestral types in which the organ was functional. Thus the presence of a vestigial pelvic girdle in the skeletons of some snakes such as boas implies a link with an ancestral limbed form. The human appendix is another example.
The New Penguin Dictionary of Science, © M. J. Clugston 1998

Definition 3:
(This is a statement regarding the appendix, notice that it indicates that the appendix does indeed have some limited function, but is still vestigial)
"Another vestigial organ in humans is the appendix, a narrow tube attached to the large intestine. In some plant-eating mammals, the appendix is a functioning organ that helps to digest plant material. In humans, however, the organ lacks this purpose and is considerably reduced in size, serving only as a minor source of certain white blood cells that guard against infection."
MSN Encarta


BTW, what are male nipples for?

 

[Kevin_Gould]

A feature doesn't have to be of use to be in an organism, it simply has to have had a use. Natural selection only weens out the features which are detremental to an organism. Not the ones which serve diminished or absent purpose.

As for male nipples, it very well could be simply part of our pre-sex genetics. For instance it exists within the human genes before the features of male and female take shape. As long as male nipples aren't detremental to males then natural selection won't get rid of them. I can elaborate if you want. :-D

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous
Definition 1:
vestigial organ
Any part of an organism that has diminished in size during its evolution because the function it served decreased in importance or became totally unnecessary. Examples are the human appendix and the wings of the ostrich.

Definition 2:
vestigial organ

Any structure within an organism that has become reduced in both size and function during evolutionary time. Vestigial organs are useful in evolutionary studies since they can be used to infer relationships with ancestral types in which the organ was functional. Thus the presence of a vestigial pelvic girdle in the skeletons of some snakes such as boas implies a link with an ancestral limbed form. The human appendix is another example.
The New Penguin Dictionary of Science, © M. J. Clugston 1998

The main problem I see with these definitions, LC, is that since they are defining "vestigial" in terms of evolution, it becomes a circular argument to use vestigial organs as evidence in favor of evolution.

To use vestigial organs as evidence for evolution, an argument must be constructed on the basis of comparative morphology and not on mere vestigiality alone.

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

The main problem I see with these definitions, LC, is that since they are defining "vestigial" in terms of evolution, it becomes a circular argument to use vestigial organs as evidence in favor of evolution.

But circular arguments are the foundation of evolution, which itself actually supports evolution because it suggests that their brains are vestigal organs.

 

[Kevin_Gould]

Evolution's circular arguement? Evolution is simply a byproduct of natural selection.

Natural selection is not a circular arguement, it simply is based on the factual statement that only those who are fittest to their enviroment survive. It doesn't say species change into other species, it doesn't say that certain things are predetermined, it simply states this: every organism which survives and breeds passes it's features to the offspring.

Darwin took the economics of Adam Smith, that is of the free market, applied them to nature, and behold! Over the immensity of geological time, and with the small fluctuations adding up to larger ones... change. Evolution. Evolution was something needed long before Darwain proposed the means, which is natural selection. The evidence for natural selection rests in the folk wisdom which says offspring take on the qualities of their parents, pairs it with the fact organisms produce more offspring than can reasonably all survive... and walah! Evolution. The gradual change in organisms as the by product of natural selection.

It rather simple. All you need is time, and life has had _plenty_ of that.

 

[alexgb00]

LC, tell me, what does an organ which has a purpose show? It gives no credibility to evolution. Kind of defeats the purpose, in fact.

Another question -- how can anyone know what size the organ was originally? Like the ostrich's wings? I've never heard of an ostrich ancestor fossil.

A final question i can't figure out. Wouldn't getting rid of wings be negative evolution? In other words, a loss instead of a gain? Then it's not a positive mutation.

 

 

[chickenman]

a straw man idea of evolution is that evolution has some sort of "positive direction" - evolution's only direction is towards fitness; reproductive ability and survival. Loss of function and gain of function can both contribute to fitness.

 

[Kevin_Gould]

[Wouldn't getting rid of wings be negative evolution? In other words, a loss instead of a gain? Then it's not a positive mutation.]

Your logic is flawed because your defining things in term of positive evolution, negative mutation and so on. Smaller wings would benefit the ostrich because it doesn't need to fly, and as not needing to fly, the energy needed to maintain those wings would be wasted.

Now this doesn't mean ostriches wings which have no purpose (that I know of) must simply disapear because they have no purpose per natural selection. No it simply means that slowly according to geological timeframes (a phrase meaning long time) they will wane, according to their benefit to the organism.

Oh and smaller wings isn't a mutation. Evolution doesn't happen because of mutation (that does effect it though), it happens because of natural selection.

People more knowledgeable than me in natural selection correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Kevin_Gould]

[a straw man idea of evolution is that evolution has some sort of "positive direction" - evolution's only direction is towards fitness; reproductive ability and survival. Loss of function and gain of function can both contribute to fitness.]

Well said!

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Kevin_Gould
[BYour logic is flawed because your defining things in term of positive evolution, negative mutation and so on. Smaller wings would benefit the ostrich because it doesn't need to fly, and as not needing to fly, the energy needed to maintain those wings would be wasted. [/B]

Hey Kevin,

Well, who or what decides whether an ostrich needs wings? Does it decide for itself? I can't seem to grasp that.

God bless you!

Alex

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by npetreley
But circular arguments are the foundation of evolution, which itself actually supports evolution because it suggests that their brains are vestigal organs.

Hey Nick,

I don't get that, but it still sounds funny! People who strongly believe in darwinism really need to have more faith than Creationists.



Alex

 

[Kevin_Gould]

Its hard to describe because of the slowness by which natural selection works. This is a simplistic explanation... not factual.

There are two groups of ostriches, one with large wings and one with smaller wings. Now because the wings took less resources and because the heat of the area was overburdening... some of the larger winged ostriches died from exhaustion. The smaller winged ostriches got no adverse effects from their small wings, and their offspring lived long happy lives.

Now while the larger wingers still existed, they lived close to the small wingers, and needed more food to survive then the small wingers. So over the years the small wingers took up more and more of the population. Then a period of drought came, and which the large wingers were not by nature flawed in any way, they simply could not get enough food as efficiently as the other ostriches with small wings.

This is of course simplistic. I'll elaborate or allow others to if you want. Evolution is the byproduct of natural selection, and natural selection is simply natural capitalism.

You gotta ask the question, would a wise God choose capitalism or command market?

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Kevin_Gould
You gotta ask the question, would a wise God choose capitalism or command market?

I don't know, Kevin. Probably no market. But i doubt that God would, like you say, create two different types of one animal and watch which would die quicker. That's like watching a cockfight, where the roosters fight until one dies. God's nicer than that.

Also, i think that the world before the Flood was much different. The earth would've been at an exactly straight axis and therefore it would always be spring-weather. There were more plants, which were much more healthier. That would be good weather all the time. There were no droughts for animals to die of thirst, and no rain to cause floods. Out of curiosity, do you believe in the Flood, Kevin?

God bless you!

 

[alexgb00]

Kevin, you're from the LBMB? Me too! I'm alexgb00. I usually post in Trib Force Club>Clubhouse, but i haven't been there for about a month. Where do you post?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by alexgb00

Also, i think that the world before the Flood was much different. The earth would've been at an exactly straight axis and therefore it would always be spring-weather. There were more plants, which were much more healthier. That would be good weather all the time. There were no droughts for animals to die of thirst, and no rain to cause floods

Alex, these words made me smile, and made me think about a song. Here is one version of the lyrics:

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
There's a land that's fair and bright
Where the handouts grow on bushes
And you sleep out ev'ry night
Where the boxcars are all empty
And the sun shines ev'ry day
Oh, I'm bound to go where there ain't no snow
Where the rain don't fall and the wind don't blow
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains.

Oh, the buzzin' of the bees in the peppermint trees
'Round the soda water fountains
Where the lemonade springs and the bluebird sings
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
You never change your socks
And little streams of lemonade
Come a-tricklin' down the rocks
The hobos there are friendly
And their fires all burn bright
There's a lake of stew and soda, too
You can paddle all around 'em in a big canoe
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains.

Oh, the buzzin' of the bees in the peppermint trees
'Round the soda water fountains
Where the lemonade springs and the bluebird sings
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains

 

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by alexgb00

I don't know, Kevin. Probably no market. But i doubt that God would, like you say, create two different types of one animal and watch which would die quicker. That's like watching a cockfight, where the roosters fight until one dies. God's nicer than that.

Uhm. What do you call microevolution, which we observe day in and day out?

The animals that are best adapted to their environments survive.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by alexgb00

Hey Nick,

I don't get that, but it still sounds funny! People who strongly believe in darwinism really need to have more faith than Creationists.



Alex

I'm not so sure anymore that belief in evolution is based on faith. Denial, I think, is a more accurate description.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Many birds have reduced wings, some fossil birds even lost thier wings alltogether. This was not negative evolution, since they had found lifestyles which did not require wings. One interesting thing about the ostrich, is that they have retained the claws on thier wings - a primitive condidion, but one which is advantageous to a bird that uses its wings for defence. In flying birds, claws may have been more of a disadvantage since they are extra weight.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley


I'm not so sure anymore that belief in evolution is based on faith. Denial, I think, is a more accurate description.

Denial of what?  What evidence have you or other creationists ever presented that evolutionists deny?

We had a thread asking for evidence for a global flood.  None was provided.

We had a thread asking for positive evidence for creationism.  None was provided.

How can you honestly accuse evolutionists of being in denial if you haven't presented one shred of evidence for us to be in denial of?

And this coming from the same guy who, presented with reams of information (some of it even from fellow Christians) attesting to the reliability of radiometric dating, continues to assert that it doesn't work.

Hypocrite.

 

[Kevin_Gould]

Yes... I am in denial.

I deny blind faith, mass conformity, eyes turned away, idle minds, and wrapping a truth in lies or a lie with truth.

I have faith in objectivity. And by objectivity I mean objectively looking at everything and deciding based on evidence threaded together with reason. I'm one of those crazy fanatics who have so tortured this world by seeking the truth and nothing but the truth, no matter the psychological cost of the truth.

Because in my opinion the truth is a very powerful thing... see my signature. I believe in a creator, because I have seen nothing which excludes a creator and no means by which a creator might not have existed. So I consider there to be a deity. But I'm not going to wrap my knowledge of that deity with a fanciful invention.

Good day.

PS: I was one of the oldest generation of LBMBers.... before Archangel and among the first dozen to sign up. Left that board when the Kings Tavern was formed to be an administrator, helped build up that site to the jewel it was, then left to go do some other things. lol