# Vestigial Organs evolution myth



## ktrianta (16 August 2009)

Another evolution myth bites the dust.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090730-spleen-vestigial-organs.html


----------



## Knobby22 (16 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

Thanks ktrianta

That's one of the most interesting articles I have ever read.

K22


----------



## ktrianta (16 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

Always remember how in my high school science classes, this myth was proudly trotted out as proof for evolution.

Makes you wonder what sort of other nonsense we were taught back then.


----------



## bassmanpete (16 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

That's the beauty of science, evidence is found that says "Our earlier understanding is incorrect, we'll adjust our theory to accommodate the new evidence or maybe even come up with a new theory."

Religion says "This is what our holy book says, if the evidence doesn't fit we'll just ignore it."

The fact that new found evidence contradicts certain details of evolutionary theory in no way invalidates the whole theory.


----------



## Happy (16 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



bassmanpete said:


> That's the beauty of science, evidence is found that says "Our earlier understanding is incorrect, we'll adjust our theory to accommodate the new evidence or maybe even come up with a new theory."
> 
> *Religion says "This is what our holy book says, if the evidence doesn't fit we'll just ignore it."*
> The fact that new found evidence contradicts certain details of evolutionary theory in no way invalidates the whole theory.





I noticed that Christians seem to accept certain new findings, slowly may I add but what is most important *accept*.

Copericus was bad boy and few others, now flat planet Earth is no longer an issue nor is age of the planet as 6-days creation is more metaphoric than exact.

Must say it doesn't happen in all religions.


----------



## gooner (16 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



Happy said:


> I noticed that Christians seem to accept certain new findings, slowly may I add but what is most important *accept*.
> 
> Copericus was bad boy and few others, now flat planet Earth is no longer an issue nor is age of the planet as 6-days creation is more metaphoric than exact.
> 
> Must say it doesn't happen in all religions.




I wonder when Christians will accept the equality of women?

And stop discriminating against teachers because they are not Christians?

And stop persecuting homosexuals?

And accept that condoms do not cause AIDS (well the pope anyway)?


----------



## Happy (16 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



gooner said:


> I wonder when Christians will accept the equality of women?
> 
> And stop discriminating against teachers because they are not Christians?
> 
> ...




As I said:


> I noticed that Christians seem to accept certain new findings, *slowly *may I add but what is most important accept.




So most probably they are working on it right now.


----------



## ktrianta (16 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



bassmanpete said:


> The fact that new found evidence contradicts certain details of evolutionary theory in no way invalidates the whole theory.




Fair statement, but it does go to show that we should not dogmatically believe the prevailing winds of the day. A lot in the field of evolution is speculation and supposition and what is confidently asserted one day can be discredited the next. 

In this case, we were once taught this as solid proof but new discoveries have certainly invalidated this belief. Even tody the same mistake appears to be repeated with the notion of junk DNA where we were initially told that 90% of DNA is junk, leftover from the evolutionary past, but more discoveries are now showing that this so called junk DNA does indeed have function.


----------



## derty (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

How is this a myth? 

It was simply an understanding that scientists had formed based on the knowledge of the day, as observational and experimental information progress so does the understanding. Aspects of hypotheses and theories that have been superseded are discarded, replaced by the newer findings. It's called science.

You linked article is no more a blow to evolution than the general theory of relativity was to the understanding of gravity.


----------



## ktrianta (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



derty said:


> How is this a myth?
> You linked article is no more a blow to evolution than the general theory of relativity was to the understanding of gravity.





It never ceases to amaze me, how precious people are about their belief in the theory of evolution. It seems to me that people seem to believe that the theory of evolution should be above criticism and that any attack on any aspect of it is a like to a red rag to a bull to the neo darwinian zealots.

This thread is no more an attack on the actual theory itself than relativity was to gravity. 

This thread is about educating people about a specific aspect which was once taught as proof for evolution in high school science classes and indeed some may still believe this to be true.

Whilst there are many issues which could be raised with the neo darwinian evolutionary model, this is not a thread about that.


----------



## darkside (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

I do understand the purpose of the thread and i wholly believe that as science progresses we learn new things, and certain things that we took for granted may now be superceded and disproved , its a shame religion doesn't take a page out of that book. 

Bats are not birds, snakes don't eat dust, and pregnancy was not an evil gods way of punishing women, yes it would be great if creationists could also admit to some shortfalls and believe in cold hard facts.


----------



## ktrianta (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



darkside said:


> I do understand the purpose of the thread and i wholly believe that as science progresses we learn new things, and certain things that we took for granted may now be superceded and disproved , its a shame religion doesn't take a page out of that book.
> 
> Bats are not birds, snakes don't eat dust, and pregnancy was not an evil gods way of punishing women, yes it would be great if creationists could also admit to some shortfalls and believe in cold hard facts.





And why do the neo darwinian zealots always bring religion into this? That has nothing to do with this thread.


----------



## Mofra (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> It never ceases to amaze me, how precious people are about their belief in the theory of evolution. It seems to me that people seem to believe that the theory of evolution should be above criticism and that any attack on any aspect of it is a like to a red rag to a bull to the neo darwinian zealots.



Maybe you should address derty's question. How is a scientific theory a myth? Science is held up to self-investigative standards that religion actively tries to obfuscate when applied to itself.


----------



## ktrianta (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



Mofra said:


> Maybe you should address derty's question. How is a scientific theory a myth? Science is held up to self-investigative standards that religion actively tries to obfuscate when applied to itself.





As I have said, why bring religion into this? Vistigial organs as proof for evolution as once proudly taught in schools is now a myth. Science is showing that this is wrong.

One of the definitions of myth in the oxford dictionary is "a widley held but false notion".

Sounds like a myth to me.


----------



## darkside (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> And why do the neo darwinian zealots always bring religion into this? That has nothing to do with this thread.




Ahh, because there are 2 trains of thought ,( unless you have another theory)  either evolution or creation, if you start a thread trying to dispute one, clearly the people that subscribe to that belief are entitled to justify their stand and address the shortcomings in the opposing theory.

You cant have it both ways, Oh i will start a thread but be all upset when someone has a differing view to me, if i started a thread and my first  post was, "another stupid creationist idea bites the dust", i am sure i would get just a few responses from the "Devil Dodgers".


----------



## ktrianta (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



darkside said:


> Ahh, because there are 2 trains of thought ,( unless you have another theory)  either evolution or creation, if you start a thread trying to dispute one, clearly the people that subscribe to that belief are entitled to justify their stand and address the shortcomings in the opposing theory.
> 
> You cant have it both ways, Oh i will start a thread but be all upset when someone has a differing view to me.




Sorry darkside, but you have missed the point. This is not a thread about evolution v creation. This is about one aspect of a theory which was widely taught as fact but has now been discredited.

It is not an attack on the whole edifice. 

Was I the only one who was taught this in science at high school? 

Do others actually still believe this as being true and if so, does the latest research challenge that belief?

That is what this thread is about, not a comparison of 2 competing belief systems in evolution v creation.


----------



## brty (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

ktrianta,

This was from the article,



> *The appendix evolved* for a much dirtier, parasite-plagued lifestyle than the one most people live in the developed world today, Parker said. But where diarrheal disease is common, for example, the appendix is apparently vital for repopulating intestines with helpful bacteria after an illness.




my emphasis in bold.

Very hard to use this as evidence against evolution, the whole article is about finding new uses for organs that were previously unknown, it is just the author added a bit of bias in the last sentence, not scientific fact. Because of modern medicines and health care keeping most people alive a lot longer than in the past, it can easily be argued that the human species is now much less likely to evolve much further at all.

brty


----------



## ktrianta (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



brty said:


> ktrianta,
> 
> This was from the article,
> 
> ...




Brty,

Think you will find I never actually argued that this was evidence against evolution. Rather that it was evidence against the vistigial organ myth. I have been at pains to point this out, irrespective of what my view is on the neo darwinian view of evolution.

As for the bolded portion, as I said in a previous post, the field of evolution is filled with speculation and supposition and the bolded quote would be one of those.

One of the questions I did ask, was was anyone else taught this as well and did they still believe this as true? That would be interesting to see especially given the progression of science in this area.


----------



## brty (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

ktrianta,



> Another evolution myth bites the dust.






> I never actually argued that this was evidence against evolution




Ummm, Do you suffer from memory loss??


brty


----------



## Mofra (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> Vistigial organs as proof for evolution as once proudly taught in schools is now a myth. Science is showing that this is wrong.



No, it was a theory. In any case maybe you should re-read the article again as has been so kinly pointed out.



ktrianta said:


> One of the definitions of myth in the oxford dictionary is "a widley held but false notion".
> 
> Sounds like a myth to me.



A myth in common vernacular is regarded as something that is believed without the basis of research and scientific testing - like unicorns, or invisible men living in the sky.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

I think that ktrianta is getting annoyed that a scientific discussion has been hijacked  yet again by the zealots, yet again talking anti creationist and anti religion. Boring the t1ts of us all again.

However ktrianta you could have worded things better at the start of the thread, you should have known that people would bring religion into it.

I think both sides are arguing at cross purposes and not understanding each other.


----------



## ktrianta (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



brty said:


> ktrianta,
> 
> Ummm, Do you suffer from memory loss??
> 
> brty




Alzheimers hasn't kicked in yet. I have an excellent memory.

You misunderstood again. When I said another "evolution myth" it is to do with those chestnuts that are accepted as fact such as this one and many others which have been discarded along the way. 

This is not the same as saying the whole neo darwinian evolutin model is a myth, irrespective of whether it is or isn't.

Think we all agree that the old vistigial organs lacks any scientific credibility and that is what this thread is about.


----------



## ktrianta (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



Mofra said:


> A myth in common vernacular is regarded as something that is believed without the basis of research and scientific testing - like unicorns, or invisible men living in the sky.





Mofra,

Happy to stick with the Oxford dictionary definition.


----------



## CapnBirdseye (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> As I have said, why bring religion into this?




Erm?  Isn't that your point?


----------



## ktrianta (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



Knobby22 said:


> I think that ktrianta is getting annoyed that a scientific discussion has been hijacked  yet again by the zealots, yet again talking anti creationist and anti religion. Boring the t1ts of us all again.
> 
> However ktrianta you could have worded things better at the start of the thread, you should have known that people would bring religion into it.
> 
> I think both sides are arguing at cross purposes and not understanding each other.




Yes am trying to keep it away from there because look at the "Is there a God" thread and "the athiest" thread. Bottom line is you cannot change ones views on those and that is fair enough and who wants to look at some of the nonsense on those threads.

But looking at a view that was taught as scientific fact but is now incresingly been seen as a myth (oxford dictionary definition) is a much more interesting and educational approach i would have thought.

Maybe the title is a bit provocative, but it does generate interest rather than a boring title.


----------



## spooly74 (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> But looking at a view that was taught as scientific fact but is now incresingly been seen as a myth (oxford dictionary definition) is a much more interesting and educational approach i would have thought.




I remember this distinctly in school. Our teacher at the time (re: appendix) said its _apparent_ vestigiality today does not mean it had no use in the past, or will not in the future.
Seems like a balanced approach. No fact, no myth.

One of the kids in class was born without an appendix.


----------



## derty (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



			
				ktrianta said:
			
		

> It never ceases to amaze me, how precious people are about their belief in the theory of evolution. It seems to me that people seem to believe that the theory of evolution should be above criticism and that any attack on any aspect of it is a like to a red rag to a bull to the neo darwinian zealots.



I am as precious about evolution as I am any other scientific theory. It, like other theories, is the best explanation we have for what we see around us using our current understanding. They are not static. Once written down they are not incommutable. They are there to be questioned, improved or pulled down.  

When any scientific theory is attempted to be discredited or attacked by groups or ideas that have little to no scientific credibility of course people will rally to the theories defence. 

You say that you are not attacking evolution and imply that you are posting this for the benefit of scientific discussion:


			
				ktrianta said:
			
		

> This is ... thread ... is about one aspect of a theory which was widely taught as fact but has now been discredited.
> 
> It is not an attack on the whole edifice.
> 
> Was I the only one who was taught this in science at high school?





Though, your language within the thread, and indeed the title of the thread, *Vistigial Organs evolution myth*, does not gel with your stated objectives;



			
				ktrianta said:
			
		

> Another evolution myth bites the dust.





			
				ktrianta said:
			
		

> Always remember how in my high school science classes, this myth was proudly trotted out as proof for evolution.
> 
> Makes you wonder what sort of other nonsense we were taught back then.




I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you were attacked for peddling another agenda in the *Dino to Bird Evolution Myth*, but you are back again and are again describing a potentially superseded aspect of a theory as a *Myth*.

I do not believe you have posted these for the simple discussion of science. You have stated elsewhere that you do not believe in evolution and that you believe in creation. Why would you then be attempting to foster a discussion on the finer points of the theory of evolution when you don't believe in evolution?



			
				ktrianta said:
			
		

> My belief is in the traditional christian belief as expressed in God's revealation to us in the Bible.





			
				ktrianta said:
			
		

> ...The fact that the universe follows certain laws is a better fit with a Creator God than a random explosion...
> 
> If a creator God exists, then it would be logical to assume that Natural selection is a better fit with a creator who creates using economy of design so that species adapt to their environment as they spread accross the earth. (speciation is indeed an intergarl part of creation models).
> 
> ...




So ktrianta what are you really trying to achieve here?


----------



## brty (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

ktrianta,

73 out of 91 posts about religion, evolution etc. Why are you really here???

brty


----------



## darkside (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> Sorry darkside, but you have missed the point. This is not a thread about evolution v creation. This is about one aspect of a theory which was widely taught as fact but has now been discredited.
> 
> It is not an attack on the whole edifice.
> 
> ...




 No, don't be sorry i havent missed the point, I think perhaps you have, you opened the title with "Another evolution myth bites the dust". and then cry foul when taken to task over it, pick a team and then stick to it, don't go "oh it was never my intention to start a evolution vs creation debate", what did you think would be the reaction with that line. Wake up to yourself. 

Once again , how many " God Botherers" would be upset if i started a thread, stating "another stupid creation myth is debunked"
maybe then i could cry "dumb" and say , "no it wasn't meant as a slander to your faith, just a topical discussion about science.


----------



## darkside (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



brty said:


> ktrianta,
> 
> 73 out of 91 posts about religion, evolution etc. Why are you really here???
> 
> brty




Not just this thread , but this site, surely there are other sites that subscribe to your idealogical if not misguided rants.


----------



## trainspotter (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

I know quite a few people who have a brain but do not use it. Does this count as a vestigial organ? If God was so smart why did he put the testicles on a man ON THE OUTSIDE?

1) The wings on flightless birds.
2) Hind leg bones in whales.
3) Erector Pili and Body Hair
4) The Human Tailbone (Coccyx)
5) The Blind Fish Astyanax Mexicanus (born with eyes that cannot see)
6) Wisdom Teeth in Humans (unless you are a neanderthal)
7) The Sexual Organs of Dandelions (They clone themselves)
8) Fake Sex in Virgin Whiptail Lizards (they reproduce by parthenogenesis, a form of reproduction in which an unfertilized egg develops into a new individual.)
9) Male Breast Tissue and Nipples (testosterone causes sex differentiation in a fetus)
10) The Human appendix (Any secondary function that the appendix might perform certainly is not missed in those who had it removed before it might have ruptured.)


----------



## Timmy (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



brty said:


> ktrianta,
> 
> 73 out of 91 posts about religion, evolution etc. Why are you really here???
> 
> brty




& has started only 2 threads, both feature the words "evolution myth" in the title.


----------



## ktrianta (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

Good to see that the ferals are out in force. Why not play the man instead of the topic at hand. 

Does it matter what I post on?

Have you people ever heard of free speech????

If you don't like the topic, just ignore it, really simple!!!!

I started threads on topics of interest to me and have tried try to keep religion out of it because of the nonsense that some people come up with when you bring religion into it.

It seems to me that you people are so insecure in your own beliefs on the neo darwinian evolutionary model that anything that shows one aspect of your belief system is wrong is met with howls of protest and is assumed to be an attack on the whole theory. Maybe you believe that your theory stands on flimsy ground and are too scared to confront it so any challenge is an attack on your belief system.

Well harden up people and grow some balls!!! Any belief which cannot be challenged is not worth having.

The dino to bird evolution myth and the vistigial organ myth contains information published in Peer reviewed journals (and if you don't believe me ask Timmy, because he is the resident ASF expert on peer review).

This may actually surprise people, but people post on things that actually interest them. 

Here is a hint, when I start another thread on evolutionary myth's, if you don't like it then you don't have to read it. 

Other people may find the topic of interest without you neo darwinian zealots frothing at the mouth at the hint of a challenge to anything to do with evolution.


----------



## brty (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

ktrianta



> you people are so insecure in your own beliefs




Does it occur to you that we are secure in our beliefs??



> This may actually surprise people, but people post on things that actually interest them.




It is an investment forum, I would have thought most post about investment here.



> when I start another thread on evolutionary myth's




How about you do that on a religious forum if you want to be left alone.



> Good to see that the ferals are out in force




I know, what can we do about you??

brty


----------



## derty (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

The best defence is offence hey?

As far as I can tell no-one here has an issue with evolution being challenged, that is not anyone's concern. The concern is with your motives and transparency. 

With respect to the article you linked, it is extremely interesting and is a good example of the progressive nature of science. It does not confine the concept that evolution has left some vestigial components in some organisms to the dustbin. As trainspotter listed, there remain numerous examples of vestigial organs/bodyparts and behaviours that still support the concept. Your linked article did not even state that their research had killed the vestigial theory, it was solely your inference. 

Maybe if you had called the thread something like: Vestigial Organs Found Not To Be So Useless,  you may have garnered more of a scientific discussion.

btw, there is really no such thing as a Darwinian or even an evolutionist, it is just a Creationists term for those whose world view includes the Theory of Evolution.  Calling people neo Darwinian zealots is such a give away.


----------



## bassmanpete (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



> Other people may find the topic of interest without you neo darwinian zealots frothing at the mouth at the hint of a challenge to anything to do with evolution.




Your title for the thread, and the previous one re birds from dinosaurs, is kind of provocative (and misspelt!)



> Think we all agree that the old vistigial organs lacks any scientific credibility and that is what this thread is about.





Well, no we don't. There are many other examples of vestigial structures that definitely aren't myths, some of which were listed by trainspotter. It would probably help if you stated exactly what your beliefs are because, as someone else pointed out, if you don't accept evolution then the only alternative is creationism. Unless of course you have another theory, in which case you could be up for a Nobel Prize, current monetary value about A$2M. Invested wisely you could live on that


----------



## ktrianta (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



derty said:


> The best defence is offence hey?
> 
> As far as I can tell no-one here has an issue with evolution being challenged, that is not anyone's concern. The concern is with your motives and transparency.
> 
> ...




I am touched by your concern for my motives, but i have openly stated them many times, so what is to be gained by rehashing it if you cannot listen.

In future I will ensure that I pass on all my prospective threads by you first to get your approval before I post.

If you people stopped turning everything into religion, I would not need to use such terms.


----------



## ktrianta (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



brty said:


> ktrianta
> It is an investment forum, I would have thought most post about investment here.
> brty




Sorry i did not realise that this was an investment forum. Can you please ask the mods to remove the general Chat forum and any other forum not remotely related to investment.


----------



## ktrianta (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



bassmanpete said:


> Your title for the thread, and the previous one re birds from dinosaurs, is kind of provocative




Sorry, I did not realise that i was dealing with such a sensitive soul as yourself. Maybe I should run my posts through you first to make sure it does not offend.


----------



## ktrianta (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



trainspotter said:


> I know quite a few people who have a brain but do not use it. Does this count as a vestigial organ? If God was so smart why did he put the testicles on a man ON THE OUTSIDE?
> 
> 1) The wings on flightless birds.
> 2) Hind leg bones in whales.
> ...





Trainspotter,

Don't profess to be an expert but am sure that any good internet search can answer your queries. Suggest that some of the examples you have quoted are most likely genetic mutations which have caused a loss of function e.g. the flightless birds and the blind fish whereas others you can do your own research on the net.

For instance on the appendix see attached:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17936308


----------



## So_Cynical (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> Another evolution myth bites the dust.
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090730-spleen-vestigial-organs.html




Ok so i actually read the story and if anything it supports evolution...can someone 
explane what myth bit the dust?...i don't get it. :dunno:


----------



## ktrianta (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



So_Cynical said:


> Ok so i actually read the story and if anything it supports evolution...can someone
> explane what myth bit the dust?...i don't get it. :dunno:




So Cynical,

Good to see that you have red the artcile and grasped what a lot of posters seem to have failed to grasp that it is not an attack on evolution itself.

The myth I refer to is the premise behind the idea of vestigial organs that our bodies contain “evolutionary leftovers”””once biologically necessary but now unimportant. In this article it is the spleen which was formerly considered vistigial because it can be removed without killing the patient, but now has been found to have a function.

See also the link to the artcile on the appendix in the previous post I made. Hope that clears it up for you.


----------



## stocksontheblock (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> As I have said, why bring religion into this? Vistigial organs as proof for evolution as once proudly taught in schools is now a myth. Science is showing that this is wrong.
> 
> One of the definitions of myth in the oxford dictionary is "a widley held but false notion".
> 
> Sounds like a myth to me.




I have to agree with others here, where is the myth? I have just read the article and right from the start it, itself is a new theory - not fact, so by your definition a myth! And I have to say, that starting an article with "Case in point: the spleen, which a new study shows may be critical in healing damaged hearts (interactive heart guide). 

Sure, the spleen””kidney shaped and tucked into the upper left of your abdomen””helps spot infections and filters out red blood cells that are damaged or old. But overall the organ has been seen as nonessential. Cut it out, and people still live."

… just seem's like the most pointless statement. I can lose a leg and still live! Losing a spleen up until now might have meant you could still live, not very well as I know several people who have had it removed for one reason or another and their life is not one of star-jumps and fun. Lots of drugs, careful how they handle themselves etc.

As for religion being called upon by those to speak against creationism, well what else is there? I mean that’s what it is. Ever seen the Family Guy, if not look at their take on being "required" to show how it all came into existence.

I think the one thing that should be clearly stated in this thread is that ktrianta should declare where she is coming from with all of this. Nothing you have said so far has anything to do with a discussion, it comes across, and it has to be said very clearly, that you are a creationist, and pushing a doctrine, and not just a chat topic.

Correct me if I am wrong, yet the anger you clearly demonstrate at the neo Darwinian zealots is just teetering on religious intolerance (that is, your intolerance based on religion of others) and not just an opinion.

And ... just too obviously pis* you off more, your defensive attitude reeks of religious superiority and intolerance to people who differ with you. No one, as far as I can reed have mentioned anything about 'religion' in the guise of dismissing it, or pouring scorn on its belief system. You use your very badly hidden intolerance of evolution and science to associate the neo Darwinian zealots with science - which is more the case, yet you cry in shame and indignation when someone rightly mentions creationism and religion.

Ummm ... glass houses? Cake and eat it too?

Some examples to back my case (non religious or scientific, just observation):

"Good to see that the ferals are out in force."

"Does it matter what I post on?" (you can really feel the anger in which this was typed)

"Have you people ever heard of free speech????" (nice one, the ol' chestnut, and what the hell is YOU PEOPLE???)

"I started threads on topics of interest to me and have tried try to keep religion out of it because of the nonsense that some people come up with when you bring religion into it." (so bringing up religion by anyone else other than you is nonsense?)

"It seems to me that *you people* (I added the bold) are so insecure in your own beliefs on the neo Darwinian evolutionary model that anything that shows one aspect of your belief system is wrong is met with howls of protest and is assumed to be an attack on the whole theory. Maybe you believe that your theory stands on flimsy ground and are too scared to confront it so any challenge is an attack on your belief system." (nice try, yet this pre-school yard tactic has no weight, he took my ice-cream so I punched him, that’s a good reasons isn’t it?)

"Well harden up people and grow some balls!!! Any belief which cannot be challenged is not worth having." (will leave this one alone I think)

"This may actually surprise people, but people post on things that actually interest them." (your right yet typically it is prefaced with their position, and not dressed up as something it isn’t. isn’t one of the rules on this site that if you have an 'interest' you need to declare it? or do you think that only applied to those who are taking about stocks?) 

"Other people may find the topic of interest without you neo darwinian zealots frothing at the mouth at the hint of a challenge to anything to do with evolution. " (and the lowest form of conversation, resorting to name calling when you have nothing else left to explain your position)


----------



## stocksontheblock (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



trainspotter said:


> I know quite a few people who have a brain but do not use it. Does this count as a vestigial organ? If God was so smart why did he put the testicles on a man ON THE OUTSIDE?
> 
> 1) The wings on flightless birds.
> 2) Hind leg bones in whales.
> ...




Ohhh you are a funny bugger at times!!!


----------



## spooly74 (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



So_Cynical said:


> Ok so i actually read the story and if anything it supports evolution...can someone
> explane what myth bit the dust?...i don't get it. :dunno:



No, you get it.


----------



## Timmy (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> Good to see that the ferals are out in force.




Please do not refer to those posters who have called you on your duplicity 'feral'.  Thank-you.


----------



## brty (17 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

ktrianta,



> Sorry i did not realise that this was an investment forum




You're right, it is a forum about putting people into wooden contraptions so that their feet and arms cannot move, based upon medieval traditions in Aussieland.

We do it to others for kicks, to throw rotten vegetables at them.

brty


----------



## darkside (18 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



stocksontheblock said:


> I have to agree with others here, where is the myth? I have just read the article and right from the start it, itself is a new theory - not fact, so by your definition a myth! And I have to say, that starting an article with "Case in point: the spleen, which a new study shows may be critical in healing damaged hearts (interactive heart guide).
> 
> Sure, the spleen””kidney shaped and tucked into the upper left of your abdomen””helps spot infections and filters out red blood cells that are damaged or old. But overall the organ has been seen as nonessential. Cut it out, and people still live."
> 
> ...




What he said, ...

Nice post


----------



## ktrianta (20 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

Did a google search and found this definition.

From live science this is the definition of vistigial organs:

In Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) and in his later works, he referred to several "vestiges" in human anatomy that were left over from the course of evolution. These vestigial organs, Darwin argued, are evidence of evolution and represent a function that was once necessary for survival, but over time that function became either diminished or nonexistent.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines vestigial organs as organs or structures remaining or surviving in a degenerate, atrophied, or imperfect condition or form. This is the accepted biological definition used in the theory of evolution.

The point of this thread really is to show that maybe this whole concept is wrong, a myth. The article referred to shows that the spleen, can no longer be referred to as vistigial.

These "non-functional organs" were in fact organs whose "functions had not yet been discovered." The best indication of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs. 

S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.

S. R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?," Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173

In a nutshell that is what this thread is about. Not religion.


----------



## spooly74 (20 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> In Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) and in his later works, he referred to several "vestiges" in human anatomy that were left over from the course of evolution. These vestigial organs, Darwin argued, are evidence of evolution and represent a function that was once necessary for survival, but over time that function became either diminished or nonexistent.
> 
> The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines vestigial organs as organs or structures remaining or surviving in a degenerate, atrophied, or imperfect condition or form. This is the accepted biological definition used in the theory of evolution.
> 
> The point of this thread really is to show that maybe this whole concept is wrong, a myth. The article referred to shows that the spleen, can no longer be referred to as vistigial.




Did a google search too:



> Spleen: An organ located in the upper left part of the abdomen near the stomach. The spleen produces lymphocytes; it is the largest lymphatic organ in the body. The spleen also filters the blood, serves as a major reservoir for blood and destroys blood cells that are aged.




Hardy vestigial to start with.


----------



## ktrianta (20 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



spooly74 said:


> Did a google search too:
> 
> 
> 
> Hardy vestigial to start with.




Spooly,

Maybe you should read the article that was the reason behind starting this thread and you will find that that is what the whole article was about. 

No wonder so many on this thread were so irrational.

Guess if more people read the article we would not have the paranioa that was displayed in this thread. Couple who read the article , stated they did not see the problem and did not see it as an attack on the neo darwinian view and I think trainspotter, to his credit, at least tried to raise issues in relation to this topic.

Too many people on this thread were just jumping at shadows.


----------



## darkside (20 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> Spooly,
> 
> Maybe you should read the article that was the reason behind starting this thread and you will find that that is what the whole article was about.
> 
> ...





Maybe the people on this thread, "The Ferals" as you referred to them , found your title somewhat antagonistic " another evolution myth bites the dust."

Also the way you wanted to argue with anyone who didn't adhere to your views as opossed to guided discussion could also have been a catalyst for the way people treated your thread. 

I suppose all the name calling you did on here may have also stopped anyone from being endeared to your agender. But this is only MO .

Others on here may choose to agree or disagree with me, but i certainly won't be reduced to calling them "ferals" or attacking their opinion.


----------



## derty (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

Both the definitions you have chosen to use, state that vestigial implies that something whose function ranges from useless or degenerate to diminished or reduced.



ktrianta said:


> In Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) and in his later works, he referred to several "vestiges" in human anatomy that were left over from the course of evolution. These vestigial organs, Darwin argued, are evidence of evolution and represent a function that was once necessary for survival, but over time that function became either *diminished* or nonexistent.
> 
> The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines vestigial organs as organs or structures remaining or surviving in a degenerate, *atrophied, or imperfect* condition or form. This is the accepted biological definition used in the theory of evolution.




You are basing the vestigial organs are a "myth", and therefore that that line of evidence is defunct as support for the Theory of Evolution, on the assumption that vestigial organs are totally useless and that if any proposed vestigial organ has any function at all it is therefore not a vestigial organ.


ktrianta said:


> Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, *I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.*




There remain many other organs and parts that are present and can be classed as vestigial. A good example is the coccyx. If you have a search around you will find articles/comments where people state that as it still has muscles attached to it and it is necessary to sit comfortably that it can no longer be classed as vestigial because of this. However it is the fused remnant of a tail, a feature present in most mammals. It remains in humans in a vestigial form.

trainspotter listed quite a few other vestigial features in nature. Here is some of that list with some additions. All of which are vestigial features. 
1) The wings on flightless birds.
2) Hind leg bones in whales.
3) Erector Pili and Body Hair
4) The Human Tailbone (Coccyx)
5) The Blind Fish Astyanax Mexicanus (born with eyes that cannot see)
6) The Blind Mole Rat (tiny eyes covered in skin)
7) Some snakes with pelvic remnants
8) legless lizards (have non functioning rudimentary limbs)
9) reduced or absent left lung in snakes
10) crabs tails
11) human ear muscles (unless ear wiggling can be found to have a critical function)

To class something as vestigial is not a knife edge definition. There are ranges of loss of function and redundancy. This is exactly what is to be expected in evolution and it is indeed what we see in nature. You cannot base your argument on two human organs having more functionality than previously thought. There are many other examples within the human body and within the plant and animal kingdoms that show that vestigiality supports the process of evolution.


----------



## ktrianta (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



darkside said:


> Maybe the people on this thread, "The Ferals" as you referred to them , found your title somewhat antagonistic " another evolution myth bites the dust."
> 
> Also the way you wanted to argue with anyone who didn't adhere to your views as opossed to guided discussion could also have been a catalyst for the way people treated your thread.
> 
> ...




Darkside,

You might not call people feral, but you accuse people of ideological and misguided rants and then are happy to accuse people of lying and question peoples motives when I stated quite categorically that this thread is not about religion.

The more reasoned posters who actually bothered to read the article saw no problem with the article. 

Happy to apologise for calling people feral if those same people give me an apology for accusing me of lying, duplicity, hidden agenda's etc. despite the fact that i repeatedly tried to steer this away from religion. 

Read the thread and see how many times i tried to get it back on track and then it was only when personal attacks were made on my integrity I responded to those attacks by calling people feral to describe the nature of those attacks.


----------



## ktrianta (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



derty said:


> You are basing the vestigial organs are a "myth", and therefore that that line of evidence is defunct as support for the Theory of Evolution, on the assumption that vestigial organs are totally useless and that if any proposed vestigial organ has any function at all it is therefore not a vestigial organ.
> .




Refer quote previously supplied which is what this thread is all about - namely how at high school science we were taught that vistigial organs were proof of evolution.

S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.

S. R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?," Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

Hey there ktrianta ... take the foot off the accelarator. Keep your hands on the wheel and keep your eyes on the road. Your'e doing a great job thus far of attempting to convert us to your ideals of "myths" under the guise of a non religious thread. Like everything that one reads, hears and sees, only take out the bits you want that will make you a better person. Reject the rest as useless garbage that does not need to be carried around. 

Upon saying this: Scientists are using these vestigial (note the spelling) indicators to support their theory of evolution. Just the same as Religious people want us to believe in some omniscient being that created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh. Must be tiring creating supernovas and quarks and black holes I reckon. 

BOTH are taught in school (well it was when I went to school) take from it what you will and remember that somewhere in between is the truth. Might not be your version but it will do for now until that great big deity in the sky comes back to reclaim the chosen few.


----------



## spooly74 (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:
> 
> Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.
> 
> S. R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?," Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173




...................................................................................................

*Quote-mining is a classic creationist technique where the views of some "authority" are misrepresented to make it sound as if they meant something they did not intend*. In other instances, _creationists_ simply cite people who were wrong and ignore the counter citations that demonstrate the error. *One such example is the use of a 1981 paper written by developmental biologist, Steve Scadding, and published in the journal, Evolutionary Theory. *In that paper, Scadding argued that vestigial organs offered no evidence for evolution other than the evidence they already provide as examples of homology.


Before we turn to the paper itself, we must make a note about the journal that published it. The irregular journal, Evolutionary Theory (more recently known as Evolutionary Theory and Review) was not your typical scientific journal. It specialized in presenting eclectic and unorthodox papers dealing with the evolutionary half of biology. Its peer review was not as stringent as other journals, as this description from the 1982 edition demonstrates.



> This is an open journal. We welcome speculations and critical discussion of books, papers, or ideas. Short papers or even a few lines are appropriate, with no limit on maximum length. So are research suggestions or queries. We prefer a higher than usual probability of error to exclusion of new ideas, which are unorthodox by definition. Good taxonomic and other factual papers are welcome. Papers that disagree with the editors' views have a higher probability of acceptance than those that agree. Comments can be made on relevant papers in any journal at any time, or on more general questions. Comments and replies are reviewed like any other paper.




The fact that Scadding (1981) appeared in such a journal definitely raises questions about any argument using it as the lone reference. *This is not to say that Scadding was wrong because he published in Evolutionary Theory, but it does explain why it was published with its major flaws. *It also explains why Scadding (1981) appears to be the *only published scientific paper that creationists have found that questions in toto whether vestigial structuress are special evidence for evolution.*

Creationists who quote from the abstract are guilty of quote-mining because it does not accurately represent the view put forth by Scadding in the body of his paper. Scadding argued that vestigial structures do not offer any evidence for evolution beyond the fact that they are homologous. This is why Scadding uses the phrase "special evidence":



> Vestigial organs represent simply a special case of homologous organs. . . . While homologies between animal species suggest a common origin, the argument . . . *asserts that vestigial organs provide special additional evidence for evolution*.
> 
> (Scadding 1981, p 173)






> Naylor states that ... "[vestigial organs] would still provide powerful evidence for the theory of evolution." I agree with this, but I suggest that this evidence is due to the homologies these organs illustrate and not to their vestigiality.
> (Scadding 1982, p 172)





Anyone who cites Scadding (1981) as evidence that the appendix, coccyx, equine leg bones, or similar structures are not evidence for evolution is misrepresenting the paper. Scadding clearly recognizes that vestiges' homologies with structures in other lineages are evidence for common descent. *However, Scadding was wrong to argue that vestigial structures offer no evidence beyond being homologous.*


*Conclusion:*
In conclusion, creationists who use Scadding (1981) to support their contention that vestigial organs are not evidence for evolution *are using a paper published in a minor, eclectic journal that was refuted soon after it initially came out. They cite someone who was wrong as "proof" that they are right.* As such, it is another example of poor scholarship performed for the sake of pseudoscience.
Here


----------



## stocksontheblock (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



spooly74 said:


> ...................................................................................................
> 
> *Quote-mining is a classic creationist technique where the views of some "authority" are misrepresented to make it sound as if they meant something they did not intend*. In other instances, _creationists_ simply cite people who were wrong and ignore the counter citations that demonstrate the error. *One such example is the use of a 1981 paper written by developmental biologist, Steve Scadding, and published in the journal, Evolutionary Theory. *In that paper, Scadding argued that vestigial organs offered no evidence for evolution other than the evidence they already provide as examples of homology.
> 
> ...




Wow you are a clever bugger!!! 

If I wasnt already convinced before, I am now.


----------



## ktrianta (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

Spooly,

You just can't keep religion out of it. 

Think it just goes to show that as i said before in the area of evolutionary belief, there is a lot of speculation and supposition hence the reasons why there is o many contrary positions.  

There may be a majority position but that does not mean it is right.


----------



## spooly74 (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> Spooly,
> 
> You just can't keep religion out of it.
> 
> ...




Cut the $hit KT, you're fooling nobody.


----------



## darkside (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> Darkside,
> 
> You might not call people feral, but you accuse people of ideological and misguided rants and then are happy to accuse people of lying and question peoples motives when I stated quite categorically that this thread is not about religion.
> 
> ...




I didn't question your motive , i called it, i don't believe anyone on this site is that gulliable not to see straight through your agenda.

 I don't think you have to alienate everyone here, but so far your doing a great job and i would't get into a debate with spooly74 if i was you , because i believe you are in way over your head and struggling ,  thats obvious to all here.


----------



## stocksontheblock (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



darkside said:


> I didn't question your motive , i called it, i don't believe anyone on this site is that gulliable not to see straight through your agenda.
> 
> I don't think you have to alienate everyone here, but so far your doing a great job and i would't get into a debate with spooly74 if i was you , because i believe you are in way over your head and struggling ,  thats obvious to all here.




Of course she won't get into it with spooly74, her last posting ..."You just can't keep religion out of it. 

Think it just goes to show that as i said before in the area of evolutionary belief, there is a lot of speculation and supposition hence the reasons why there is o many contrary positions. 

There may be a majority position but that does not mean it is right."

... was almost an act of contrition. Yet, as I say, almost.


----------



## ktrianta (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



darkside said:


> I didn't question your motive , i called it, i don't believe anyone on this site is that gulliable not to see straight through your agenda.e.




Well if you call people's integrity into question don't complain if you get characterised as feral.


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

That is me third from the right - FERAL


----------



## stocksontheblock (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> Well if you call people's integrity into question don't complain if you get characterised as feral.




LMFAO, you really should write a book - "how to win friends and influence people". With the appalling, conceited, know-all, intolerant, devious, and dogmatic approach you have it would be bound to be a best seller.

However, I, amongst many are waiting for your retort to spooly's well researched and argued piece. I know that Scadding was the first hit on your Google search, so you can be forgiven for taking a little longer to reply to it, or is all we will be seeing from your great mind the half-a*sed contrite message which followed his posting?

Ohhh, and as you didn’t bother to answer or reply to the lengthy message that I posted a few days back about your very angry response to people who disagree with you - whoops, everyone who disagrees with you - would you care to explain how, how you can possibly keep religion out of creationism? I am so keen to hear the insight and well researched and put together argument you have. Well, to be honest, anything you get from Google will be a good start.

I'll give you a couple of hours to find something, and yes, in the mean-time I shall look forward to more of your insulting comments, and hopefully this time directed at me.

Ohhh ... and if you think I am having a go at you, then guess what? I am.


----------



## stocksontheblock (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



trainspotter said:


> That is me third from the right - FERAL




I always look forward to your comments TS, they make my day.


----------



## ktrianta (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



trainspotter said:


> That is me third from the right - FERAL





What can I say. Love your work


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

Just a photo of a weekend retreat in Nimbin.

All creeds and all Nations are welcome in Nimbin, a highly tolerant town  whose rich multicultural diversity is reflected in the works of our large community of talented Artists and Musicians. (read deranged druggies)

Alternative - land sharing, healing, education, housing and power, cafes, markets and festivals, forests, mountain views, great music and Art are just some of what Nimbin has to offer. (and drug culture at it's finest)


----------



## ktrianta (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



stocksontheblock said:


> Ohhh, and as you didn’t bother to answer or reply to the lengthy message that I posted a few days back about your very angry response to people who disagree with you - whoops, everyone who disagrees with you - would you care to explain how, how you can possibly keep religion out of creationism? I am so keen to hear the insight and well researched and put together argument you have. Well, to be honest, anything you get from Google will be a good start.




Stocks,

Read your response and thought it was not worth responding to. Quite frankly could not be bothered repeating myself for the umpteenth time so please do not wait for a response because I am not wasting my time.


----------



## derty (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

ktriana, you are a slippery one. 

You have said you are here to debate relevance of vestigial organs to the Theory of Evolution. Attacks on your motives aside, you have chosen to not debate any of the scientific oriented discussion directed towards you. There are very valid points raised by stocksontheblock, spooly, trainspotter and myself that have been brushed aside with a minor refutation of a point here or there leaving the the main points ignored.

If you are indeed here to debate, please do so.


----------



## ktrianta (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



derty said:


> ktriana, you are a slippery one.
> 
> You have said you are here to debate relevance of vestigial organs to the Theory of Evolution. Attacks on your motives aside, you have chosen to not debate any of the scientific oriented discussion directed towards you. There are very valid points raised by stocksontheblock, spooly, trainspotter and myself that have been brushed aside with a minor refutation of a point here or there leaving the the main points ignored.
> 
> If you are indeed here to debate, please do so.




Refer back to the original article published at the start of this thread. Google search the topic and there are many articles there to read if you are truly interested and from different perspectives. Pick the view you like, but the title of the article says it all - vistigial organs not so useless after all".


----------



## stocksontheblock (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> Stocks,
> 
> Read your response and thought it was not worth responding to. Quite frankly could not be bothered repeating myself for the umpteenth time so please do not wait for a response because I am not wasting my time.




Ohhh I am so disappointed. As Derty put it, you seem to want to refuse to debate the underlining point of your whole thread. Seems odd doesn’t!? 

I happen to think that it’s a very valid question. We feral’s and the like would like to know how you can possibly discuss something like creationism without religion as a central tenant.

Very basic question, vey valid one and one which you seem to continue to refuse to answer, although you continue to poor scorn on those who use it when discussing creationism.

What was it he said ..."come on ktrianta, enthral me with your acumen".


----------



## stocksontheblock (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> ... but the title of the article says it all - vistigial organs not so useless after all".




But, thats not the title of your thread. You say a myth.

Do I see a very slow back down in the rhetoric.


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

I have lost my ability to read. What my eyes are seeing and my brain is comprehending are not one and the same. The title of the thread is *"Vistigial Organs evolution myth" *(spelled incorrectly as well but that is another matter) but ktrianta is insisting this *"vistigial organs not so useless after all". * (same spelling mistake) ... does not compute ... fatal error ... my brain has encountered a problem and needs to reboot.


----------



## stocksontheblock (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



trainspotter said:


> I have lost my ability to read. What my eyes are seeing and my brain is comprehending are not one and the same. The title of the thread is *"Vistigial Organs evolution myth" *(spelled incorrectly as well but that is another matter) but ktrianta is insisting this *"vistigial organs not so useless after all". * (same spelling mistake) ... does not compute ... fatal error ... my brain has encountered a problem and needs to reboot.




Ha ... beat you to it this time!

And it's also given me a chance to post my 100th message


----------



## ktrianta (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



stocksontheblock said:


> Ha ... beat you to it this time!
> 
> And it's also given me a chance to post my 100th message




Sorry boys, I am talking about the title of the article. Not the thread. Please read what is written.!!!

Some more random thoughts:

Vestigial features are those parts of an organism, which are thought to be useless or no longer needed. The human tailbone is commonly referred to be such a feature. Vestigial features are taught to be leftover from an organism’s ancestors as it has evolved to a new way of life. The idea of vestigial features has been used as evidence for evolution since 1859 when Darwin first proposed that such features were evidence of descent of one organism from a completely different one. The logical consequence of this alleged transformation is that the "new" creatures will be left with some features, which are no longer needed in its new environmental niche.

Belief in evolution demands that we believe that each type of animal on earth is a result of descent from some previous life form. If this were the case, almost every creature should have many leftover features, which are no longer needed. Yet the more we learn about biology, the more we discover that every part of an organism serves some useful function. For example, the appendix is often said to be a useless leftover part of the human body. We know that the appendix serves as a type of lymphatic tissue in the first few months of life to fight disease. It is no more a useless feature than one of your lungs is useless just because you can survive with only one lung.

The acceptance of the idea that some parts of the human body are useless leftovers has had very tragic consequences. Based on the misguided concept that the human colon was a vestige of the past, Sir William Land and dozens of other surgeons stripped the colons from thousands of patients in order to "cure" a variety of symptoms. Many died. As late as the 1960's many people had their tonsils removed. This practice was again fueled by the mistaken belief that the tonsils were a useless leftover feature from our past. It is now known that they serve as an important disease fighting function and should not be removed.

There are true vestigial features as the blind eyes of cave salamanders. Blind salamanders have non-functional eyes because they live their entire lives in total darkness. At sometime in the past, normal salamanders found a niche in dark caves and apparently only those who mutated to blindness had a need to stay in the total darkness where they could compete for existence without blindness being a disadvantage. However, these salamanders are still salamanders, a mutation to blindness is hardly an upward improvement in complexity, and no new information has been added to the DNA of the salamander.

As to the question of the human tailbone, anatomists tell us that the tailbone serves a very important function in the human physiology. The coccyx (tailbone) is the point of insertion of several muscles and ligaments including the one which allows man to walk completely upright. Without a tailbone, people could not walk in a completely upright manner, dance a ballet, perform gymnastics, or stroll down the street with their arm around their spouse. Hardly a useless, leftover, vestigial feature! The human body is designed for maximum versatility. It is far more versatile than the body of any other creature. What other animal can perform the range of movement required for activities as diverse as ice-skating, pearl diving, skiing, and gymnastics. This range of movement would be impossible without the tailbone.


----------



## darkside (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



trainspotter said:


> I have lost my ability to read. What my eyes are seeing and my brain is comprehending are not one and the same. The title of the thread is *"Vistigial Organs evolution myth" *(spelled incorrectly as well but that is another matter) but ktrianta is insisting this *"vistigial organs not so useless after all". * (same spelling mistake) ... does not compute ... fatal error ... my brain has encountered a problem and needs to reboot.




Ah yes , i was beaten for pace by the mighty "trainspotter
" it's all starting to unravel like a piece of torn cheesecloth off the back of a Nimbin Feral


----------



## ktrianta (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



darkside said:


> Ah yes , i was beaten for pace by the mighty "trainspotter
> " it's all starting to unravel like a piece of torn cheesecloth off the back of a Nimbin Feral




So you can't read either!!!


----------



## boofhead (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

The story itself is interesting. I wonder what else we will discover. I'm disappointed that the local newspaper didn't run the story. I wonder how many teachers will continue to teach the myth.

This thread has been an interesting lesson in communication.


----------



## stockGURU (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> Some more random thoughts:




This is just a cut and paste from a creationist website.

http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=9

You keep complaining that people bring religion into this thread but then you go and cut and paste from a religious/creationist website. Why don't you read the statement of faith on the website: http://www.drdino.com/statement-of-faith.php

Also, using the phrase "Some more random thoughts" makes it appear as though they're your thoughts when they're not. They're plagarised from a discredited website run by a convicted criminal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_H..._and_renouncing_citizenship_.281996_-_2006.29

Why don't you try debating with your own words instead of cutting and pasting rubbish from creationist websites?


----------



## ktrianta (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



stockGURU said:


> This is just a cut and paste from a creationist website.
> 
> http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=9
> 
> ...





Easier than rehashing in my own words. The issues are still the same and it is not srtaying on to religion so I was happy to use this. Others were too overt so did not past copy or link.


----------



## ktrianta (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



boofhead said:


> The story itself is interesting. I wonder what else we will discover. I'm disappointed that the local newspaper didn't run the story. I wonder how many teachers will continue to teach the myth.
> 
> This thread has been an interesting lesson in communication.




That was my whole point at the start of the thread, how what we were taught in school as evidence for evoltion is now discredited.


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

Ok Ktrianta I admit that the powder was wet when the firecracker went off. You were referring to the "article" from the discredited Scadding you had cut and pasted into your reply and not the title of the thread. Confusing isn't it? Especially when the point you continue to labor on is so far out of date it reeks of mould and mildew. If only life on earth were that simple to explain from the Good Book. Unfortunately it is not.

Many traits that appear to be simple adaptations are in fact exaptations: structures originally adapted for one function, but which coincidentally became somewhat useful for some other function in the process. One example is the African lizard Holaspis guentheri, which developed an extremely flat head for hiding in crevices, as can be seen by looking at its near relatives. However, in this species, the head has become so flattened that it assists in gliding from tree to tree””an exaptation. Another is the recruitment of enzymes from glycolysis and xenobiotic metabolism to serve as structural proteins called crystallins within the lenses of organisms' eyes.

As adaptation occurs through the gradual modification of existing structures, structures with similar internal organization may have very different functions in related organisms. This is the result of a single ancestral structure being adapted to function in different ways. The bones within bat wings, for example, are structurally similar to both human hands and seal flippers, due to the common descent of these structures from an ancestor that also had five digits at the end of each forelimb. Other idiosyncratic anatomical features, such as bones in the wrist of the panda being formed into a false "thumb," indicate that an organism's evolutionary lineage can limit what adaptations are possible.

I also know of some fish that have similar bone structures in their pectoral fins that assist them to "walk" across the seabed. Can you imagine that Ktrianta a fish with a thumb? Now you know where "fish fingers" come from.


----------



## stocksontheblock (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> Sorry boys, I am talking about the title of the article. Not the thread. Please read what is written.!!!
> 
> Some more random thoughts:
> 
> ...




I love this thread as its given me a chance to rack up the message numbers next to my name ... its all a competition, ha!!! Seriously…

Couple of points:

1. Random thoughts: whose? Can you cite where this came from? I'll be honest, I am suggesting this has been lifted, and so its not your own thought(s), however much you might believe it.

Why?

a. This is a complete structure of a thought, not random at all.
b. The detail is based on 'findings' and hence has apparent scientific backing, so there must be some research here.
c. Compared to your other 'random' thoughts this is head and shoulders above the 'ranting’s' you have made previously.

2. Why have you still not addressed why religion should be considered separate from creationism.

3. I, and I guess I can speak for the other ‘boys’, we know the article and your thread title are different. We are making the point that if you wanted to be taken seriously, too late for that now, you would not have put the title in as you had for this thread. You did because you jumped on the first silly sentence from this ‘mythical’ article and saw the word myth, and equated it with the title. Whoops, don’t you look silly now?

There are lots of spelling and grammatical errors in what you have written, maybe a red-herring to make us think it is your own work. This aside, some of these errors are important in understanding the context, so, can you please let me know if you mean … “Vestigial features are taught to be leftover from an organism’s ancestors as it has evolved to a new way of life.” Do you mean taught? Or thought? This is pretty important.

MMM ... think I see a corner, and hear the faint noises of a reversing car! Beeeeep ... beeeep ... beeep ... BEEP

Ohhh and as that funny man TS has pointed out more than a few times, its nice to see vestigial spelt right – for now.


----------



## stocksontheblock (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> That was my whole point at the start of the thread, how what we were taught in school as evidence for evoltion is now discredited.




How the **** do you come up with this????????????????????????

So far the only amount of discredited information has been against your rantings.

Still waiting for the silver bullet!


----------



## ktrianta (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



trainspotter said:


> Ok Ktrianta I admit that the powder was wet when the firecracker went off. You were referring to the "article" from the discredited Scadding you had cut and pasted into your reply and not the title of the thread. .




TS, 

Sorry to have to correct you again, the article i referred to was the one shown in the first post on this thread.  The quote from Scadding was alater post.

has any one actually read the original article????


----------



## darkside (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> So you can't read either!!!




Clearly not,"just some more random thoughts" that i may as well copy paste, off discredited websites and pretend they are my own ideas.

Oh no thats not me, we all know who that is.


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> That was my whole point at the start of the thread, how what we were taught in school as evidence for evoltion is now discredited.




DISCREDITED??? By whom??? Some whackjob calling himself a "scientist" in some dodgy magazine with a reader audience of 11 people? Or from the Creationists websites that you dribble up on the walls of ASF and call it meaningful dialogue? Whale Oil Beef Hooked. I am more than happy for you to believe in some bearded entity with the power of the universe in his right hand but for you to mask this diatribe that you insist is a "myth" somehow has got me cerebrally challenged to say the least. It is your "opinion" that it has been discredited but it is my "opinion" that what is being taught in schools is just fine with me. You want God? Go to Church. You want knowledge? Go to school.

Why not just start a thread and call it "Science VS God" ... this way we ALL know that there is no hidden agenda and the personal integrity and name calling tactics are surplus to requirements to have a meaningful discussion.

Has God got a belly button? If he has who made Him? Afterall we are made in His image are we not? So why do we have belly buttons then? Not bringing religion into it by the way! Could it be an Evolutionary thing? LMFAO !


----------



## darkside (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



stocksontheblock said:


> How the **** do you come up with this????????????????????????
> 
> So far the only amount of discredited information has been against your rantings.
> 
> Still waiting for the silver bullet!




I see "stocks" gets it, go champion.


----------



## stocksontheblock (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



stockGURU said:


> This is just a cut and paste from a creationist website.
> 
> http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=9
> 
> ...




Thank you stockGURU, I knew this wasnt her work, nice to see I was right.

MMM ... think ktrianta could get into trouble for that? Yet, I wont tell on her, I want her to stay with us and hang herself a little more.

What more fun could I have on a Friday afternoon!


----------



## ktrianta (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



stocksontheblock said:


> I love this thread as its given me a chance to rack up the message numbers next to my name ... its all a competition, ha!!! Seriously…
> 
> Couple of points:
> 
> ...





I'm racking up my numbers too.

This was all done whilst on a teleconference so not bad for multi skilling. Some of us still are trying to do some work you know. Yes I did get the contents, but it covered the issues that were relevant without referring to religion so I was happy to use it.

Why do i need to address why religion should be seperate from creationism? That has nothing to do with this thread.


----------



## stocksontheblock (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



trainspotter said:


> Has God got a belly button? If he has who made Him? Afterall we are made in His image are we not? So why do we have belly buttons then? Not bringing religion into it by the way! Could it be an Evolutionary thing? LMFAO !




I've said it before and I'll say it again you are one funny poster!!!

One day I will have to buy you a drink!

Ohhh, as for the rest of what you wrote, ABSOLUTELY AGREE.


----------



## stocksontheblock (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> I'm racking up my numbers too.
> 
> This was all done whilst on a teleconference so not bad for multi skilling. Some of us still are trying to do some work you know. Yes I did get the contents, but it covered the issues that were relevant without referring to religion so I was happy to use it.
> 
> Why do i need to address why religion should be seperate from creationism? That has nothing to do with this thread.




Ok, now I just can’t hold back anymore ... not only are you some simpleton from the hills who thinks that the tooth-fairy is real, yet you are an out and out liar. 'knock' me sideways, I had the feeling that you would try to claim the work as your own, if no one else found the source, and yet even after stockGURU showed you to be a fraud, a thief, a liar, and christ knows what else, you still try and pass this off as your own. Yes, I used christ, yet I don’t believe and nor as you would have noticed did I give it the respect it should have with a capital letter.

Multi-skilling what? sucking your thumb with your other one firmly 'in your ear'. Or are you suggesting you have such great talents over the rest of us by talking on the phone to your mates about what cow-boy boots to wear to the pub tonight and copying from a sad little website is a challenge?

My god, I really didn’t think people could be this stupid, yet its dam obvious they are!


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> TS,
> 
> Sorry to have to correct you again, the article i referred to was the one shown in the first post on this thread.  The quote from Scadding was alater post.
> 
> has any one actually read the original article????




No need to be sorry Ktrianta. This topic started so long ago I have forgotten as to whom quoted whom and the underlying nuances of the cut and paste brigade is becoming bothersome. It's a bit like this:- "Thank you for sending me a copy of your book; I'll waste no time reading it" in my world.


----------



## Joe Blow (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

Okay, that's enough with the language. It's not necessary.

Please, debate all you like - I'm not taking sides here - but lets keep it clean.

Thanks!


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> I'm racking up my numbers too.
> 
> This was all done whilst on a teleconference so not bad for multi skilling. Some of us still are trying to do some work you know. Yes I did get the contents, but it covered the issues that were relevant without referring to religion so I was happy to use it.
> 
> Why do i need to address why religion should be seperate from creationism? That has nothing to do with this thread.




Must have been a great teleconference ... you servile factotum you !


----------



## stocksontheblock (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

Sorry Joe, I have edited the post to reflect a more clean post.

I will try to be good.


----------



## ktrianta (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

Since you guys are so adament that you want to bring religion into it, then  here are a few links on the topic. Blow your fuses - hope that some might find these useful:

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html

http://creation.com/do-any-vestigial-organs-exist-in-humans

http://us1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/..._ANOTHER_BLOW_TO_THE_MYTH_OF_VESTIGIAL_ORGANS


----------



## darkside (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> Since you guys are so adament that you want to bring religion into it, then  here are a few links on the topic. Blow your fuses - hope that some might find these useful:
> 
> http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html
> 
> ...




Why bother pasting the links, how about just "copy & paste the articles and claim it as your own work , it has'nt stopped you before.


----------



## stocksontheblock (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



ktrianta said:


> Since you guys are so adament that you want to bring religion into it, then  here are a few links on the topic. Blow your fuses - hope that some might find these useful:
> 
> http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html
> 
> ...




Well said Darkside!!!

I would also ask what is the point of these? You raise religion, and have used it where it suited your purprose, yet you also say "why must you ferals (I added that) bring religion into creationsim"

Well we have all asked you a 100 times to tell us HOW creationsim is not religion. It is one in the same. So how can you NOT refer to religion.

Explain it, in your own words, and with your own thoughts for a start.

I have taken the 30 secs - which I will never get back I have to say - and what I notice as a theme in these links, is: "we will analyze this scientific crisis faced by the theory of evolution"

What crisis?
When did it become a crisis?
Why is it a crisis?
Who say's it is a crisis? (apart from the apparent 'sane' reference you have provided) I love the photocopy saying he is.


----------



## Timmy (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

This is quite an interesting topic, some really quality contributions.  It would be best to leave out the hidden agenda and have a quality discussion free of, I think it was, irrationality and paranoia, shadow jumping, calling people feral, and requesting people grow some balls!


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

Considered my fuse blown ktrianta. IMO Spooly74 has hit the ball clean out of the park. You might want to go and fetch it. Here is the new way of teaching the kiddies in school Creationism.


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

My favourite line -  “Intelligent Design” is religious mythology. If you are not capable of distinguishing between reality and mythology, you have an unresolved problem in your educational background.

Here ya go ktrianta, an opposing view and a website that is not a "myth" Oooopsies ... some good stuff here that makes sense.

http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html

You want religion ?? “I kill ... I wound ... I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh, If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me. :-- Deuteronomy 32:39-42”

Lovely stuff here petal, just lovely.


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

What do you reckon the mythology of intelligent design was with this freak of nature ? An axolotl or Mexican walking salamander. Maybe God was having an "off" day?


----------



## derty (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

Here is a site that addresses the vestigial argument from the scientific side of the argument. The linked page is part of a much larger site that covers the main areas of support for macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html


----------



## boofhead (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

Someone should people the people at talkorigins to update their story after the recent findings. It may also make them think more deeply about what else is on there. I'm not saying they are right or wrong.

After reading the posts beween my two posts so far in this thread it seems people aren't reading things properly.

My understanding is not about evolution vs creation. It is not even about evolution being a myth. It's about the appendix and how that fits in to various teachings and ideas that fits in to a part of evolution theory. Imagine evolution have 100 aspects. If one aspect is shown to not be 100% as it was thought that leaves 99 aspects. That 1 changes does not invalidate the overall teachings of evolution.


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

LOL boofhead ... you are a bloody genius. !!


----------



## Knobby22 (22 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*



boofhead said:


> Someone should people the people at talkorigins to update their story after the recent findings. It may also make them think more deeply about what else is on there. I'm not saying they are right or wrong.
> 
> After reading the posts beween my two posts so far in this thread it seems people aren't reading things properly.
> 
> My understanding is not about evolution vs creation. It is not even about evolution being a myth. It's about the appendix and how that fits in to various teachings and ideas that fits in to a part of evolution theory. Imagine evolution have 100 aspects. If one aspect is shown to not be 100% as it was thought that leaves 99 aspects. That 1 changes does not invalidate the overall teachings of evolution.




Well put Boofhead.
Also, the theory of evolution is always being revised. For instance, there is a lot of work going on with regard to environmental effects on which genes switch on. 

The theory of evolution is also undeniably pretty accurate with respect to what happens in the real world. Look at how the Cane Toad has grown longer legs to travel Australia quicker and how bacteria mutate to obtain resistance to antibiotics.


----------



## boofhead (22 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

Right. Our understanding of genetics is always being revised with it which may help explain some aspects of evolution. Remember a time when much of DNA was called junk and served no purpose? Now purposes are being found. How about a time when genetic variations that produced the same proteins were thought of as being nothing to look at? They are now thought of to actually make a difference. Some magazines like New Scientist and others have some good articles.


----------



## Knobby22 (22 August 2009)

*Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth*

Yes, I read New Scientist.
My wife calls it Mad Scientist


----------

