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:
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 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.)
No, you get it.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:
Good to see that the ferals are out in force.
Sorry i did not realise that this was an investment forum
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
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
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.
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)
...................................................................................................
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.
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":
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
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?