Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Evidence for Evolution: I Love your Tail!

Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 12:03:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If evolution is true, and we evolved from other animals then maybe we still have vestigial body parts hinting at our past.

Believe it or not, the human being has a tail! We call it the coccyx shown in the image below. It consists of 3-5 vertebrae.
http://www.spineuniverse.com...

The coccyx does not have very much function. It is unnecessary for sitting, walking, and balance. In fact the coccyx can be surgically removed without any permanent ill effect (http://www.coccyx.org...). The reason it has to be removed sometimes the coccyx can cause chronic pain for some people, if the coccyx is injured (http://www.coccyx.org...). A number of tumors are also involved with the coccyx.

However the coccyx does certainly have an effect on the body. It is an important attachment for several muscles and ligaments by nature of it being a bone, and so physicians have to be careful when removing it. If a person sits or leans forward, the coccyx takes some of the weight also by nature of it being a bone. However, as we saw in the preceding paragraph, the coccyx is not necessary (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

The coccyx is a vestigital organ and even though its function is negligible, creationists argue that it still does or might have a little function and so is not vestigial. I don't see why the human body couldn't have been made without a coccyx, but that is not the biggest problem with their arguments.

Quoting wikipedia: "Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms that have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution." Here are other sources if wikipedia is not good enough for you.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.biology-online.org...

So vestigial organs don't have to be functionless, they must have a greatly reduced function. In other animals tails were greatly used for balance, social signing, etc.
http://www.wisegeek.com...

The coccyx is evidence for evolution as a vestigial organ.

But that is not all. Since evolution works by tinkering with the genes that control embryonic development, maybe we might see a primitive trait in embryonic development that appears but is then slowly reduced.

The human embryo has a long tail very much like that in other mammals.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com...
http://www.horausa.com...

Human tails have lost most of that function.
The coccyx is a remnant of the human tail in embryonic development. It is eventually degraded and eaten by the human immune system. Lets get into the details.

The Wnt-3a and Cdx1 genes control and encourages the development of the tail. Apoptosis or cell death plays a significant role role in the removal of the human tail in the embryo. This cell death is the result of the down-regulation of the Wnt-3a gene that produces this cell death. Scientists have observed that mutations in a regulatory gene of the Wnt-3a, that results in the down-regulation of the Wnt-3a gene, has caused the development of mutant mice without tails. So the probably cause of the loss of the tail in evolution is the mutations of the genes that regulate genes that develop the tail in animals (http://www.talkorigins.org...).

Using several different medical scanners, we can see the dead and degenerating human tail in the embryo digested and eaten up by large white blood cells of the immune system (http://www.talkorigins.org...).

This tail in embryos is another piece of evidence for evolution.

Conversely, mutations or environmental factors that up-regulated this tail gene could maybe increase the size of the human tail. In fact we find people with atavistic tails.

An atavism is the reappearance in an individual of characteristics of some remote ancestor that have been absent in intervening generations. Sometimes evolution works by instead of removing a trait from the genetic code, it merely does not express that trait through gene regulation. If a mutation turns that trait back on, we will see an ancestral trait again expressed.

Here are some pictures and sources about atavistic tails.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.creation-vs-evolution.us...
http://news.xinhuanet.com...
http://news.xinhuanet.com...

Some human tails are what are called pseudo-tails. These are the results of lesions (abnormalities of human tissue usually caused by disease or trauma) associated with the coccyx, the spinal column, and other malformations.

True tails on the other hand result from the human tail in embryonic development not being killed enough by the immune system. It contains many of complex elements of a mammalian tail. True human tails may or may not have skeletal structure but not all tails in other mammals do have skeletal structure (see the Barbary ape). Quoting Douglas Theobald, Ph.D a biochemist who wrote the 29+ evidences for evolution:
"The true human tail is characterized by a complex arrangement of adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of longitudinally arranged striated muscle in the core, blood vessels, nerve fibres, nerve ganglion cells, and specialized pressure sensing nerve organs (Vater-Pacini corpuscles). It is covered by normal skin, replete with hair follicles, sweat glands, and sebaceous glands (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988; Spiegelmann et al. 1985)."
http://www.talkorigins.org...

This is another piece of evidence for evolution.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 12:34:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am not a monkey. Instead, I was made from dust. I will ignore this evidence for all eternity; it must have been planted to confuse us and test us. Next week, I will pretend that it does not exist and repost all of my previous arguments about why creationism is true.
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 1:52:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 12:03:50 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
If evolution is true, and we evolved from other animals then maybe we still have vestigial body parts hinting at our past.

Believe it or not, the human being has a tail! We call it the coccyx shown in the image below. It consists of 3-5 vertebrae.
http://www.spineuniverse.com...

The coccyx does not have very much function. It is unnecessary for sitting, walking, and balance. In fact the coccyx can be surgically removed without any permanent ill effect (http://www.coccyx.org...). The reason it has to be removed sometimes the coccyx can cause chronic pain for some people, if the coccyx is injured (http://www.coccyx.org...). A number of tumors are also involved with the coccyx.

However the coccyx does certainly have an effect on the body. It is an important attachment for several muscles and ligaments by nature of it being a bone, and so physicians have to be careful when removing it. If a person sits or leans forward, the coccyx takes some of the weight also by nature of it being a bone. However, as we saw in the preceding paragraph, the coccyx is not necessary (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

The coccyx is a vestigital organ and even though its function is negligible, creationists argue that it still does or might have a little function and so is not vestigial. I don't see why the human body couldn't have been made without a coccyx, but that is not the biggest problem with their arguments.

Quoting wikipedia: "Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms that have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution." Here are other sources if wikipedia is not good enough for you.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.biology-online.org...

So vestigial organs don't have to be functionless, they must have a greatly reduced function. In other animals tails were greatly used for balance, social signing, etc.
http://www.wisegeek.com...

The coccyx is evidence for evolution as a vestigial organ.

But that is not all. Since evolution works by tinkering with the genes that control embryonic development, maybe we might see a primitive trait in embryonic development that appears but is then slowly reduced.

The human embryo has a long tail very much like that in other mammals.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com...
http://www.horausa.com...

Human tails have lost most of that function.
The coccyx is a remnant of the human tail in embryonic development. It is eventually degraded and eaten by the human immune system. Lets get into the details.

The Wnt-3a and Cdx1 genes control and encourages the development of the tail. Apoptosis or cell death plays a significant role role in the removal of the human tail in the embryo. This cell death is the result of the down-regulation of the Wnt-3a gene that produces this cell death. Scientists have observed that mutations in a regulatory gene of the Wnt-3a, that results in the down-regulation of the Wnt-3a gene, has caused the development of mutant mice without tails. So the probably cause of the loss of the tail in evolution is the mutations of the genes that regulate genes that develop the tail in animals (http://www.talkorigins.org...).

Using several different medical scanners, we can see the dead and degenerating human tail in the embryo digested and eaten up by large white blood cells of the immune system (http://www.talkorigins.org...).

This tail in embryos is another piece of evidence for evolution.

Conversely, mutations or environmental factors that up-regulated this tail gene could maybe increase the size of the human tail. In fact we find people with atavistic tails.

An atavism is the reappearance in an individual of characteristics of some remote ancestor that have been absent in intervening generations. Sometimes evolution works by instead of removing a trait from the genetic code, it merely does not express that trait through gene regulation. If a mutation turns that trait back on, we will see an ancestral trait again expressed.

Here are some pictures and sources about atavistic tails.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.creation-vs-evolution.us...
http://news.xinhuanet.com...
http://news.xinhuanet.com...

Some human tails are what are called pseudo-tails. These are the results of lesions (abnormalities of human tissue usually caused by disease or trauma) associated with the coccyx, the spinal column, and other malformations.

True tails on the other hand result from the human tail in embryonic development not being killed enough by the immune system. It contains many of complex elements of a mammalian tail. True human tails may or may not have skeletal structure but not all tails in other mammals do have skeletal structure (see the Barbary ape). Quoting Douglas Theobald, Ph.D a biochemist who wrote the 29+ evidences for evolution:
"The true human tail is characterized by a complex arrangement of adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of longitudinally arranged striated muscle in the core, blood vessels, nerve fibres, nerve ganglion cells, and specialized pressure sensing nerve organs (Vater-Pacini corpuscles). It is covered by normal skin, replete with hair follicles, sweat glands, and sebaceous glands (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988; Spiegelmann et al. 1985)."
http://www.talkorigins.org...

This is another piece of evidence for evolution.

I've got this front tail that keeps getting in the way. It's about 14 inches long and has a considerable girth.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 3:48:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Great post as usual...but is it me or do creationists often think that vestigial body parts means having no function or use at all? (Technically, to be vestigial is to be "degenerate or imperfectly developed organ[s] or structure[s] that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function"...)
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 5:07:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The human spine is not designed for walking upright. About a third of all humans have some sort of back problem due to the poor design. The human spine locks when in the all-fours position. This prevents the spine from sagging downward, similar to the mechanism a horse has for keeping a straight back.

Humans are also unusually subject to hemorrhoids. The body is not well-designed to cope with higher blood pressure at the, um, base. Quadrupeds don't have the problem.
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 5:25:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 5:07:10 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The human spine is not designed for walking upright. About a third of all humans have some sort of back problem due to the poor design. The human spine locks when in the all-fours position. This prevents the spine from sagging downward, similar to the mechanism a horse has for keeping a straight back.

Humans are also unusually subject to hemorrhoids. The body is not well-designed to cope with higher blood pressure at the, um, base. Quadrupeds don't have the problem.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, I want to point out that I do believe in evolution, I'm just not very versed on it. My question is why hasn't evolution made it so that our spine does support walking upright? We've been doing this for about 50,000 correct? Again I just truly dont know the answer. I know that evolution is not some force that sees a problems and changes it but it does tend to fix things for the better.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 5:45:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 5:07:10 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The human spine is not designed for walking upright. About a third of all humans have some sort of back problem due to the poor design. The human spine locks when in the all-fours position. This prevents the spine from sagging downward, similar to the mechanism a horse has for keeping a straight back.

Humans are also unusually subject to hemorrhoids. The body is not well-designed to cope with higher blood pressure at the, um, base. Quadrupeds don't have the problem.

I have no problems with higher blood pressure at my base.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 5:45:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 5:25:19 PM, MarquisX wrote:
At 1/5/2012 5:07:10 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The human spine is not designed for walking upright. About a third of all humans have some sort of back problem due to the poor design. The human spine locks when in the all-fours position. This prevents the spine from sagging downward, similar to the mechanism a horse has for keeping a straight back.

Humans are also unusually subject to hemorrhoids. The body is not well-designed to cope with higher blood pressure at the, um, base. Quadrupeds don't have the problem.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, I want to point out that I do believe in evolution, I'm just not very versed on it. My question is why hasn't evolution made it so that our spine does support walking upright? We've been doing this for about 50,000 correct? Again I just truly dont know the answer. I know that evolution is not some force that sees a problems and changes it but it does tend to fix things for the better.

Evolution only works when some mutation or difference has a benefit on the survival of the creature, or it's chances of having babies. In our natural habitat, our backs not being perfect doesn't significantly affect our survival chances.

What you also find are a lot of trade offs. Take horses for example. Race horses have far longer legs than wild horses (take zebras for example). Long legs help you run away from predators faster, but also are more likely to get injured. There is an equilibrium between your chances of getting eaten and your chances of breaking legs and dying.
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 5:50:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 5:25:19 PM, MarquisX wrote:
At 1/5/2012 5:07:10 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The human spine is not designed for walking upright. About a third of all humans have some sort of back problem due to the poor design. The human spine locks when in the all-fours position. This prevents the spine from sagging downward, similar to the mechanism a horse has for keeping a straight back.

Humans are also unusually subject to hemorrhoids. The body is not well-designed to cope with higher blood pressure at the, um, base. Quadrupeds don't have the problem.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, I want to point out that I do believe in evolution, I'm just not very versed on it. My question is why hasn't evolution made it so that our spine does support walking upright? We've been doing this for about 50,000 correct? Again I just truly dont know the answer. I know that evolution is not some force that sees a problems and changes it but it does tend to fix things for the better.

Evolution doesn't make anything better as such. It's about adaptation to a particular enviromental niche which is an imperfect process over long time scales. It gives the illusion of design and progression. Human primates have been walking upright for about 4 million years (australopithecines) which coincided with the loss of some tree-populated areas and the beginning of vast plains.

There are 2 reasons why I know I'm not designed.

(a) My windpipe being right next to my food pipe means I could easily choke to death - a completely stupid design.
(b) The fact that my recreation facility is located right next to my waste effluent outlet.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 6:12:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 5:25:19 PM, MarquisX wrote:
Before anyone jumps down my throat, I want to point out that I do believe in evolution, I'm just not very versed on it. My question is why hasn't evolution made it so that our spine does support walking upright? We've been doing this for about 50,000 correct? Again I just truly dont know the answer. I know that evolution is not some force that sees a problems and changes it but it does tend to fix things for the better.

It's because humans and their evolutionary predecessors have only been walking upright for less than 10 million years, a very short time on the evolutionary scale. the adaptations of the spine are not important for survival; cavemen typically only lived into their 20s, so refinements were not central to survival. Lots of changes have occurred in 10 million years: increased brain size being among the most important. It was critical for survival. Evolution doesn't necessarily perfect species, it just makes them better able to survive in their environment.

After about 40 million years, whales still have vestigial leg bones.

Horseshoe crabs are basically unchanged after 400 million years. They are apparently well enough adapted to their environment to survive without much change.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 6:55:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 5:07:10 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The human spine is not designed for walking upright. About a third of all humans have some sort of back problem due to the poor design. The human spine locks when in the all-fours position. This prevents the spine from sagging downward, similar to the mechanism a horse has for keeping a straight back.

Thanks for the info. I am totally in agreement but I would like some sources so I can include that in future posts. Any cool sources that go into detail?

Humans are also unusually subject to hemorrhoids. The body is not well-designed to cope with higher blood pressure at the, um, base. Quadrupeds don't have the problem.

Well, what if there is no better way to make the human spine? Maybe that is just something bipedal organists will have to deal with.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 6:57:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 3:48:07 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Great post as usual...but is it me or do creationists often think that vestigial body parts means having no function or use at all? (Technically, to be vestigial is to be "degenerate or imperfectly developed organ[s] or structure[s] that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function"...)

That is actually what creationists think. They could really just read a wiki page to correct themselves.

Thanks for the post!
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 7:00:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, we found the missing link, so this isn't really up for discussion anymore. :P

Its like arguing the existence of dinosaurs.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 7:12:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 7:00:55 PM, Ren wrote:
Well, we found the missing link, so this isn't really up for discussion anymore. :P

Its like arguing the existence of dinosaurs.

"God was going to create dinosaurs, but he stopped at their bones because of the threat they posed to humans." - @godswordislaw
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 7:42:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 12:34:39 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I am not a monkey. Instead, I was made from dust. I will ignore this evidence for all eternity; it must have been planted to confuse us and test us. Next week, I will pretend that it does not exist and repost all of my previous arguments about why creationism is true.

Great though process "creationist." Keep it up.

At 1/5/2012 1:52:04 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:

I've got this front tail that keeps getting in the way. It's about 14 inches long and has a considerable girth.

Maybe I will make a thread about the evolution of this front tail you speak of.

Thanks for reading.

At 1/5/2012 7:00:55 PM, Ren wrote:
Well, we found the missing link, so this isn't really up for discussion anymore. :P

Its like arguing the existence of dinosaurs.

I think the serious debate over evolution is over except for the people who don't understand science and evolution well. At least we can discuss how evolution happened.

Thanks for your thoughts.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 8:23:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 7:42:44 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 1/5/2012 12:34:39 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I am not a monkey. Instead, I was made from dust. I will ignore this evidence for all eternity; it must have been planted to confuse us and test us. Next week, I will pretend that it does not exist and repost all of my previous arguments about why creationism is true.

Great though process "creationist." Keep it up.

At 1/5/2012 1:52:04 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:

I've got this front tail that keeps getting in the way. It's about 14 inches long and has a considerable girth.

Maybe I will make a thread about the evolution of this front tail you speak of.

Thanks for reading.

At 1/5/2012 7:00:55 PM, Ren wrote:
Well, we found the missing link, so this isn't really up for discussion anymore. :P

Its like arguing the existence of dinosaurs.

I think the serious debate over evolution is over except for the people who don't understand science and evolution well. At least we can discuss how evolution happened.

Thanks for your thoughts.

The serious debate about evolution was over decades ago.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 8:45:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 8:16:25 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Shouldn't this go in the Science forum?

Sorry I am cheating. There is more demand in this forum. And anyway most attacks come from a creationist perspective which is religious anyway. So this thread primarily concerns science, and sort of concerns religious ideas toward science.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 6:56:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The coccyx is not a vestigial structure, it has important functions regarding defication etc..

Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant of human biology.. Yes, we can live without it.. As we can our eyes or arms or legs.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 12:08:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 6:56:58 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
The coccyx is not a vestigial structure, it has important functions regarding defication etc..

Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant of human biology.. Yes, we can live without it.. As we can our eyes or arms or legs.

Not in the same way, not in nearly the same way. The coccyx has be co-opted for function, it serves no active purpose that having a simpler alternative would. Certainly if it was part of a design, it would be surplus to requirements.

However, as you are still answering the 1/10th of the relevant post, and ignoring the rest, I will point out that emus wings and whales legs, again serve no real function.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 3:59:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 6:56:58 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
The coccyx is not a vestigial structure, it has important functions regarding defication etc..

Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant of human biology.. Yes, we can live without it.. As we can our eyes or arms or legs.

What does vestigial mean, again?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 4:08:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 3:59:13 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 1/9/2012 6:56:58 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
The coccyx is not a vestigial structure, it has important functions regarding defication etc..

Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant of human biology.. Yes, we can live without it.. As we can our eyes or arms or legs.

What does vestigial mean, again?

An organ or part of the body evolves and, over time, due to other selection pressures or mutation, that body part loses its original function. It can then be either co-opted into a new function (like the coccyx) or left with no function.

For instance, snakes have vestigial legs with no function.

The appendix originally was a cecum meant to digest cellulose, something our herbivore ancestors could do. Now, it's main purpose is guarding against the loss of symbiotic bacteria that aid in digestion. If you eat cellulose today, we are unable to digest cellulose past turning it into a hydrophilic bulking agent for feces.

Vestigial organs can function just fine, the question is whether they originally evolved for that purpose.

Vestigial structures can have function, it just can't be the function that was originally adapted for.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 4:09:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 3:59:13 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 1/9/2012 6:56:58 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
The coccyx is not a vestigial structure, it has important functions regarding defication etc..

Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant of human biology.. Yes, we can live without it.. As we can our eyes or arms or legs.

What does vestigial mean, again?

I'm not sure, but I believe it is something without a real use.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 4:15:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 4:08:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/12/2012 3:59:13 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 1/9/2012 6:56:58 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
The coccyx is not a vestigial structure, it has important functions regarding defication etc..

Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant of human biology.. Yes, we can live without it.. As we can our eyes or arms or legs.

What does vestigial mean, again?

An organ or part of the body evolves and, over time, due to other selection pressures or mutation, that body part loses its original function. It can then be either co-opted into a new function (like the coccyx) or left with no function.

For instance, snakes have vestigial legs with no function.

The appendix originally was a cecum meant to digest cellulose, something our herbivore ancestors could do. Now, it's main purpose is guarding against the loss of symbiotic bacteria that aid in digestion. If you eat cellulose today, we are unable to digest cellulose past turning it into a hydrophilic bulking agent for feces.

Vestigial organs can function just fine, the question is whether they originally evolved for that purpose.

Vestigial structures can have function, it just can't be the function that was originally adapted for.

Thanks, though I do have to note that the question was a sarcastic one aimed at exposing his fallacies but I do appreciate the information you provided.:)
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 10:35:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 6:56:58 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
The coccyx is not a vestigial structure, it has important functions regarding defication etc..

Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant of human biology.. Yes, we can live without it.. As we can our eyes or arms or legs.

It may have a function, but I don't see any evidence that its function is important. Indeed, many people have it removed and do just fine, so I will need a source.

Plus, a vestigial organ is one that has lost all or most of is original function. There is no doubt that this has happened to the coccyx.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 11:19:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 6:12:10 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 1/5/2012 5:25:19 PM, MarquisX wrote:
Before anyone jumps down my throat, I want to point out that I do believe in evolution, I'm just not very versed on it. My question is why hasn't evolution made it so that our spine does support walking upright? We've been doing this for about 50,000 correct? Again I just truly dont know the answer. I know that evolution is not some force that sees a problems and changes it but it does tend to fix things for the better.

It's because humans and their evolutionary predecessors have only been walking upright for less than 10 million years, a very short time on the evolutionary scale. the adaptations of the spine are not important for survival; cavemen typically only lived into their 20s, so refinements were not central to survival. Lots of changes have occurred in 10 million years: increased brain size being among the most important. It was critical for survival. Evolution doesn't necessarily perfect species, it just makes them better able to survive in their environment.

After about 40 million years, whales still have vestigial leg bones.

Horseshoe crabs are basically unchanged after 400 million years. They are apparently well enough adapted to their environment to survive without much change.

I always thought it was increased dexterity with our digits, the freed usage of forelimbs, and the increased developmental time.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.