[_ Old Earth _] Evolution/ top science breakthrough 2005 !

[Grengor]

a. Billions of years are not necessary (but not disallowed either) to create or

produce life.

Agreed.

1. The sun is shrinking at 5 feet/hour which limits the earth-sun relationshipto less than 5 million years. (Significant Acceptance is Assumed for Example

sake)

Where is your calculations for this? This would also assume a constant rate of shrinkage. Measurements from 1980 and above do not show any significant shrinkage. And since they used different techniques back then it was likely to be inaccurate. This is what's known as a PRATT: Point Refuted A Thousand Times. It's claims so rediculous that no self-respecting creationist uses them any longer.

2. Given the rate at which cosmic dust accumulates, 4.5 billion years would

have produced a layer on the moon much deeper than observed. By

implication, the earth is also young. (Significant Acceptance is Assumed for

Example sake)

Again, this is another PRATT. The actual influx of dust on the moon is 240 tons a year, and the original claim was based on a very obsolete measurement, sometimes mistakingly cited as being more recent.
Unless you'd like to show me your calculations?

b. Irreducible Complexity of Cellular Systems:

1. "An example of an irreducibly complex cellular system is the bacterial flagellum: a rotary propeller, powered by a flow of acid, that bacteria use to swim. The flagellum requires a number of parts before it works -- a rotor, stator and motor. Furthermore, genetic studies have shown that about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working flagellum."...Behe and Crew

Untill you get your onw argument in your own words with your own calculations I'm just gonna fight fire with fire.

1. This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or co-option, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.

One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major co-option event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function):

1. A passive, nonspecific pore evolves into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). Passive transport converts to active transport by addition of an ATPase that couples ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex forms a primitive type-III export system.

2. The type-III export system is converted to a type-III secretion system (T3SS) by addition of outer membrane pore proteins (secretin and secretin chaperone) from the type-II secretion system. These eventually form the P- and L-rings, respectively, of modern flagella. The modern type-III secretory system forms a structure strikingly similar to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum (Hueck 1998; Blocker et al. 2003).

3. The T3SS secretes several proteins, one of which is an adhesin (a protein that sticks the cell to other cells or to a substrate). Polymerization of this adhesin forms a primitive pilus, an extension that gives the cell improved adhesive capability. After the evolution of the T3SS pilus, the pilus diversifies for various more specialized tasks by duplication and subfunctionalization of the pilus proteins (pilins).

4. An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive protoflagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins MotA and MotB are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independent of the flagellum.

5. The binding of a signal transduction protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift toward favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility.

6. Numerous improvements follow the origin of the crudely functioning flagellum. Notably, many of the different axial proteins (rod, hook, linkers, filament, caps) originate by duplication and subfunctionalization of pilins or the primitive flagellar axial structure. These proteins end up forming the axial protein family.

The eukaryotic cilium (also called the eukaryotic flagellum or undulipodium) is fundamentally different from the bacterial flagellum. It probably originated as an outgrowth of the mitotic spindle in a primitive eukaryote (both structures make use of sliding microtubules and dyneins). Cavalier-Smith (1987; 2002) has discussed the origin of these systems on several occasions.

2. The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential (Matzke 2003). One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function (Kuwajima 1988). Furthermore, many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but that are not required in the "standard" well-studied flagellum found in E. coli. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins (in Helicobacter pylori, for example, only thirty-three proteins are necessary to produce a working flagellum), so Behe's favorite example of irreducibility seems actually to exhibit quite a bit of variability in terms of numbers of required parts (Ussery 1999).

Eukaryotic cilia are made by more than 200 distinct proteins, but even here irreducibility is illusive. Behe (1996) implied and Denton (1986, 108) claimed explicitly that the common 9+2 tubulin structure of cilia could not be substantially simplified. Yet functional 3+0 cilia, lacking many microtubules as well as some of the dynein linkers, are known to exist (Miller 2003, 2004).

3. Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.

2. Macosko, molecular biology researcher who holds chemistry degrees from Cal and MIT, and Crew at UC Berkeley research lab believe that the work going on inside those bacteria isn't just amazingly complex-it's so incredibly complex that it couldn't conceivably have formed through evolution. The only reasonable explanation, he says, is that these systems and their processes were deliberately created by an "intelligent designer." Macosko, who has co-authored a handful of published scientific papers, calls that designer God, though he says you could call it anything you're comfortable with. If you like, he says, call it space aliens. He is inspired by what he claims is growing evidence that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution-the very bedrock of biology-has collapsed on the molecular level.

Do you know what this is? This is an argument from incredulity. It's a logical fallacy and holds no weight in an actual debate. Also, evidence against evolutions is not evidence for design, that's another reason why ID currently isn't science, and untill they toss aside their Creationist yoke they never will be.

Oh, by the way, who decides or how is it decided if a hypotheses is "proven".

No one. Each hypothesis is discussed and tested, and everyone reviews eachother's work. Because the evidence points to a theory, all the scientists gradually accept it, that's exactly what happened when Evolution first reared it's head. If ID is to have any hope to be scientific, they've got a lot of work to do.


Oh, and from a previous post, the formation of laws and theories are different than they now are. Back in Newton's time, there were natural philosophers that were to find the "underlying laws" in nature that are fixed and never changeable. That was his job. But since science is tentative, meaning it can always be proven wrong, nothing can ever be 100% correct. The problem here is that you're arguing from hundreds of years ago, get with the times man!

 

[Solo]

Man's observations and hypothesis and theories will never be 100%, but God's Word and his truth is unchanging and always 100%. I wonder which one we should put our faith into, science or God's Word? Ok, that was easy, God's Word.

 

[cubedbee]

Man's observations and hypothesis and theories will never be 100%, but God's Word and his truth is unchanging and always 100%. I wonder which one we should put our faith into, science or God's Word? Ok, that was easy, God's Word.

Agreed. Now let's talk about accepting evolution as true, just like every other scientific theory, which has nothing whatsoever to do with putting our faith in God and trusting his Word.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Woah there..

Are comments like:

"The problem here is that you're arguing from hundreds of

years ago, get with the times man!";

"Until you get your own argument in your own words with your own calculations I'm just gonna fight fire with fire.";

"This is what's known as a PRATT: Point Refuted A Thousand Times. It's claims so ridiculous that no self-respecting creationist uses them any longer. "

really necessary? I would like to think we can exchange ideas in a more

gentleman like way.

Me and cubedbee were just discussing the the technicalities of setting up

hypothesis, the flow of hypothesis to laws and theories, etc...

The whole "theory" above is a hypothetical, though I may research, on my

own, the validity of each hypothesis. It's just something I threw together in

10 minutes for example sake. If you read previous posts, you'll see where

we were heading with the discussion.

Now, if you would like to continue the debate we started last week, I'd be more than happy to resume exchanging ideas, and sharpen ourselves against one another. On Guard!

Just be respectful...I promise the same to you.

Peace Bro.

 

[Grengor]

Woah there..

Are comments like:

"The problem here is that you're arguing from hundreds of

years ago, get with the times man!";

"Until you get your own argument in your own words with your own calculations I'm just gonna fight fire with fire.";

"This is what's known as a PRATT: Point Refuted A Thousand Times. It's claims so ridiculous that no self-respecting creationist uses them any longer. "

really necessary? I would like to think we can exchange ideas in a more

gentleman like way.

Me and cubedbee were just discussing the the technicalities of setting up

hypothesis, the flow of hypothesis to laws and theories, etc...

The whole "theory" above is a hypothetical, though I may research, on my

own, the validity of each hypothesis. It's just something I threw together in

10 minutes for example sake. If you read previous posts, you'll see where

we were heading with the discussion.

Now, if you would like to continue the debate we started last week, I'd be more than happy to resume exchanging ideas, and sharpen ourselves against one another. On Guard!

Just be respectful...I promise the same to you.

Peace Bro.

I was merely informing, I apologize if you took them the wrong way :angel:
Friends? :D

Though when you're done with cubedbee, I would like to point you to a specific part about the flagellum,

2. The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential (Matzke 2003). One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function (Kuwajima 1988). Furthermore, many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but that are not required in the "standard" well-studied flagellum found in E. coli. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins (in Helicobacter pylori, for example, only thirty-three proteins are necessary to produce a working flagellum), so Behe's favorite example of irreducibility seems actually to exhibit quite a bit of variability in terms of numbers of required parts (Ussery 1999).

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

:D ...friends...isn't that sweet...lol!!

Cubedbee is done with me I believe...he was just pointing out some technicalities on how to set up hypotheses and some definitional stuff..

Whatcha got on the flagellum?

Amazing apparatus, ey?

 

[Grengor]

I think the biodiversity and twin nested heirarchy of life is very amazing. It's just too bad that the flagellum is not actually IC, or else ID would have a leg to stand on. Using that snippet from TalkOrigins, it shows that up to 1/3 of the flagellum 's amino acids can be cut out and still function. Besides that point, there's something called "scaffolding". It's basically a larger, non IC structure that developes, and later the scaffolding is removed, leaving only the "IC" structure that we see today.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I think the biodiversity and twin nested heirarchy of life is very amazing. It's just too bad that the flagellum is not actually IC, or else ID would have a leg to stand on. Using that snippet from TalkOrigins, it shows that up to 1/3 of the flagellum 's amino acids can be cut out and still function. Besides that point, there's something called "scaffolding". It's basically a larger, non IC structure that developes, and later the scaffolding is removed, leaving only the "IC" structure that we see today.

I won't pretend to be an expert on this topic...it's obviously still very

controversial. I'm still studying and evaluating both sides of the topic. Just

from reading what you quoted in your last post, it appears a

semi-functioning mechanism is equated with a fully functioning mechanism.

To me, an extreme analogy to this line of reasoning would be to say a

human in a coma (or missing his arms and legs) is still functional. Yes, his

heart is beating, his lungs are working, but he can't sustain himself without

the help of outside intelligence. Do you know where to find the actual

observation notes for the flagellum study you quoted (I've been unable to

locate anything so far). Did the modified bacteria survive as long as the

control group? How was movement hampered? Did the modifications put

undue stress on other components of the bacteria that are undesirable for

sustainability? To what degree? And how much of a factor is the intervention

of intelligence to the experiment? Does scaffolding exist, or is it just a

hypothesis?

Has enough research been done to answer these questions sufficiently? I'd

guess not...both sides seem to be locked into there positions. That's a

shame...not science...shame on both sides. Especially if their claiming to be

scientists.

I think this is a hypotheses (IC) that still needs to be debated

thoroughly. The prominent scientists on both sides of this argument

appear to be more in a pride battle than a true search for truth. It's sad, but

it seems those in academia have often made up their minds on topics, and

fit additional info on the topic into their preconceived hypotheses, instead

of letting the new data shape and transform their hypotheses. Again,

Shame on both sides of the arguement. To me, the

latter would be truly seeking the truth.

Peace

 

[Grengor]

I won't pretend to be an expert on this topic...it's obviously still very
controversial.

Not really. It’s 99.9% accepted within the scientific community that evolution is the explanation of our origins. Where it’s controversial in with the people with little or no education in the relevant areas.

Just from reading what you quoted in your last post, it appears a
semi-functioning mechanism is equated with a fully functioning mechanism. [/quote=“Carlieâ€Â] No. Any mechanism that can be reduced is not IC.

To me, an extreme analogy to this line of reasoning would be to say a
human in a coma (or missing his arms and legs) is still functional. Yes, his
heart is beating, his lungs are working, but he can't sustain himself without
the help of outside intelligence.

I’ll try and explain it. If a system is IC, it can’t be reduced. Like a mouse trap. There’s always a point where if you take one more thing out a system will stop functioning completely, what separates IC from the rest is that IC can’t be reduced.

Do you know where to find the actual
observation notes for the flagellum study you quoted

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
The research where talk origins got it’s reference from. Should detail everything you’re asking for.

Does scaffolding exist, or is it just a
hypothesis?

We’d need to examine millions of years of Evolution to view it in progress, but it’s a sound explanation. Improvements become necessities with a loss of function.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/crea ... cible.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/crea ... l_arch.jpg

Has enough research been done to answer these questions sufficiently? I'd
guess not...both sides seem to be locked into there positions. That's a
shame...not science...shame on both sides. Especially if their claiming to be
scientists.

Depends what you’d consider “sufficientâ€Â. There flat earthers out there, they just didn’t find the evidence for a spherical earth “sufficientâ€Â.

I think this is a hypotheses (IC) that still needs to be debated
thoroughly.

If you think so. It’s already been measured, and found wanting by the scientific community. When they get some positive evidence for design instead of “evolution couldn’t have done it†then it’ll be closer to science, but untill then, it stays out of the classrooms.

The prominent scientists on both sides of this argument
appear to be more in a pride battle than a true search for truth. It's sad, but
it seems those in academia have often made up their minds on topics, and fit additional info on the topic into their preconceived hypotheses, instead
of letting the new data shape and transform their hypotheses.

Can you give me a source where this specifically happens? Not accepting an idea does not mean they didn’t debate it. Admittedly at first it was generally agreed that the best wayo deal with religious nonsense is to just ignore it, but that didn’t work for them so they’ve “come out of the closetâ€Â.

Again, Shame on both sides of the arguement. To me, the
latter would be truly seeking the truth.

The latter of what? Again, sources?

 

[Grengor]

Pffft, the code isn't working. Or did I do something wrong in the code?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Looks like something with the quote parmeters.

 

[Grengor]

Well, I'll just leave it like that, I can't get it to be fixed. So do you have a reply?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

No. Any mechanism that can be reduced is not IC.

I think that statement has to be qualified. Any mechanism that can be reduced

and perform the same set of functions is not IC.

Here's Behe's definition:

"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly
(that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism)
by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system
because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional."

Not really. It’s 99.9% accepted within the scientific community that evolution is the explanation of our origins. Where it’s controversial in with the people with little or no education in the relevant areas.

It was, at one time not so long ago, accepted by 99% of the scientific

community that the sun rotated around the earth.

"The prevailing theory in Europe as Copernicus was writing was that created by Ptolemy in his Almagest, dating from about 150 A.D.. The Ptolemaic system drew on many previous theories that viewed Earth as a stationary center of the universe. Stars were embedded in a large outer sphere which rotated relatively rapidly, while the planets dwelt in smaller spheres between  a separate one for each planet. To account for apparent anomalies to this view, such as the retrograde motion observed in many planets, a system of epicycles was used, by which a planet rotated on a small axis while also rotating on a larger axis around the Earth. Some planets were assigned "major" epicycles (by which retrograde motion could be observed) and "minor" epicycles (which simply warped the overall rotation)."

Nicolaus Copernicus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


His then revolutionary work and lack of fear from peers opinions

also encouraged young astronomers, scientists and scholars of his time to

take a more skeptical attitude toward established dogma. Evolution is one

of many dogmas (I personally have struggled with the academia dogma of

"The Clovis First Theory" in my research of what I believe to be a preClovis

campsite in Central Texas).


There's plenty of very educated scientists

that reject ToE...many former adherents to ToE. What is your idea of

relevant areas of expertise, and I'll quote you a few prominent scientists for

each area (assuming these are neutral areas).

I’ll try and explain it. If a system is IC, it can’t be reduced. Like a mouse trap. There’s always a point where if you take one more thing out a system will stop functioning completely, what separates IC from the rest is that IC can’t be reduced.

There's a couple of things I would like to research and debate further:

1. How do we define the original function versus the function existing after

removing a component of a hypothesized IC mechanism.

It was once popular to claim that evolution was proved by over 180 useless

‘vestigial’ organs (or in our present case the components of the mechanism)

in the human body alone. However, the evolutionary

assumption that an organ was ‘useless’ hindered research to find out the

functions. Now, this list of 180 has shrunk to zero.

I'm not saying we can't continue to try to falsify the hypotheses that if we

remove one component from a hypothesized IC mechanism, it fails.

I'm just concerned enough research hasn't been conducted to falsify this

issue. If both "sides" of the hypothesis were more concerned about finding

out what the truth is instead on defending a position they've invested their

ego in, I wouldn't feel quite so disillusioned.

Peace Bro.

http://www.preclovis.com

 

[Oran_Taran]

Ugh, I hate being a newbie. I like being able to know what the whole thread is about, but there's no way I'm going to read the whole thread... just the last page.

Any mechanism that can be reduced

and perform the same set of functions is not IC.

no, not the same set of functions. It can perform A function, and it wouldn't be IC...

There's plenty of very educated scientists

that reject ToE...many former adherents to ToE. What is your idea of

relevant areas of expertise, and I'll quote you a few prominent scientists for

each area (assuming these are neutral areas).

Yeah, who cares if a physicist accepts evolution or not? They know nothing about biology.
The relevant area of expertise is biology. What very educated biologist rejects biology?

1. How do we define the original function versus the function existing after

removing a component of a hypothesized IC mechanism.

It was once popular to claim that evolution was proved by over 180 useless

‘vestigial’ organs (or in our present case the components of the mechanism)

in the human body alone. However, the evolutionary

assumption that an organ was ‘useless’ hindered research to find out the

functions. Now, this list of 180 has shrunk to zero.

Vesitigial doesn't mean useless, we still have a lot of vestigial organs... and there are plenty of those that are useless, or even bad for you. Wisdom teeth, the post anal tail in embryos, etc. And it's not just in humans, there are thousands of other examples throughout the natural world. For example dandelion flowers are sterile, useless beetle wings, the muscles that cause goose bumps, etc.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Hi Oran_Taran.

Are you assuming wisdom teeth are useless, or do you know this for a fact?

And the "tailbone" in a fetus...how do you know this useless?

Hopefully not just because a "science" book told you so. Current science

books are still loaded with disproved evolutionary dogma.

Recapitulation Theory has been thoroughly denounced by even leading

evolutionists:

"Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny." More recently, Dr. Keith Thompson, Professor of Biology at Yale, said:

"Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exercised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry, it was extinct in the twenties."

As for respected biologists that recognize flaws in ToE, here's

a couple of examples:

1. Jean Rostand, famous French biologist and member of the Academy of

Sciences of the French Academy. Famous for the statement: 'Evolution is a

fairy tale for adults."

2. Richard C. Lewontin, Harvard University, geneticist

" It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door"


3. Hoimar von Ditfurth,

"Is such a harmony that emerged only out of coincidences possible in reality? This is the basic question of the whole of biological evolution. Answering this question as "Yes, it is possible" is something like verifying faith in the modern science of nature. Critically speaking, we can say that somebody who accepts the modern science of nature has no other alternative than to say "yes", because he aims to explain natural phenomena by means that are understandable and tries to derive them from the laws of nature without reverting to supernatural interference. However, at this point, explaining everything by means of the laws of nature, that is, by coincidences, is a sign that he has nowhere else to turn. Because what else could he do other than believe in coincidences?"

What's your list of useless vestigal organs in humans, or even broader, any

organism?

Has their been any studies on beetles that have had their wings removed. If

so, how many and how long were they observed. What were the results of

the observations?


Peace Bro.

 

[Oran_Taran]

Are you assuming wisdom teeth are useless, or do you know this for a fact?

Well, you CAN use them for chewing, but they are not needed, and in fact cause a LOT of problems. So I guess technically they're not "useless" but they are redundant.
Heck, not everyone develops wisdom teeth "Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as wisdom teeth). Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and in one third of all individuals they are malformed and impacted (Hattab et al. 1995; Schersten et al. 1989). These useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death (Litonjua 1996; Obiechina et al. 2001; Rakprasitkul 2001; Tevepaugh and Dodson 1995). "

And the "tailbone" in a fetus...how do you know this useless?

I never said tailbone. I said post anal tail. And we know that it's useless because it is reabsorbed into the body before it uh... before birth.
as for the TAILBONE, here- "Yet another human vestigial structure is the coccyx, the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external tails protruding from the back. Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. The coccyx is a developmental remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system (for more detail see the sections on the embryonic human tail and the atavistic human tail). Our internal tail is unnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications), with the only complaint, in a small fraction of patients, being that the removal of the coccyx sadly did not remove their pain (Grossovan and Dam 1995; Perkins et al. 2003; Postacchini Massobrio 1983; Ramsey et al. 2003; Shaposhnikov 1997; Wray 1991). Our small, rudimentary, fused caudal vertebrae might have some minor and inessential functions, but these vertebrae are useless for balance and grasping, their usual functions in other mammals."

Recapitulation Theory has been thoroughly denounced by even leading

exactly how it was first stated, yes it's wrong. Embryos do NOT go through every single adult form of the organism's evolutionary history. However, it's still true...

The ideas of Ernst Haeckel greatly influenced the early history of embryology in the 19th century. Haeckel hypothesized that "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny", meaning that during its development an organism passes through stages resembling its adult ancestors. However, Haeckel's ideas long have been superseded by those of Karl Ernst von Baer, his predecessor. Von Baer suggested that the embryonic stages of an individual should resemble the embryonic stages of other closely related organisms, rather than resembling its adult ancestors. Haeckel's Biogenetic Law has been discredited since the late 1800's, and it is not a part of modern (or even not-so-modern) evolutionary theory. Haeckel thought only the final stages of development could be altered appreciably by evolution, but we have known that to be false for nearly a century.

In short, YOU are the ones using outdated information, misinterpreting the quotes, and generally confusing things.
as for your biologists-
1. Jean Rostand (October 30, 1894 - September 3, 1977),
again, OLD, OUTDATED information. I don't know when he said that statement, but it was probably a long time before he died.
2. WTF??? That quote has NOTHING to do with evolution, and Richard C. Lewontin is actually an evolutionary biologist!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Lewontin
3. wikipedia doesn't have an article on him... apparently he's not that famous. But anyway, "Hoimar von Ditfurth died on November 1, 1989"
again, not as old and outdated as Rostand, but still old and outdated. Do you know how fast science progresses?

You only gave me three biologists. Two of them have been dead for longer than 16 years, and I bet if you gave me the date of the quote it would be YEARS ago. And the remaining one, while he is still alive, actually supports evolution. heh.

What's your list of useless vestigal organs in humans, or even broader, any

organism?

well... I'll get back to you on that (for humans)... I need to find the names and stuff, because I can't remember right now... I do remember the embryonic post anal tail, the muscles that cause us to have goose bumps, extra neck ribs in SOME people (not all)
as for useless vestigial organs in other organisms,
Like I said, dandelion flowers, embryonic cetacean (dolphins, whales, porpoises) hind limbs (which are reabsorbed), embryonic anteater teeth (reasborbed again), chicken wing claws (ostriches, and other ratites also have them), snake pelvises, useless legs in some lizards (I'm guessing glass lizards), the eyes of blind cave fish and many other organisms, ... etc... I'm not going to give you ALL of them!

Has their been any studies on beetles that have had their wings removed.

There's no need, because actually... you know how beetles have two wings? the hard leathery exterior ones, and the flying ones below? Well, this kind of beetle has fused exterior ones, therefore it can't use the ones beneath.
"There are many examples of flightless beetles (such as the weevils of the genus Lucanidae) which retain perfectly formed wings housed underneath fused wing covers."
Sources: wikipedia, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html, a website that no longer exists (or wait let me search...well, can't find it ) etc. I can pretty much give you sources for anything if you want them, but it's really annoying having to find sources and cite them and all that, that's why I didn't do it.

 

[Oran_Taran]

I looked through my room for my list of useless vestigial organs in humans, but I couldn't find it. So I went to talk origins and wikipedia...
This is interesting (talk origins)

"I knew, of course, that some modern whales have a pair of bones embedded in their tissues, each of which strengthens the pelvic wall and acts as an organ anchor. ... Whales could be born with a little extra lump of bone which evolutionists therefore insisted was a throwback corresponding to a second limb bone.

However, the spectacle of a whale being hauled out of the ocean with an actual leg hanging down from its side was a totally different issue. I don't remember my exact response, but I indicated that, if true, this would be a serious challenge to explain on the basis of a creation model." (Wieland 1998)

- Carl Wieland

Young earth creationist,
CEO, Answers in Genesis - Australia,
Joint CEO, Answers in Genesis International,
Editor, Creation magazine

Probably the most well known case of atavism is found in the whales. According to the standard phylogenetic tree, whales are known to be the descendants of terrestrial mammals that had hindlimbs. Thus, we expect the possibility that rare mutant whales might occasionally develop atavistic hindlimbs. In fact, there are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary atavistic hindlimbs in the wild (see Figure 2.2.1; for reviews see Berzin 1972, pp. 65-67 and Hall 1984, pp. 90-93). Hindlimbs have been found in baleen whales (Sleptsov 1939), humpback whales (Andrews 1921) and in many specimens of sperm whales (Abel 1908; Berzin 1972, p. 66; Nemoto 1963; Ogawa and Kamiya 1957; Zembskii and Berzin 1961). Most of these examples are of whales with femurs, tibia, and fibulae; however, some even include feet with complete digits.

For example, Figure 2.2.1 shows the bones from the atavistic legs of a humpback whale.

... you can see the figure and rest of the text here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... l#vestiges
And of course everyone has heard of humans being born with tails (most of the tails don't work and are just flaps of skin, but some of them do have vertebrae and the owner can move it because there are special muscles), and you can see pictures in that page (the one I linked to)
as for other vestigial things in humans,
"Also, the plica semilunaris, the small fold of tissue on the inside corner of the eye, is the vestigial remnant of the nictitating membrane (the third eyelid) in other animals."
"The formation of goose bumps in humans under emotional stress is a vestigial reflex; its purpose in our evolutionary ancestors was to raise hair to make the animal appear bigger and scare off enemies, although they were more likely used to trap an insulating of layer of warm air next to the skin."
"An example of the dispute is the gas bladder of many fish, which is thought to be a vestigial lung, "left over" from the occasionally-air-gasping common ancestor of ray-finned fish and land vertebrates."
Yes, I know that in most fish the gas bladder functions as a thing to move up and down in the water (for bouyancy), but in many other fish such as deep sea fish, it doesn't serve a purpose because it is so small and withered.
In humans, there are also muscles that some people have whlie others don't, (I think some plantaris muscle? I really wish I could find my list) etc. so obviously if most people don't have those muscles and stuff, they're not needed and are therefore useless vestigial organs.

Also... keep in mind that there are thousands of other useless vestigial structures throughout nature, but of course I can't possibly list them all. Both because I don't know them all, and because I'm bad at coming up with examples.
Oh yeah, did I mention that the vast majority of mammals can produce their own vitamin C? here-

In fact, since this was originally written the vitamin C pseudogene has been found in other primates, exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory. We now have the DNA sequences for this broken gene in chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999). And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory. Furthermore, all of these genes have accumulated mutations at the exact rate predicted (the background rate of mutation for neutral DNA regions like pseudogenes) (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999).

There are several other examples of vestigial human genes, including multiple odorant receptor genes (Rouquier et al. 2000), the RT6 protein gene (Haag et al. 1994), the galactosyl transferase gene (Galili and Swanson 1991), and the tyrosinase-related gene (TYRL) (Oetting et al. 1993).

Our odorant receptor (OR) genes once coded for proteins involved in now lost olfactory functions. Our predicted ancestors, like other mammals, had a more acute sense of smell than we do now; humans have >99 odorant receptor genes, of which ~70% are pseudogenes. Many other mammals, such as mice and marmosets, have many of the same OR genes as us, but all of theirs actually work. An extreme case is the dolphin, which is the descendant of land mammals. It no longer has any need to smell volatile odorants, yet it contains many OR genes, of which none are functional  they are all pseudogenes (Freitag et al. 1998).

The RT6 protein is expressed on the surface of T lymphocytes in other mammals, but not on ours. The galactosyl transferase gene is involved in making a certain carbohydrate found on the cell membranes of other mammals. Tyrosinase is the major enzyme responsible for melanin pigment in all animals. TYRL is a pseudogene of tyrosinase.

It is satisfying to note that we share these vestigial genes with other primates, and that the mutations that destroyed the ability of these genes perform their metabolic functions are also shared with several other primates (see predictions 4.3-4.5 for more about shared pseudogenes).

OK... MUST...STOP....GIVING... EXAMPLES...

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Wow. OK, I'll have to address one topic tonight and leave the rest for

later...My wife's giving me the eye...you know married guys!! Lol.

Here's a few recent opinions concerning "vestigial legs":

1. In Basilosaurus, these bones functioned as copulary guides and in sperm whales "[act] as an anchor for the muscles of the genitalia."


Douglas H. Chadwick, "Evolution of Whales," National Geographic, November 2001, p. 73

2. Although he is an evolutionist, the famous Russian whale expert G. A. Mchedlidze, too, does not support the description of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus natans, and similar four-legged creatures as "possible ancestors of the whale," and describes them instead as a completely isolated group

G. A. Mchedlidze, General Features of the Paleobiological Evolution of Cetacea, trans. from Russian (Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1986), p. 91.


3. Robert Carroll accepts this, albeit unwillingly and in evolutionist language: "It is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales."

Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 329

Is there any evidence available that these bones in question are not

required for sexual function and support for the genitalia?

Evolutionary Biologists' record for claiming organs and structures

are vestigal is poor to say the least.

Alright, I'm getting cut off by wifey poo.

I'll address the other issues we're discussing tomorrow.

Peace and sleep tight.

 

[Oran_Taran]

lol... sorry. I hate long posts too, but sometimes it's hard not to make them.
I'll try to make this one as short as possible....err.. it's not going to be too short though... evolution takes a lot of explaining.

first off, I never said the normal size of the whale bones didn't serve any function, and if you scroll up you'll see I even quoted a creationist that said they were used for structural support and stuff. I wasn't disputing the fact.
What I WAS making a point about was that one, the normal bones are evidence for evolution, and whales have pelvises and bones near the pelvises that strongly suggest of ancestors with legs, and two, that the vestigial LEGS (REAL legs coming out of their body) proved that if whales could be born with LEGS, their ancestors must have had legs, as organisms don't just randomly sprout things that just happen to look just like legs, in the right places, etc. Or when have you ever heard of say... humans with wings, or fish with legs (real legs), etc? Those things take millions of years to evolve, they don't just appear out of nowhere in a couple of individuals.

as for whale lineages, here-
First off, one or two missing parts really means nothing. Fossilization is very rare, and sometimes evolution goes faster than other times (still gradually, but those gradual steps happen faster). but anyway here-

Just several years ago, there was still a large gap in the fossil record of the cetaceans. It was thought that they arose from land-dwelling mesonychids that gradually lost their hind legs and became aquatic. Evolutionary theory predicted that they must have gone through a stage where they had were partially aquatic but still had hind legs, but there were no known intermediate fossils. A flurry of recent discoveries from India & Pakistan (the shores of the ancient Tethys Sea) has pretty much filled this gap.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-tra ... art2b.html scroll down to cetaceans and you can look at each of the fossils giving a good picture of whale evolution.

 

[Grengor]

Well I've been gone for a while... lots of stuff happening. But as Oran pointed out, Charlie, vestigal does not mean useless.