Coming soon: our next stage, ? evolutus.
Options
Comments
-
The protective layer of skin was created to shield the rodents eyes from dirt and earth.........
It uses its covered eyes to detect food and shelter, whilst it burrows through the earths surface......................
They do not use it to find food or shelter but to fill in gaps to the surface that might be created while burrowing. I suppose one could call that shelter?
Alas.....
The blind mole rat's eyes serve a purpose.........
Do you mean parts of Biology or other sciences? Evolutionary theory are theories within the field of Biology. They would be germane to medicine and organic chemistry perhaps but would have little value in Physics. By the same token General Relativity has nothing really to contribute to Biology.
I mean all of the academic disciplines associated with the sciences..........
I recommend watching this entire film......
http://youtu.be/xGCxbhGaVfE
Not sure what "ifs" you are referring too but as many or more remain when we bring a creator ? into it.
Why did he use skin covered eyes rather that a photo-sensitive patch? The eyes "cost" more for the mole from a food requirement standpoint but offer no greater function.
Why did he give us 3 grinding molars but a jaw that often can not accommodate them?
Why do all animals with nipples have hair as well (or at least follicles) ?
Why does a hooved animals have the remnants of 5 finger bones?
Why do all 6 legged bugs have a body made of 3 sections while the 8 legged bugs have 2?
I could make a hundred of these questions but ultimately I could answer "That is how ? did it." And honestly I can not claim that to be false. All I can really say is that evolution is a stronger solution since the answer to the above questions that nature gives all make sense in light of evolution.
We can conjure thousands of questions based on human perception of creation.................
However, they are all answered by the ALL.............
wisdom teeth, nipples and follicles have been previously debunked........
plz provide more information for a proper debunking of finger bones & insect legs.........
-
Vestigial - refers to an ? or part (for example, the human appendix) which is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function.
This is the definition used in the field of Biology. You have to use their definition if you are going to debunk the term. You can not invent your own definition or even use a definition used by the general population. To do so is called a straw-man argument.
Expelled as a documentary is intellectually bankrupt. It was quite sad to see someone I respected, Ben Stein, fall to such lows.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
This is a web site that shows just how bad that documentary is.
"The ALL" is an answer to everything. However in doing it becomes a weak answer. There is no way to disprove it. Purple polka-dotted unicorn can materialize out of thin air tomorrow in mid-morning traffic. "The ALL" is still valid since one could argue that unicorns where created by this ? . Evolution would be destroyed by such an event (as well as, a fair bit of physics.) It is the fact that evolution is bounded and restricted that makes it such a strong theory. Since the world presents itself to us with systems that conform to evolution boundaries. -
I am not gonna argue for the movie.............
However, they make great points........
vestige (n.) Look up vestige at Dictionary.com
c.1600, from French vestige "a mark, trace, sign," from Latin vestigium "footprint, trace," of unknown origin.
Again......
Vestigial organs are only vestigal until the have been shown to have a function.......
All the examples that you provided were highly speculative...............
And have been shown to have function...............
-
You have to accept the Biological definition if you want to explain why it is wrong. Since biology uses it in a specific way. If you alter the definition then claim that it is not meet that definition you have simply created a straw-man
-
"Vestigial" does not mean an ? is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974, 769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."
Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70). They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html -
@Oceanic& @whar.......
I am not changing any definitions........
Again....
vestige (n.) Look up vestige at Dictionary.com
c.1600, from French vestige "a mark, trace, sign," from Latin vestigium "footprint, trace," of unknown origin.
Again......
Vestigial organs are only vestigal until the have been shown to have a function.......
All the examples that you provided were highly speculative...............
And have been shown to have function...............
-
You seem to be:
Vestigial organs are only vestigal until the have been shown to have a function.......
[The given examples] have been shown to have function...............
"Vestigial" does not mean an ? is useless.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html
-
lol.....
you are using a biased website.........
i am using the dictonary.........
vestige (n.) Look up vestige at Dictionary.com
c.1600, from French vestige "a mark, trace, sign," from Latin vestigium "footprint, trace," of unknown origin.
-
lol.....
you are using a biased website.........
i am using the dictonary.........
vestige (n.) Look up vestige at Dictionary.com
c.1600, from French vestige "a mark, trace, sign," from Latin vestigium "footprint, trace," of unknown origin.
The "dictionary.com" reference you've given does not state that vestigial organs are rendered useless. It actually agrees with "talkorigins.org by defining "vestige" as:
a degenerate or imperfectly developed ? or structure 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
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vestige
"Dictionary.com" says that a vestigial ? or structure may have "little or no utility". The point in being vestigial is that an earlier function was lost, i.e. "in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function"
-
Actually the definition for vestige comes from an etymology dictionary....
This is because it is a "new" word......
I said that the ? was not useless because it is the term that @whar used....
However....
You can provide no proof or evidence that any of the organs in question previously provided greater function........
-
Actually the definition for vestige comes from an etymology dictionary...
Then why did you say this?:Look up vestige at Dictionary.com
Actually, the etymology of the word is unimportant. Your argument is based on how the word is defined and used in mainstream biology.I said that the ? was not useless
^^^ which is a straw man argument, as Whar pointed out, since the definition of the word vestigial does not state explicitly or imply implicitly that the ? or structure is without any function or useless.You can provide no proof or evidence that any of the organs in question previously provided greater function........
shown above is a skeletal view of what would be the pelvic region of a boa - a large snake. Snakes obviously do not have legs, yet these boas have the vestigial remnants of both pelvic girdles and limbs, complete with a rudimentary claw.
http://taggart.glg.msu.edu/isb200/predarwn.htm -
Lol.......
When you copy and paste from Oxford etymology, you get that generic statement about dictionary.com.....
Today's topic is human creation........
Save your infantile comparisons of serpant & human "pelvises"............
-
Today's topic is vestigial structures/organs in general
-
*Coming soon: our next stage, ? evolutus*
That means human creation / evolution............
Or....
Assumed vestigial structures in humans............
-
-
Very well. Although you've invested a lot of your time making a case for the blind mole.
L-gulonolactone oxidase, required for the biosynthesis of Vitamin C, is functional in multiple species but is non functional in the human genome although there are remnants of it; it now exists as a pseudogene. -
Grano and De Tullio proposed that organisms that have lost vitamin C biosynthesis have an advantage in that they can finely regulate HIF1α activation on the basis of the dietary intake of vitamin C: with sufficient supply of vitamin C, the HIF transcription factor is less active than in conditions of vitamin C deficiency; the lack of vitamin C biosynthesis may allow our bodies to know more about our nutritional status and consequently set the proper baseline of HIF1α expression acting like a sensitive titration system.
Grano A, De Tullio MC (2007). "Ascorbic acid as a sensor of oxidative stress and a regulator of gene expression: the Yin and Yang of vitamin C". Med. Hypotheses 69 (4): 953–4.
-
In other words, the original function was lost; we can no longer produce vitamin C which is the definition of vestigial. It matters not what benefits are available to us now.
-
Grano and De Tullio proposed that organisms that have lost vitamin C biosynthesis
So you can actually cut that quote short here ^^^… because that's all we need to know
-
Hold up............
When have we ever had that ability?.?.?.?
How & when was it lost or vestige ?.?.?.?
-
In other words, the original function was lost; we can no longer produce vitamin C which is the definition of vestigial. It matters not what benefits are available to us now.
Signs of Function?
There is actually some evidence to suggest that concentrations of ascorbic acid in the human fetus and in the neonate is not wholly explicable by the mother's intake of vitamin C in her diet. For example, a study conducted by Andersson et al. (1956) documented, over a period of five years, no more than two reports of infantile scurvy in malnourished South African Bantu infants. It was found that ascorbic acid plasma concentrations were comparable among infants who had been well nourished.
A further study, by Adlard et al. (1974), found substantially heightened vitamin C concentrations in the fetal human brain as compared to that of the adult. This concentration was found to fall with increased gestational age.
Salmenpera (1984) examined the levels of plasma vitamin C in infants who had been breast-fed as compared with controls who had been supplemented with vitamin C. They reported that the concentration of plasma vitamin C was the same or higher in the former compared to the latter. In fact, the concentration was roughly double the maternal concentration. The author reported, "Surprisingly, the infantile plasma concentration, which was already high compared with maternal concentration, continued to rise despite the decreasing concentration in milk ... the significance of this phenomenon is unknown."
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/gulo_shared_mut056281.html
-
The site you quote from goes on to say, right after your exerpt actually, that a functional L-gulonolactone oxidase is lost in humans, all while claiming the L-gulonolactone oxidase to be a pseudogene, as I've already said it was.
-
Also, the site you quote from is biased so I'm not going to go into detail about any of its claims. Especially since you've decided to ignore "talkorigins.com"
-
Also, the site you quote from is biased so I'm not going to go into detail about any of its claims. Especially since you've decided to ignore "talkorigins.com"
You dont have to.....
Just like the appendix, tailbones, and junk DNA............
psudogenes fall into the debunked category...........
From Wikipedia if you need to check footnotes.............
By definition, pseudogenes lack a function. However, the classification of pseudogenes generally relies on computational analysis of genomic sequences using complex algorithms.[22] This has led to the incorrect identification of pseudogenes. Examples include:
1) The Drosophila jingwei gene, a functional, chimeric gene which was once thought to be a processed pseudogene.[23]
2) Makorin1 (MKRN1). In 2003, Hirotsune et al. identified a retrotransposed pseudogene whose transcript purportedly plays a trans-regulatory role in the expression of its homologous gene, Makorin1 (MKRN1) (see also RING finger domain and ubiquitin ligases), and suggested this as a general model under which pseudogenes may play an important biological role.[24] Hirotsune's report prompted two molecular biologists to carefully review scientific literature on the subject of pseudogenes. To the surprise of many, they found a number of examples in which pseudogenes play a role in gene regulation and expression,[25] forcing Hirotsune's group to rescind their claim that they were the first to identify pseudogene function.[26] Furthermore, the original findings of Hirotsune et al. concerning Makorin1 have recently been strongly contested;[27] thus, the possibility that some pseudogenes could have important biological functions was disputed.
3) Phosphoglycerate mutase 3 (PGAM3P). A processed pseudogene called phosphoglycerate mutase 3 (PGAM3P) actually produces a functional protein.[28]
The list goes on for days.................
-
We're talking about L-gulonolactone oxidase, a pseudogene, which is non functional in the biosynthesis of vitamin C in humans
