Vestigials

PAUL OF EUGENE

Hi Helen! I beg to differ with this statement of yours:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is no evidence of the change from fish to man in the evidence of variation within the kind. We have both acknowledged the vast variation among dogs above. But they are all dogs. Humans vary, too, in height, coloration, intelligence, coordination, etc. But we know what a human is! Variation is already present in the genome’s potential.
Evolution into another sort of thing altogether isn’t.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I cite the presence of vestiges as evidence. Take the coccyx. Regardless of whether or not the human coccyx has any present use (a matter of considerable debate on boards such as these in the past) no one has ever proposed any use for the division of the coccyx into vertabrae that I have ever seen. So I claim the vestigal presence of VERTABRAE IN THE COCCYX as evidence of ancestral species that had full tails. If you choose to claim they have a purpose, look for purpose of the vertabrae divisions, not just the presence of the coccyx.

I think we can agree that tails are not parts of the normal human kind.

Take the ear wiggling muscles. There they are, I can even use them to wiggle my ears. They don't rotate anymore - they just shift up and down a bit, with no useful function in that movement. It has been a long time since my non-human physical ancestors actually turned ears towards and away from sounds as a way of enhancing hearing and locating the direction of sounds.

I think we can agree that rotating ears are not parts of the normal human kind.

Among the various animals, there are clearer examples. Hip bones, uselessly floating unconnected to anything, in whales, for example.

It appears to me that your flat declaration of "no evidence" is refuted.

 

HELEN
Hi Paul,
Simply by calling them ‘vestigials’ you are presuming evolution, so how
can you use them as evidence for the same thing which you are using to
define them?

How, except for a presumption of evolution, can you show they are
vestigials?

The human NEVER has a tail in utero. What a fetus has is the
development of the skeletal structure before the musculature. This
gives the musculature something to anchor onto! So the entire backbone
is there first, before the soft tissues which will attach to it. Now
whether we can ‘get along’ without the coccyx is neither here nor
there. People can get along without a number of parts which are not considered vestigial, such as the spleen. This, in my opinion, is a matter of intelligent design...

Take a look at the processes of fetal development and you will see that
all the skeletal structures are in place rather rapidly. This includes
the coccyx vertebrae, which will later be used to anchor the muscles
which make sitting at your computer typing that they are all vestigial a
more comfortable affair than if you were without them!

About wiggling ears. Have fun with them! But the fact that some can
wiggle their ears is simply not really evidence that they evolved from
animals. You have to presume evolution first to make that jump, and you
can't use your presumption as your conclusion!

And are ‘hip bones’ uselessly floating in whales? This is up for
debate:

DON’T take this first link as a serious response from me, please, but
allow me to share it as a matter of humor. I was looking up something
else and read this and this cracked me up. Everyone needs a little
spoofing now and then. If this is offensive to you I’m sure we can
petition the administrators to take it off. If it is not offensive,
please enjoy:
http://www.hat.net/mol/archive/wk_80108.htm


However, a little more seriously:

A passing admission from an evolutionist instructor here:
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/rudimentary_organs.html

“Even if a "rudimentary organ" actually has a function about which we
observers are unaware (e.g., if vestigial pelvic bones of a whale may
function to support gonads), why would it still provide excellent
evidence in support of evolution by descent?”


in other words, it evolved because we said it evolved. It doesn’t
matter if those bones actually have a useful function!

http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp

Under the backbone of Basilosaurus and the sperm whale, there are
small bones independent of it. National Geographic claims these to be
vestigial legs. Yet that same magazine mentions that these bones
actually had another function. In Basilosaurus, these bones ‘functioned
as copulary guides’ and in sperm whales ‘[act] as an anchor for the
muscles of the genitalia.’[6] To describe these bones, which actually
carry out important functions, as ‘vestigial organs’ is nothing but
Darwinistic prejudice.


And a little more about whale ‘evolution’ in general…

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v3i11f.htm
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v6i2f.htm
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~sjdando/the.htm

 

PATRICK PARSON

The human NEVER has a tail in utero. What a fetus has is the development
of the skeletal structure before the musculature.

Human embryos certainly do have tails in utero. A very few of them
actually retain tails after birth, complete with vertebrae, nerves, and
muscles.


This gives the musculature something to anchor onto! So the entire
backbone
is there first, before the soft tissues which will attach to it. Now whether
we can ‘get along’ without the coccyx is neither here nor there. People can
get along without a number of parts which are not considered vestigial, such
as the spleen. This, in my opinion, is a matter of intelligent design...


What matters is not present function, but rather original function. In
primates, the tail is predominately an organ of balance. It no longer
serves that function, and is therefore vestigial, even if it has a new
function.


Take a look at the processes of fetal development and you will see that
all the skeletal structures are in place rather rapidly. This includes
the coccyx vertebrae, which will later be used to anchor the muscles
which make sitting at your computer typing that they are all vestigial a
more comfortable affair than if you were without them!

The coxxyx has almost nothing to do with sitting. You sit on the ischim,
not the coxxyx. The muscles associated with sitting are not those attached
to the coccyx. Indeed, there are humans who are born without a coccyx, and
never notice the absence! Coccygeal agenesis can be complete, and even a
portion of the sacrum can be missing with no noticable effects.


However, a little more seriously:
A passing admission from an evolutionist instructor here:

“Even if a "rudimentary organ" actually has a function about which we
observers are unaware (e.g., if vestigial pelvic bones of a whale may
function to support gonads), why would it still provide excellent
evidence in support of evolution by descent?”

in other words, it evolved because we said it evolved. It doesn’t
matter if those bones actually have a useful function!

I don't think you got what he was saying. "Vestigial" does not mean
"without a function".


"Under the backbone of Basilosaurus and the sperm whale, there are
small bones independent of it. National Geographic claims these to be
vestigial legs. Yet that same magazine mentions that these bones
actually had another function. In Basilosaurus, these bones ‘functioned
as copulary guides’ and in sperm whales ‘[act] as an anchor for the
muscles of the genitalia.’[6] To describe these bones, which actually
carry out important functions, as ‘vestigial organs’ is nothing but
Darwinistic prejudice. "

Again, it is an error to assume that vestigial organs cannot evolve a new
function later. Basilosaurus could not walk on those vestigial legs, but
they seem to have found a new function. But they still would be
vestigial.

 

HELEN
Helen originally: The human NEVER has a tail in utero. What a fetus has
is the development
of the skeletal structure before the
musculature.

Pat: Human embryos certainly do have tails in
utero. A very few of them
actually retain tails after birth, complete
with vertebrae, nerves, and
muscles.

A tail extends out from the rear end, Pat. As soon as the fetus has
developed that rear end, there is no ‘tail’. The lower part of the
spinal column is just that: the lower part of the spinal column. And I
would ask you to reference even ONE human born with a tail that includes
vertebrae, nerves, and muscles. You said ‘very few’ so I presume that
means you know of some.

Vestigial USED to mean ‘without a function.’ I have my mother’s college
biology text here. It is Animal Biology by Michael F. Guyer, who
was then professor of zoology at the University of Wisconsin. It was
published by Harper & Brothers in 1937. There is a section on
vestigials starting on page 517, which repeatedly refers to vestigials
as ‘functionless organs’. In the section on “Vestigial Organs in Man”
there is this: Man, both as adult and embryo, shows many vestigial
organs. The anatomist Wiedersheim lists many structures in man in the
various organ systems I this category, most of which are to be found
fully developed in other groups of animals of different habits of life.
…the vermiform appendix – a menace rather than a help to man since it is
the seat of that dangerous inflammatory condition known as appendicitis
– is likewise a vestigial structure.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
"An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously
identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the
nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that
'vestigial organs' provide no evidence for evolutionary
theory.

"I would suggest that the entire argument that
vestigial organs provide evidence for evolution is
invalid on two grounds, one practical, the other
theoretical.

"The practical problem is that of unambiguously
identifying vestigial organs, i.e., those that have
no function. The analysis of Wiedersheim's list of
vestigial organs points out the difficulties. As
our knowledge has increased the list of vestigial
structures has decreased. Wiedersheim could list
about one hundred in humans; recent authors usually
list four or five. Even the current short list
of vestigial structures in humans is questionable.

"Similarly, for other 'vestigial organs' there is
reasonable ground for supposing that they are
functional albeit in a mina way.

"The other major objection to citing vestigial organs
as evidence of evolution is a more theoretical
one based on the nature of the argument. The
'vestigial organ' argument uses as a premise the
assertion that the organ in question has no function.
There is no way, however, in which this
negative assertion can be arrived at scientifically.

"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. Scadding,
"Do `Vestigial Organs’ Provide
Evidence for Evolution?"; Evolution Theory (1981), pp.
174,175,171<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve Scadding is of the Department of Zoology, University of Guelph,
Guelph, Ontario, Canada. http://www.uoguelph.ca/CBS/


Now that it is known that ‘vestigials’ have a function, evolutionist
apologists have had to back up and say exactly what you said – just
because it has a function now doesn’t mean it didn’t do something else
in the past.

That’s a fairy story! The ONLY reason evolutionists call certain
muscles and organs vestigial is because they are presuming evolution to
be true in the first place! Again, the presumption cannot be the
conclusion of a logical argument. And, again, ‘vestigials’ HAVE a
function where they are found. The idea that they were functionless
sixty or so years ago was an idea born of ignorance. The retreat into
the present argument is just that: a retreat.

True vestigials certainly exist – but they are not evidence of evolution
towards more complexity, but of ‘evolution’ resulting in LESS
complexity, such as the loss of eyes (actually I believe it is simply
their atrophy) in cave fish, or possibly the loss of wings on such birds
as the kiwi. These losses say nothing about how these structures got
there in the first place, and that is what evolution needs to explain.

In summary: the original arguments regarding vestigials were mostly
arguments from ignorance. The retreat into ‘different function now’ or
‘partial function now’ is an effort to either salvage something or maybe
just retreat gracefully. And, thirdly, those evidences of vestigials we
see in the animal kingdom all have to do with loss within the kind and
not a change of kind. Vestigials give no evidence for change of basic
kind or type of organism. Nor do we have any evidence, except when we
can see the atrophy occur, as with cave fish, of the reality of calling
ANYTHING vestigial! It is all based on our lack of understanding of
function combined with the presumption of evolution.

 

SCOTT PAGE

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Helen :

Vestigial USED to mean ‘without a function.’<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it USED to. Of course, the extensor coccygis has no function. The auricularis muscles have no useful function. Unless you know of functions for these?
If they are not vetiges and are not evidence of evolution, what are they? Poor design?

I would be particularly interested in a function for the extensor coccygis.
For those who are not familiar with the anatomy, the extensor coccygis is a tiny muscle, about the size of a piece of linguini. If it is even present, it usually originates on the proximal vertebrae of the coccyx and or caudal sacrum and inserets on the distal bones of the coccyx. Contracting a muscle only does one thing – pull. Contracting the extensor coccygis would result in the extension of the coccyx, that is, sticking the tailbone out. I know of nobody that can do this, and whats more, I can see no reason that this would occur. In addition, the coccyx is a fused bone, so contracting the e.c. would do nothing anyway.

So, please, what the function of the extensor coccygis is and why is it not a vestige.

 

PATRICK PARSON
Barbarian says:
Of course "vestigial" means "no longer having the original function".
As your cite notes, the appendix does not have the original function.
It does not say that it has no function at all. As far as "well, it
USED to mean something different", I took my first course in college
biology almost 40 years ago, and "vestigial" meant "no longer had its
original function" then. I don't think the word ever meant "no
function at all", although that might be true in some cases.

The point obviously is that we see these vestigial organs in many, many
cases, and they are inexplicable without evolution. The thought that
God would specially create a beetle with perfectly-formed wings
permanently sealed under fused elytra is absurd; one could assume, as
Phillip Johnson did, about the tail of peacocks, that God was just being
"whimsical", but I find that unconvincing. If God is given to
whimsically create organisms with features that are likely to kill them,
it says something rather unflattering about God.

On the other hand, vestigial organs that have new functions, like the
rudimentary legs on Basilosaurus, are also inexplicable, unless they
evolved.

 

PATRICK PARSON
The Barbarian Replies to Helen's request for examples of tails in humans

U. O. di Pediatria, ASL SA/1, Ospedale M.
Scarlato di Scafati, Italy.

The case of a healthy newborn presenting a
dorsal-lumbar cutaneous appendage is
reported. The appendage was excised by
ligature. This appendage was not associated
with dysraphism or other malformations. It was
analysed histologically and then
defined as a so called true tail. Although it
was been expressed a lot of hypotheses, the
etiology of this finding remains disputed. The
embryology of malformation and its non
identification between known-syndromes is
showed. The difference between true tails
and not-true tails is discussed. The
conclusion is drawn that for its clinical and
histological aspect this malformation may be
included in true tails.


True tail in a newborn.

Alashari M, Torakawa J.

Department of Pathology, Children's Hospital,
Buffalo, New York 14222, USA.

Human true tail is a rarely reported anomaly
that may have a marked psychologic
impact on the patient's family and may be
associated with other congenital anomalies. A
true tail in a newborn girl is reported, and
findings from a review of the literature are
summarized. The clinical and pathologic
differential diagnoses are discussed, as they
might affect the management and prognosis of
this congenital malformation.


Clin Pediatr (Phila) 1995 May;34(5):286-8

Human tails and associated spinal anomalies.

James HE, Canty TG.

Human tails have been described intermittently
in the literature, typically as isolated
cases with varying forms of malformation.
Attempts have been made to differentiate
"true" tails from "tail-like" appearances.
Unless identified, underlying occult spinal
disorders, mass effect, and/or tethering of
the spinal cord may lead to progressive
neurologic damage. We report three patients
with "tails" and the associated spinal
anomalies.


Matsuo T, Koga H, Moriyama T, Yamashita H,
Imazato K, Kondo M.

Department of Neurosurgery, Sasebo City
General Hospital.

Human tails have been attributed to a
disturbance in fetal tail regression which normally
occurs at the gestation age of about 6 weeks.
To date, more than 100 cases of human
tails have been reported. However, reports of
true human tails, which involve the
coccygeal vertebrae, are rare. We recently
encountered a patient with a true human tail
which involved the coccygeal vertebrae and was
accompanied by lumbar spinal lipoma
and spina bifida. A four-year-old boy was
brought to our clinic with complaints
primarily of painful mass. The boy had no
neurological abnormalities. Physically, a tail
bone projected, slightly in the lumbar area,
with a linear depression in the center. A hard
tail bone was palpable subcutaneously. A soft
mass was palpable in the lumbar region,
which was accompanied by hemangioma on the
superficial layer of the skin in this
region. On X-ray films, the tail bone lacked
the normal curvature and it projected
linearly in the posterior direction. CT scans
revealed spina bifida at the level below L2.
MRI disclosed spina bifida (at the level below
L2), spinal lipoma and a tethered cord.
During surgery, the tail bone was first
resected over a distance of one and a half
vertebral bodies. The lumbar tumor, which
continued into the spinal canal, was removed
as completely as possible after incision of
the dura mater. To free the tethered cord, the
tensioned, hypertrophic filum terminale was
dissected. Although the morphological
diagnosis of this condition is easy, the high
incidence of complication by other
anomalies makes it essential to perform
thorough preoperative examinations with CT
and MRI.


The human tail and spinal dysraphism.

Belzberg AJ, Myles ST, Trevenen CL.

Division of Neurosurgery, Alberta Children's
Hospital, Calgary.

Recent publications have endeavoured to
differentiate between the true, or vestigial tail,
and the pseudotail by clinical and
pathological examination, and have indicated the
benign nature of the true tail. The true tail
arises from the most distal remnant of the
embryonic tail, contains adipose, connective,
muscle, and nerve tissue, and is covered by
skin. Pseudotails represent a variety of
lesions having in common a lumbosacral
protrusion and a superficial resemblance to
vestigial tails. A review of the case reports
indicates spina bifida to be the most frequent
coexisting anomaly with both. A review of
occult spinal dysraphism shows it to be
associated with cutaneous signs in more than
50% of instances. Three cases of spinal
dysraphism with tail-like cutaneous structures
are described and their radiological,
operative, and pathological findings presented. The
classification of each of the appendages into
true tail or pseudotail remains obscure.
Although the finding of these three tails was
the subject of much curiosity, surgical
treatment was clearly designed to adequately
deal with the associated dysraphic state.
The presence of a tail-like appendage in the
lumbosacral region should alert the clinician
to the possibility of underlying spinal
dysraphism. Preoperative assessment must
include a complete neurological history and
examination as well as computed
tomographic or magnetic resonance imaging.

Because humans evolved from organisms with tails, humans are sometimes
born with protruding tails. They are essentially no different than the
tails we have within our bodies. They have nerves, vertebrae which
are the same as those in the coccyx and so on. It is not true that the
coccyx is functional in humans. Coccygeal agenesis normally is
completely benign.