| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
27 Jan 2004 09:18:42 PM |
| Object: |
implications of "vestigial" structures? |
What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?:
If humans haven't as of yet discovered a function for an animal
structure, then we can confidently conclude that:
the structure doesn't have a function, and
humans will never discover a function for the structure.
If a structure in an animal is not known to have a function, then we
can confidently conclude that intelligence wasn't responsible for the
origin of:
that structure, and
that animal.
If a structure is known to have a function, and if someone considers
that function minor/ almost-totally-useless, then that someone can
confidently conclude that intelligence was not responsible for the
origin of:
that structure, and
the organism having that structure.
If a structure is known to have a function that's major/
important-to-the-organism, then we can confidently conclude that
intelligence was not responsible for the origin of:
that structure, and
the organism having that structure.
.
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: implications of "vestigial" structures? |
28 Jan 2004 12:12:26 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0401271918.1d0a649e@posting.google.com...
What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?:
They represent either a gross misunderstanding of the concept "vestigial
structures," or an attempt to foster and exploit such a gross
misunderstanding in others.
If humans haven't as of yet discovered a function for an animal
structure, then we can confidently conclude that:
the structure doesn't have a function, and
humans will never discover a function for the structure.
Do you think that no vestigial structures have been detected in plants? No
matter. A vestigial structure is *not* defined as "a structure with no
function," or even "a structure whose function we subjectively regard as
unimportant." It is, rather, a structure which is clearly homologous to a
structure in ancestral, related, or allied organisms, but does not serve the
most obvious functions of that homolog. It may have some function
("vestiges" are described, and have been since Darwin's time, in terms of
*reduced* function, not absent function) which is known. As you imply, it
may even have functions which are not known.
Take some examples. Favorites around here are the molars (cheek teeth,
m-position teeth) of some vampire bat species (the number of these teeth
varies, and some have none). They are clearly teeth, in the position of
molars, but are tiny, rounded without grinding surfaces, and (given that
vampire bats subsist on a liquid diet) not functional *as teeth*. The same
phenomenon -- teeth that, whatever else they might do, lack the primary
function of teeth -- is found in embryonic baleen whales.
Then there are blind cave fish: they develop eyes, like populations of the
same species that live outside of caves, but the eyes degenerate and do not
enable the fish to see (not that there's much to see in lightless cave). Or
there is the plantaris tendon in humans, which could be dismissed as a
vestigial structure only by showing either that it is not homologous to the
plantaris tendon in apes, or that it can be used to clench our feet into
fists, as it can in apes. Showing that it does *something* (although some
humans get by quite nicely without it) would not suffice.
Finding a function for the molars of vampire bats, or the eyes of cave fish,
would in no respect diminish the problem of why they are homologous to
structures in similar species that serve quite different functions to which
these structures seem conspicuously adapted. Indeed, vestigial structures
are simply an extreme case of the overall problem of parahomology: detailed
and unnecessary similarty in structures serving very different functions.
The label "vestigial" is not applied merely out of ignorance of the function
of the structure, but out of knowledge that it does not serve most of the
functions of its closest homologs.
If a structure in an animal is not known to have a function, then we
can confidently conclude that intelligence wasn't responsible for the
origin of:
that structure, and
that animal.
The theory of evolution does not state that "intelligence was not
responsible for the origin of such-and-such." It makes positive statements
about what causes changes in populations over time, rather than simply
denying that a laundry list of other causes ("intelligent design,"
phlogiston, etc.) produced these effects. If you want to make a case for
intelligent design, come up with a theory of the purposes and methods of the
designer, and some evidence that this or that feature of life fits the
predictions of that theory.
If a structure is known to have a function, and if someone considers
that function minor/ almost-totally-useless, then that someone can
confidently conclude that intelligence was not responsible for the
origin of:
that structure, and
the organism having that structure.
Again, what matters is not whether the function is considered minor, but
whether the structure lacks functions for which its homologs are principally
adapated (and does not seem adapted to any major new function -- seagull
wings, after all, have lost much of the function of theropod arms, but are
rarely considered vestigial). And again, it is not that one can confidently
conclude from this that intelligent design was not responsible; it is that
gradual common descent with opportunistic modification explains the
peculiarities of homology, and so far no account of intelligent design does.
If a structure is known to have a function that's major/
important-to-the-organism, then we can confidently conclude that
intelligence was not responsible for the origin of:
that structure, and
the organism having that structure.
Again, the point is not to construct a laundry list of vague and untestable
possible causes that we can conclude (whether confidently or not) were not
responsible for a structure, but to find a theory that explains why these
structures are built the way they are ... but you're not interested in
understanding, or reasoning clearly.
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: implications of "vestigial" structures? |
28 Jan 2004 12:38:56 AM |
|
|
In article <b1c67abe.0401271918.1d0a649e@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu [david ford] wrote...
What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?:
The way they're phrased?
If humans haven't as of yet discovered a function for an animal
structure, then we can confidently conclude that:
the structure doesn't have a function, and
humans will never discover a function for the structure.
"Vestigial structures" needn't be functionless. They need
merely be reduced in size/structure and in function. Still,
lots of vestigial structures are essentially functionless,
as is shown by the fact that their removal in no way harms
the organism.
If a structure in an animal is not known to have a function, then we
can confidently conclude that intelligence wasn't responsible for the
origin of:
that structure, and
that animal.
Huh? Intelligence isn't known to be responsible for the origin
of any organismal structures or any organisms. There's no reason
to postulate such without evidence. Why should the question even
arise?
[snip]
cheers
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: implications of "vestigial" structures? |
28 Jan 2004 12:59:09 PM |
|
|
Isn't "David Ford" the same guy who said that God doesn't exist because
no human beings had seen him in space?
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: implications of "vestigial" structures? |
29 Jan 2004 08:17:46 PM |
|
|
Richard Crawford <rcrawford.cow@remove_herbivore.unexmail.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message news:<bv90ot$jmc$2@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Isn't "David Ford" the same guy who said that God doesn't exist because
no human beings had seen him in space?
Yes. Citation:
Outer space observations vs. God
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401271913.53e1cdd1%40posting.google.com
"David Ford" also said he believes in spontaneous generation, in
blindwatchmaking, and in the ability of the human mind to bend spoons
through mental powers. Citation:
1940 Haldane on the origin of life and the year 2040 or thereabouts
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401291120.41a6d843%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: implications of "vestigial" structures? |
29 Jan 2004 09:34:18 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 02:17:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Richard Crawford <rcrawford.cow@remove_herbivore.unexmail.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message news:<bv90ot$jmc$2@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Isn't "David Ford" the same guy who said that God doesn't exist because
no human beings had seen him in space?
Yes. Citation:
Outer space observations vs. God
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401271913.53e1cdd1%40posting.google.com
"David Ford" also said he believes in spontaneous generation, in
blindwatchmaking, and in the ability of the human mind to bend spoons
through mental powers. Citation:
1940 Haldane on the origin of life and the year 2040 or thereabouts
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401291120.41a6d843%40posting.google.com
Back to the self-referential URLs. David, you really are becoming dull.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SMChristenson" |
|
| Title: Re: implications of "vestigial" structures? |
07 Feb 2004 10:36:53 AM |
|
|
Well, man is in god's image.
Therefore, fetus god had gills and a tail too.
It's all perfectly sane.
[uh huh]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: implications of "vestigial" structures? |
28 Jan 2004 12:44:58 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?:
If humans haven't as of yet discovered a function for an animal
structure, then we can confidently conclude that:
the structure doesn't have a function, and
humans will never discover a function for the structure.
That would certainly be a silly position to take.
If a structure in an animal is not known to have a function, then we
can confidently conclude that intelligence wasn't responsible for the
origin of:
that structure, and
that animal.
Another silly position. What is not known is no reason to decide
anything. Do you have problems with admitting that something is
unknown?
If a structure is known to have a function, and if someone considers
that function minor/ almost-totally-useless, then that someone can
confidently conclude that intelligence was not responsible for the
origin of:
that structure, and
the organism having that structure.
No.
If a structure is known to have a function that's major/
important-to-the-organism, then we can confidently conclude that
intelligence was not responsible for the origin of:
that structure, and
the organism having that structure.
No. How does the importance of a structure to the organism relate in
any way to whether or not intelligence was responsible for the origin
of anything? You seem to be laboring under the impression that
intelligence must deal strictly in purpose. Intelligence deals in
lots of other areas.
Are you going somewhere with these ramblings?
(As if I don't know. Innocent look.)
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "\Rev Dr\ Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: implications of "vestigial" structures? |
28 Jan 2004 06:19:32 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?:
<snip idiocy>
What, if anything, is the scientific theory of creation/intelligent design?
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "John M Price PhD" |
|
| Title: Re: implications of "vestigial" structures? |
28 Jan 2004 08:29:06 PM |
|
|
In sci.skeptic article <40185170_4@corp.newsgroups.com> "\"Rev Dr\" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote:
: david ford wrote:
: > What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?:
: >
: <snip idiocy>
: What, if anything, is the scientific theory of creation/intelligent design?
Oooh, Oooh!
And some nicely linked, testable hypotheses, please!
(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved.
Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior
written consent of the author with the express and only exception of
followup postings limited to and within usenet.
--
John M. Price, PhD
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.
- Tacitus, Roman historian, 50-120 A
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: implications of "vestigial" structures? |
31 Jan 2004 02:33:10 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?:
You made them as nothing you have posted so far makes a lick of sense.
--
Anyone who refers to his country and his people as different
things is a traitor to his country.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2995
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
