At a Christian Taliban news website I wrote comments at Evolution’s ‘Unnecessary’ Organs which to their credit were not censored. I explained why the science denier was wrong about everything. He eventually found an excuse to give up.
 | Human Ape | about 9 hours ago |
This quote from wikipedia written by scientists seems to contradict everything you said about vestigial organs. The point is a vestigial organ like the appendix can have a purpose and still be a vestigial organ. I thought I published this quote here before but since I can’t find it I will try again. Any complaints you have about it would be interesting to me. Many thanks.
"The term vestigiality is useful in referring to many genetically determined features, either morphological, behavioral, or physiological; in any such context however, it need not follow that a vestigial feature must be completely useless. A classic example at the level of gross anatomy is the human vermiform appendix — though vestigial in the sense of retaining no significant digestive function, the appendix still has immunological roles and is useful in maintaining gut flora."
"The term vestigiality is useful in referring to many genetically determined features, either morphological, behavioral, or physiological; in any such context however, it need not follow that a vestigial feature must be completely useless. A classic example at the level of gross anatomy is the human vermiform appendix — though vestigial in the sense of retaining no significant digestive function, the appendix still has immunological roles and is useful in maintaining gut flora."
 | Jeremiah Jacques | about 7 hours ago |
Hello Mr. Apé (French, is that? ),
I understand that, as scientific advances began to reveal undeniable uses for more and more organs, 20th century biologists began to revise and soften the definition of “vestigiality”. This article’s purpose, though—rather than meddle with the revisionists—was to address the error of Charles Darwin’s definition: “Organs or parts … bearing the plain stamp of inutility.”
Thank you for your comments.
I understand that, as scientific advances began to reveal undeniable uses for more and more organs, 20th century biologists began to revise and soften the definition of “vestigiality”. This article’s purpose, though—rather than meddle with the revisionists—was to address the error of Charles Darwin’s definition: “Organs or parts … bearing the plain stamp of inutility.”
Thank you for your comments.
| Human Ape | about 6 hours ago |
You choose to quote a 19th century scientist, perhaps because it suits your purpose which is to convince your readers they are correct to deny evolution.
The problem is this is not the 19th century. This is the 21st century and our knowledge of biology is many thousands of times greater than it was two centuries ago.
Maybe you would like to explain this part of the wikipedia quote: “vestigial in the sense of retaining no significant digestive function”. Is that not evidence for evolution?
Also, perhaps because of your desire to sell your anti-science views, you completely ignore other vestigial organs which have absolutely no purpose at all, for example the leg bones found inside some whales, legs which are completely detached from the rest of the skeleton. Certainly you can’t pretend these worthless bones have some value. They are remnants of useful leg bones found on fossils of whale ancestors who lived on land.
You are also completely ignoring the rest of the massive evidence for evolution, including for example the complete fossil record that describes the transition from land animals to whales. Absolutely no missing links because every possible missing link has been found for the evolution of whales from their ancient land loving ancestors. Perhaps you don’t write about this evidence because it’s too powerful to be dishonest about it.
Even more powerful evidence includes the predictions molecular biologists made about human chromosome two, and then of course there’s ERVs and tons more evidence from our DNA and the DNA of our chimpanzee cousins.
My point is the reason virtually every single biologist in the entire world says the evidence for evolution is overwhelming is not because they’re liars. It’s because the evidence really is overwhelming and anyone can use google to look it up.
By the way I have to give you and your website credit for one thing. Your freedom of speech. I think we both agree that’s a good thing.
darwinkilledgod dot blogspot dot com
The problem is this is not the 19th century. This is the 21st century and our knowledge of biology is many thousands of times greater than it was two centuries ago.
Maybe you would like to explain this part of the wikipedia quote: “vestigial in the sense of retaining no significant digestive function”. Is that not evidence for evolution?
Also, perhaps because of your desire to sell your anti-science views, you completely ignore other vestigial organs which have absolutely no purpose at all, for example the leg bones found inside some whales, legs which are completely detached from the rest of the skeleton. Certainly you can’t pretend these worthless bones have some value. They are remnants of useful leg bones found on fossils of whale ancestors who lived on land.
You are also completely ignoring the rest of the massive evidence for evolution, including for example the complete fossil record that describes the transition from land animals to whales. Absolutely no missing links because every possible missing link has been found for the evolution of whales from their ancient land loving ancestors. Perhaps you don’t write about this evidence because it’s too powerful to be dishonest about it.
Even more powerful evidence includes the predictions molecular biologists made about human chromosome two, and then of course there’s ERVs and tons more evidence from our DNA and the DNA of our chimpanzee cousins.
My point is the reason virtually every single biologist in the entire world says the evidence for evolution is overwhelming is not because they’re liars. It’s because the evidence really is overwhelming and anyone can use google to look it up.
By the way I have to give you and your website credit for one thing. Your freedom of speech. I think we both agree that’s a good thing.
darwinkilledgod dot blogspot dot com
Ask any biologist. It’s virtually impossible to find a biologist who doesn’t love evolution. The fake biologists who deny evolution can only be found in Bible colleges. They have never discovered anything. They have never contributed anything to biology. A biologist who denies the foundation of biology is a disgrace to his profession and a laughing stock of the scientific community. Lehigh University is ashamed of their science denier Michael Behe who has disgraced their biology department and ruined the reputation of Lehigh.
What I’m interested in is why do millions of Americans disgrace their country with their cowardly fear of the foundation of biology. Apparently their problem is their god disease which makes them fear scientific evidence so much they just ignore it, or like you they pretend to understand it when it’s obvious to everyone they don’t know what they’re talking about.
At least, thank goodness, you and your website don’t solve their problems with censorship and for that I have at least some respect for you.
The other folks out there, if only you could be convinced to stop being so lazy and actually study the evidence for evolution without trying to invent imaginary problems with it and without depending professional science deniers who have no idea what they’re talking about. Just google “evidence evolution’ and get to work. The evidence is so massive you could spend the rest of your life studying it. And it’s interesting. Many times more interesting than your god-magically-created-everything fantasies. You science deniers have no idea how much you are missing.
There is one thing I’m optimistic about. A religion that completely depends on denying scientific progress to exist is a religion that will never last. Christianity is doomed and I think most Christians already realize this. And that’s why they are constantly at war against science, scientists, and science education. They will lose their war eventually. Stephen Hawkings explained why: “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.”