Oolon Colluphid

Just to pick a few:

Since when does vestigial have to mean totally useless? The key is that these features are morphologically very similar to more substantial versions in (for many other reasons, apparently related) creatures.

Plenty of bones begin as they end, as single pieces, if that’s what’s needed. To perform its function as a muscle attachment point, the coccyx does not need to start as separate pieces of bones that then fuse. Pieces of bone, moreover, that are in precisely the same place and precisely the sort of shape as the bones which form the tail in mammals that have one. Having a tail is the default setting for mammals.

Guinea pigs, for instance, have a coccyx a bit larger than ours, but it still doesn’t protrude beyond the skin. When a coccyx is bigger, and does protrude beyond the rump, we call that sort of coccyx a ‘tail’.

The mandrill baboon has a much smaller tail than other baboons:



Yet it is still clearly a tail, just greatly reduced. What might these caudal vertebrae look like if reduced still further, do you suppose? Like this, perhaps?





And need I mention the extensor coccygis muscle?

To repeat for emphasis, it is a matter of location and morphology, not whether or not it is used.

Bollocks. The Peyer’s patches in its wall are part of the GALT (gut-associated lymphoid tissues involved in the immune system, sure. But Peyer’s patches are found throughout the wall of the small intestine, not just in the appendix. The same amount of GALT could be produced by simply lengthening the intestine a little. The appendix is neither special nor essential.

It is also very frequently (7% of the US population, for ex) perforated by bacteria which accumulate in it when it becomes blocked, which happens because of its (god-designed, you claim) shape and size. The appendix’s design kills people. The immune connection being a piece of misdirection, that appears to be its only function.

(Interestingly, the appendix may have been maintained by natural selection, rather than eliminated entirely. Below a certain diameter, the tube would become even more easily blocked, so selection would keep it in existence at a small-but-not-too-often-blockable size.)

Once again for the slow ones at the back: Vestigial does not have to mean useless, simply greatly reduced. It is a question of morphology, not use or lack thereof.

Thus your ignorance is your undoing. Sure, mitochondria are essential; the ‘powerhouses’ of cells: the energy-producing organelles, and are thus essential to the life of each eukaryotic cell.

But it’s odd, isn’t it, that all the rest of the complexities of cells themselves, and the wondrous complexities of the tissues and bodies they make up -- everything else, in other words -- is coded for by the DNA in the nucleus... all the ‘information’ for building everything else bodies have is in there... yet mitochondria have their own separate genomes?!

Not only do mitochondria have their own, separate DNA; not only are the mitochondria in each egg cell the ‘descendants’ -- made from the reproduction of other mitochondria -- of those in the mother’s body, and passed down generations separately; but also, these organelles have a genome surprisingly similar to a free-living bacterium.

Genetically, their nearest living relative is the bacterium Rickettsia prowazekii: see Andersson et at (1998), ‘The genome sequence of Rickettsia prowazekii and the origin of mitochondria’, Nature 396, 133-140. Unusually for Nature, the full article is <a href="http://www.nature.com/genomics/papers/r_prowazekii.html" target="_blank">available online here</a>, along with ‘Rickettsia, typhus and the mitochondrial connection’. There is a simplified version in <a href="http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2000/oct/hot1_001016.html" target="_blank">this article in The Scientist</a>.

Evolution says this is an example of endosymbiosis. How does creation expect this? How does it explain it? Do tell.

TTFN, Oolon

Coragyps

Coming soon, as soon, anyway, as this damn job stops interfering: Coragyps' magnum opus on the human vomeronasal organ - about as vestigial an organ as you can have, as well as very nearly useless. Watch this space! Maybe by Friday!

Ergaster

Yes. Have you?

[...]

Incorrect (I've combined these two because they are related). The embryonic tail is actually composed of supernumerary (i.e. extra) coccygeal vertebrae that disappear before birth. Usually. Sometimes infants retain a short tail.

The coccyx actually has very few muscle or ligament attachments. People are sometimes born without a coccyx, and they can go to the can perfectly well, thankyouverymuch. So can people who have to have the coccyx removed for medical reasons.


The appendix has a *minor* IMMUNE role, and it has that because it is part of the intestine, which has the *same* role. The appendix does nothing the rest of the intestine doesn't do, except get infected rather frequently.

Ergaster

Just curious...in some of these cases: fused skull bones, (which technically aren't fused, btw, but are tightly bound to each other by syndosmoses (fibrous joints)), toes (toes???), pelvis, browridges (modern humans have browridges?? Not compared to fossil humans they don't)--you seem to be confusing "primitive" with "vestigial"; not quite the same sense of things, IMHO. Skull bones, pelves, and toes, for example, may be part of a primitive body plan, but they have not lost or altered their original functions (yes--walking would be seriously compromised without our toes).


(This in reply to lpetrich's post; a little hasty with the delete button, I am...sigh...)

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: Ergaster ]</p>

scigirl

madmike,

Welcome to infidels. You may want to introduce yourself <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=43" target="_blank">here</a> in the Welcome Forum.

A few things for you to ponder:

1. Did you answer the original question - why do males have nipples? Do you think that Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is equipped or prepared to answer such questions?

I think Oolon hit on a good point when he said, "Since when does vestigial have to mean totally useless? The key is that these features are morphologically very similar to more substantial versions in (for many other reasons, apparently related) creatures."

2. About your comment here to Lpetrich, "Have you ever picked up a medical journal or taken a human and physiology class since 1965?"

You are new around here, and I suggest you get to know the people here, and their backgrounds, before making ad hominim attacks just yet. Many of us here have either taken or even taught physiology, others here are interested in evolution as a hobby and are well-read on the subject. Check out <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000368&p=" target="_blank">this thread</a> for more information.

Thank you, and again welcome. My advice to you is to be ready to learn from some pretty talented and well-educated (formally or informally) folks.

scigirl

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

Mageth

Y'know, I've got hair on my arms, hands and even fingers. Not to mention around my nipples (I'm not a very hairy-chested guy). I'll be damned if I've found a use for it, though.

Further, when I get scared, it prickles and stands up. It hasn't frightened away a damn thing yet. Not quite enough there to make me look big and intimidating, I guess.

lpetrich

Ergaster:
Just curious...in some of these cases: fused skull bones, (which technically aren't fused, btw, but are tightly bound to each other by syndosmoses (fibrous joints))

I called this feature vestigial because those joined skull bones act like one big bone.

toes (toes???),

They are small and nearly nonfunctional.

pelvis,

Vertebrae + some other bones -&gt; pelvis.

browridges (modern humans have browridges?? Not compared to fossil humans they don't)

I felt where my eyebrows are -- and I noticed some brow ridges. They are low, but recognizably present. And I looked at some online pictures of some human skulls, and saw them.

--you seem to be confusing "primitive" with "vestigial"; not quite the same sense of things, IMHO.

I'm using "vestigial" in a somewhat broad sense, so that may be part of the confusion.

... (yes--walking would be seriously compromised without our toes).

I don't see how.

Ergaster

--you seem to be confusing "primitive" with "vestigial"; not quite the same sense of things, IMHO.

I'm using "vestigial" in a somewhat broad sense, so that may be part of the confusion.

Probably. As an anatomist, I would resist calling things like skulls, toes, and the pelvis "vestigial", because their function has not really changed over time, nor have they become "reduced" or remnants (no, not even toes).

... (yes--walking would be seriously compromised without our toes).

I don't see how.

Our stride is not simply a matter of planting our foot and then lifting it up again with some bending at the toes. It's a lot more complicated than that. Basically you have heel-strike, then the weight of the body is transmitted along the outside of the longitudinal arch, and then rolls across the ball and the bases of the toes. The final phase of a step is called "toe-off", because for a brief moment the entire weight of the body is balanced on the terminal phalanx and joint of the big toe (the bones of the big toe, far from being "reduced", are actually much larger in size than the equivalent bones of any primate). If you find the right toe bones of a fossil hominid (the terminal phalanx of the big toe, or the proximal phalanges of the other toes) you can tell whether the owner was bipedal by looking at the orientation of the joint surfaces.

I think you might find that the toes of people who do not habitually wear shoes are not as "functionless" as you might think. Shoes literally deform feet (for most people, the side of the big toe seems to slant towards the rest of the toes. This is *not* normal. Check out the toes of babies or small children, or Greek or Egyptian statuary: nice, straight toes).

One of the last sane

Modern human male skulls do have brow ridges, compared to modern human female skulls. That's one of the things forensic anthropologists look for when sexing a skull.

Ergaster

Well, I was thinking in a historical comparative sense--must be my paleontological upbringing

Modern human browridges are highly reduced compared to those of our ancestors.

*Some* human males have browridges xompared to *some* females. I've had to try and sex skulls from a non-Western ethnic group in which males are rather gracile; tends to throw the textbook-learning off a bit. Damned human variation....