Unfactual Evidence for Evolution in my Textbook

[Aaron the Tall]

I am taking a second semester biology course at a local college. We are using a very large, expensive biology book by McGraw Hill published this year. In the section on evolution, the text mentions vestigial structures as evidence - calling them structures in organisms with no current function. Among the structures listed are the whale pelvis.

In my professor's lecture, he too highlighted the whale pelvis as a vestigial structure with no function.

It's beyond me how the whale pelvis is continually put forth as a prime example of a vestigial structure with no function.

The most recent study on the subject was published in Evolution in 2014, explaining the role of the whale pelvis in reproduction. link

There is research going back 50 years that says the same thing.

So why would textbooks and professors keep propagating this false information???

I contacted my professor to let him know he was teaching misinformation. His only response was "the larger point I was trying to make is absolutely valid".

But if the larger point is made up of untrue smaller points, how valid is it for real? By the way, the professor also proclaimed the human appendix as a useless organ.

 

[chair]

...

In my professor's lecture, he too highlighted the whale pelvis as a vestigial structure with no function.

It's beyond me how the whale pelvis is continually put forth as a prime example of a vestigial structure with no function.

The most recent study on the subject was published in Evolution in 2014, explaining the role of the whale pelvis in reproduction. link

...

According to the abstract, the whale pelvis is a vestigial structure- though it does have a current function.

Edit: What exactly did the textbook say about these vestigial structures? The Wikipedia article on this says: "Vestigiality, biologically speaking, refers to organisms retaining organs, which have seemingly lost the entirety of the original function"

Note that it refers to loss of original function- not "no function at all".

 

[6days]

Note that it refers to loss of original function- not "no function at all".

In other words its a belief. It does not matter if something is functional.... or seemingly not functional. Evolutionists don't know what the original design was like, but they shoehorn explanations to fit their belief system.
At one time evolutionists claimed the human body was littered with useless organs. It turns out, what was useless was their argument. Purpose and design has been found for almost everything once called "useless". As so often happens, science which is self correcting, proved evolutionist arguments wrong.

 

[6days]

But if the larger point is made up of untrue smaller points, how valid is it for real? By the way, the professor also proclaimed the human appendix as a useless organ.

IF he said the appendix was useless, he is many years behind in knowledge.
One of the funny things about the appendix is that it serves different purposes in different creatures so evolutionists say it must have evolved independently as many as 50 times. That is opposite of vestigial which says it evolved once then lost its original purpose. The better explanation that fits the evidence is that God designed our bodies with purpose and function. We now live in a fallen world, so it is not unexpected that we suffer from problems due to mutational burden.

BTW... For whale evolution, you might want to check this thread...
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?90061-Real-Science-Radio-Bergman-on-Whale-Evolution

 

[6days]

I contacted my professor to let him know he was teaching misinformation. His only response was "the larger point I was trying to make is absolutely valid".

Wow..... Funny and sad. Or, perhaps tragic he is so committed to a false belief system, that he thinks teaching a little misinformation helps validate his beliefs.

 

[6days]

It's beyond me how the whale pelvis is continually put forth as a prime example of a vestigial structure with no function.

Well..... as chair said, it is called vestigial no matter if it is useful or useless. In other words they simply create explanations of evidence to fit their beliefs. It is a non-falsifiable belief system. Evolutionism is like a fog that can cover any landscape.

 

[Jose Fly]

I am taking a second semester biology course at a local college. We are using a very large, expensive biology book by McGraw Hill published this year.

What's the name of the book?

In the section on evolution, the text mentions vestigial structures as evidence - calling them structures in organisms with no current function.

Can you give the actual full definition that's in the book? Once you do that, we can go from there.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

What's the name of the book?



Can you give the actual full definition that's in the book? Once you do that, we can go from there.

The book is simply called Biology. It is 4th edition - head author Brooker.

link

The exact quote from the book is: "Another result of evolution is the phenomenon of vestigial structures, anatomical features that have no current function but resemble structures of their presumed ancestors."

And in a separate table several examples of vestigial organs are listed, including the whale pelvis.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

According to the abstract, the whale pelvis is a vestigial structure- though it does have a current function.

Edit: What exactly did the textbook say about these vestigial structures? The Wikipedia article on this says: "Vestigiality, biologically speaking, refers to organisms retaining organs, which have seemingly lost the entirety of the original function"

Note that it refers to loss of original function- not "no function at all".

At least the Wiki article is more evolved than my textbook (and I presume many other bio textbooks).

Historically, vestigial has meant "no function". More recently, vestigial has been restated as having different, limited, or specialized functionality.

Back in 1966, Russian zoologist Yablokov wrote about the function of the whale pelvis. He questioned whether they should be called vestigial. Instead, he considered them a specialized organ that has originated from an ancestral organ with a different specialty. Yablokov notes that one feature which can distinguish a specialized organ from a functionless organ is sexual dimorphism - which is the case with the whale pelvis.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

IF he said the appendix was useless, he is many years behind in knowledge.
One of the funny things about the appendix is that it serves different purposes in different creatures so evolutionists say it must have evolved independently as many as 50 times. That is opposite of vestigial which says it evolved once then lost its original purpose. The better explanation that fits the evidence is that God designed our bodies with purpose and function. We now live in a fallen world, so it is not unexpected that we suffer from problems due to mutational burden.

BTW... For whale evolution, you might want to check this thread...
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?90061-Real-Science-Radio-Bergman-on-Whale-Evolution

In his lecture he mentioned that some people have come up to him and said they "read on the internet" that the appendix has a function. He dismissed this "internet information" as unreliable.

Some of that internet information is published scientific papers displaying a function of the appendix.

 

[Jose Fly]

The book is simply called Biology. It is 4th edition - head author Brooker.

link

Thanks for posting that. :up:

The exact quote from the book is: "Another result of evolution is the phenomenon of vestigial structures, anatomical features that have no current function but resemble structures of their presumed ancestors."

And in a separate table several examples of vestigial organs are listed, including the whale pelvis.

Unfortunately, that's an incorrect definition but it's also a common mistake (even among scientists). The more accurate definition is something like....anatomical features that have lost some or all of their original function, but have been evolutionarily retained. And lest you think this is a recent change in the definition, Charles Darwin wrote over a century ago in the Origin of Species "An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other.... [A]n organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object."

But like I said, thinking that "vestigial" means "has no function" is a common error.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Thanks for posting that. :up:



Unfortunately, that's an incorrect definition but it's also a common mistake (even among scientists). The more accurate definition is something like....anatomical features that have lost some or all of their original function, but have been evolutionarily retained. And lest you think this is a recent change in the definition, Charles Darwin wrote over a century ago in the Origin of Species "An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other.... [A]n organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object."

But like I said, thinking that "vestigial" means "has no function" is a common error.

Yes - I've come across that incorrect definition multiple times. Unfortunately, my professor didn't seem too concerned about it - and when test time comes and he wants me to answer a question about vestigial organs, he is going to expect me to write the incorrect definition.

 

[Jose Fly]

I wonder what would happen if you wrote the more accurate definition, complete with a citation?

 

[6days]

Unfortunately, that's an incorrect definition but it's also a common mistake (even among scientists). The more accurate definition is something like....anatomical features that have lost some or all of their original function, but have been evolutionarily retained.

Yes... Its a belief

And how can the appendix be evolutionarily retained when even evolutionists now say it has evolved independently many times. Your belief system is a poor fit to the evidence.

But like I said, thinking that "vestigial" means "has no function" is a common error.

Well, it is something evolutionists sort of flip flop around on.
Here are some defintions...
1959
Isaac Asimo..Words Of Science
Living creatures, including man, are virtual museums of structures that have no useful function but which represent the remains of organs that once had some use.
1977
Elements of Zoology
Structures without use and of reduced size are termed vestigial organs. From the standpoint of special creation these organs are difficult to explain; from that of evolution they are obviously features that were functional and necessary in their ancestors but are now in the process of disappearing from living organisms
1987
The Evolution of Life
defines a vestigial organ as one..."which has lost its function in the course of evolution, and is usually much reduced in size.

Evolutionists had the false belief that our bodies were full of useless junk. Here is another definition
1988
Dorland’s Dictionary
the remnant of a structure which functioned in a previous stage of a species

 

[Jose Fly]

We've been over this before 6days, and all you're doing is repeating the same tired old creationist arguments that haven't gone anywhere in a century. So why you think repeating them here and now will change anything is a mystery.

 

[Hawkins]

We've been over this before 6days, and all you're doing is repeating the same tired old creationist arguments that haven't gone anywhere in a century. So why you think repeating them here and now will change anything is a mystery.

Are you talking about the evolutionist arguments thrown out when evolutionists preach their 'science' in each and every religious forums?

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you talking about the evolutionist arguments thrown out when evolutionists preach their 'science' in each and every religious forums?

Given that I specifically said "tired old creationist arguments", the answer is no.

Try and pay closer attention.

 

[Hawkins]

Given that I specifically said "tired old creationist arguments", the answer is no.

Try and pay closer attention.

Since when you evolutionists can present anything new? That's my point.

 

[Jose Fly]

Since when you evolutionists can present anything new? That's my point.

All the time. You should start with the Journal of Evolutionary Biology.

 

[6days]

We've been over this before 6days, and all you're doing is repeating the same tired old creationist arguments that haven't gone anywhere in a century. So why you think repeating them here and now will change anything is a mystery.

Truth doesn't need new arguments. Evolutionists continue needing to re-explain things as science proves their arguments to be false... as with the appendix... as with junk DNA...as with psuedogenes....as with vertebrate eye design ETC.