Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Vestigial Organs evolution myth

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Posts
6,419
Reactions
1,925
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

Thanks ktrianta

That's one of the most interesting articles I have ever read.

K22
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Posts
114
Reactions
0
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

Always remember how in my high school science classes, this myth was proudly trotted out as proof for evolution.

Makes you wonder what sort of other nonsense we were taught back then.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Posts
163
Reactions
0
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

That's the beauty of science, evidence is found that says "Our earlier understanding is incorrect, we'll adjust our theory to accommodate the new evidence or maybe even come up with a new theory."

Religion says "This is what our holy book says, if the evidence doesn't fit we'll just ignore it."

The fact that new found evidence contradicts certain details of evolutionary theory in no way invalidates the whole theory.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Posts
2,633
Reactions
2
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

That's the beauty of science, evidence is found that says "Our earlier understanding is incorrect, we'll adjust our theory to accommodate the new evidence or maybe even come up with a new theory."

Religion says "This is what our holy book says, if the evidence doesn't fit we'll just ignore it."
The fact that new found evidence contradicts certain details of evolutionary theory in no way invalidates the whole theory.

I noticed that Christians seem to accept certain new findings, slowly may I add but what is most important accept.

Copericus was bad boy and few others, now flat planet Earth is no longer an issue nor is age of the planet as 6-days creation is more metaphoric than exact.

Must say it doesn't happen in all religions.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Posts
593
Reactions
0
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

I noticed that Christians seem to accept certain new findings, slowly may I add but what is most important accept.

Copericus was bad boy and few others, now flat planet Earth is no longer an issue nor is age of the planet as 6-days creation is more metaphoric than exact.

Must say it doesn't happen in all religions.
I wonder when Christians will accept the equality of women?

And stop discriminating against teachers because they are not Christians?

And stop persecuting homosexuals?

And accept that condoms do not cause AIDS (well the pope anyway)?
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Posts
2,633
Reactions
2
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

I wonder when Christians will accept the equality of women?

And stop discriminating against teachers because they are not Christians?

And stop persecuting homosexuals?

And accept that condoms do not cause AIDS (well the pope anyway)?
As I said:
I noticed that Christians seem to accept certain new findings, slowly may I add but what is most important accept.
So most probably they are working on it right now.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Posts
114
Reactions
0
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

The fact that new found evidence contradicts certain details of evolutionary theory in no way invalidates the whole theory.
Fair statement, but it does go to show that we should not dogmatically believe the prevailing winds of the day. A lot in the field of evolution is speculation and supposition and what is confidently asserted one day can be discredited the next.

In this case, we were once taught this as solid proof but new discoveries have certainly invalidated this belief. Even tody the same mistake appears to be repeated with the notion of junk DNA where we were initially told that 90% of DNA is junk, leftover from the evolutionary past, but more discoveries are now showing that this so called junk DNA does indeed have function.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Posts
691
Reactions
0
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

How is this a myth?

It was simply an understanding that scientists had formed based on the knowledge of the day, as observational and experimental information progress so does the understanding. Aspects of hypotheses and theories that have been superseded are discarded, replaced by the newer findings. It's called science.

You linked article is no more a blow to evolution than the general theory of relativity was to the understanding of gravity.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Posts
114
Reactions
0
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

How is this a myth?
You linked article is no more a blow to evolution than the general theory of relativity was to the understanding of gravity.

It never ceases to amaze me, how precious people are about their belief in the theory of evolution. It seems to me that people seem to believe that the theory of evolution should be above criticism and that any attack on any aspect of it is a like to a red rag to a bull to the neo darwinian zealots.

This thread is no more an attack on the actual theory itself than relativity was to gravity.

This thread is about educating people about a specific aspect which was once taught as proof for evolution in high school science classes and indeed some may still believe this to be true.

Whilst there are many issues which could be raised with the neo darwinian evolutionary model, this is not a thread about that.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Posts
268
Reactions
0
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

I do understand the purpose of the thread and i wholly believe that as science progresses we learn new things, and certain things that we took for granted may now be superceded and disproved , its a shame religion doesn't take a page out of that book.

Bats are not birds, snakes don't eat dust, and pregnancy was not an evil gods way of punishing women, yes it would be great if creationists could also admit to some shortfalls and believe in cold hard facts.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Posts
114
Reactions
0
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

I do understand the purpose of the thread and i wholly believe that as science progresses we learn new things, and certain things that we took for granted may now be superceded and disproved , its a shame religion doesn't take a page out of that book.

Bats are not birds, snakes don't eat dust, and pregnancy was not an evil gods way of punishing women, yes it would be great if creationists could also admit to some shortfalls and believe in cold hard facts.

And why do the neo darwinian zealots always bring religion into this? That has nothing to do with this thread.
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Posts
1,714
Reactions
0
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

It never ceases to amaze me, how precious people are about their belief in the theory of evolution. It seems to me that people seem to believe that the theory of evolution should be above criticism and that any attack on any aspect of it is a like to a red rag to a bull to the neo darwinian zealots.
Maybe you should address derty's question. How is a scientific theory a myth? Science is held up to self-investigative standards that religion actively tries to obfuscate when applied to itself.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Posts
114
Reactions
0
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

Maybe you should address derty's question. How is a scientific theory a myth? Science is held up to self-investigative standards that religion actively tries to obfuscate when applied to itself.

As I have said, why bring religion into this? Vistigial organs as proof for evolution as once proudly taught in schools is now a myth. Science is showing that this is wrong.

One of the definitions of myth in the oxford dictionary is "a widley held but false notion".

Sounds like a myth to me.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Posts
268
Reactions
0
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

And why do the neo darwinian zealots always bring religion into this? That has nothing to do with this thread.
Ahh, because there are 2 trains of thought ,( unless you have another theory) either evolution or creation, if you start a thread trying to dispute one, clearly the people that subscribe to that belief are entitled to justify their stand and address the shortcomings in the opposing theory.

You cant have it both ways, Oh i will start a thread but be all upset when someone has a differing view to me, if i started a thread and my first post was, "another stupid creationist idea bites the dust", i am sure i would get just a few responses from the "Devil Dodgers".
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Posts
114
Reactions
0
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

Ahh, because there are 2 trains of thought ,( unless you have another theory) either evolution or creation, if you start a thread trying to dispute one, clearly the people that subscribe to that belief are entitled to justify their stand and address the shortcomings in the opposing theory.

You cant have it both ways, Oh i will start a thread but be all upset when someone has a differing view to me.
Sorry darkside, but you have missed the point. This is not a thread about evolution v creation. This is about one aspect of a theory which was widely taught as fact but has now been discredited.

It is not an attack on the whole edifice.

Was I the only one who was taught this in science at high school?

Do others actually still believe this as being true and if so, does the latest research challenge that belief?

That is what this thread is about, not a comparison of 2 competing belief systems in evolution v creation.
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Posts
951
Reactions
140
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

ktrianta,

This was from the article,

The appendix evolved for a much dirtier, parasite-plagued lifestyle than the one most people live in the developed world today, Parker said. But where diarrheal disease is common, for example, the appendix is apparently vital for repopulating intestines with helpful bacteria after an illness.
my emphasis in bold.

Very hard to use this as evidence against evolution, the whole article is about finding new uses for organs that were previously unknown, it is just the author added a bit of bias in the last sentence, not scientific fact. Because of modern medicines and health care keeping most people alive a lot longer than in the past, it can easily be argued that the human species is now much less likely to evolve much further at all.

brty
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Posts
114
Reactions
0
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

ktrianta,

This was from the article,

my emphasis in bold.

Very hard to use this as evidence against evolution,
brty
Brty,

Think you will find I never actually argued that this was evidence against evolution. Rather that it was evidence against the vistigial organ myth. I have been at pains to point this out, irrespective of what my view is on the neo darwinian view of evolution.

As for the bolded portion, as I said in a previous post, the field of evolution is filled with speculation and supposition and the bolded quote would be one of those.

One of the questions I did ask, was was anyone else taught this as well and did they still believe this as true? That would be interesting to see especially given the progression of science in this area.
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Posts
1,714
Reactions
0
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

Vistigial organs as proof for evolution as once proudly taught in schools is now a myth. Science is showing that this is wrong.
No, it was a theory. In any case maybe you should re-read the article again as has been so kinly pointed out.

One of the definitions of myth in the oxford dictionary is "a widley held but false notion".

Sounds like a myth to me.
A myth in common vernacular is regarded as something that is believed without the basis of research and scientific testing - like unicorns, or invisible men living in the sky.
 

Similar threads

Top