Real Science Friday: Old Birds and Fish Fins

[Cricket]

That's a very minor prediction and it's one that had a good likelihood of being correct. I'm not sure the evidence is such that it's truly *wrong*.

Sounded completely false to me.

tt

 

[Alate_One]

Sounded completely false to me.

tt

If it's not doing the normal function of a fin, it's vestigial. Plus, given the relatively small impact of it's removal can probably still be considered vestigial from that perspective.

you can not use vestigial organs as proof since it assumes the very thing you are trying to prove, which is evolution.

Uhh no. Especially not in this case. It's obvious what fish use their fins for, evolution or no. A small fin with very little area to guide water that most fish do perfectly well without is easy to pick out as "probably not very important". And you could do that without accepting evolution at all. But evolution explains why it might still be there.

one can conclude that all organs are vestigal when compared to the proto cell or any supposed ancestor that we supposedly evloved from. thus rendering the word vestigial completely meaningless within evolutionary biology.

Nope. Vestigial traits are things that are LOST or reduced during evolution. If evolution were only loss there would be no complex animals.

Best examples are loss of limbs in whales, snakes, manatees etc. Most of these animals retain parts of pelvises or reduced legs. Again, evolution explains WHY the remnants are there. Why would God create some whales from scratch with bits of pelvis inside?

Might want to try getting a better handle on the science before attacking it.

 

[kalliste]

Failed predictions are an indicator of a weak theory.

tt

Never seems to stop the "end of the world is nigh" brigade!

On the other hand, in science, failed predictions means the hypothesis falls.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

It is almost certainly vestigial, since it no longer serves its original function,

What evidence do you have that it ever served any other function?

but apparently has evolved into a sensory organ.

Apparently... in light of the assumption that evolution is true to begin with. It doesn't seem so apparent to those who don't hold the same assumptions.

 

[Jukia]

* Dinosaur Death Pose[/b]: Fossils of dinosaurs all over the world are found with their heads turned backwards. Experiments show that birds buried in a watery graves also have their heads turned backwards in the same manner. This is more evidence of a global flood. Bob would like to see if any friends of BEL would be interested in replicating experiments like the ones discussed during the program.

I was at the beach yesterday. The water level was rising. So I left for higher ground. I mean, if it was rising it was likely to keep rising, right?
No? goodness, how can that be. I saw it rising with my own two eyes, a good 3 feet.

Same thought process as Pastor Bob and his buddies.

 

[Jukia]

Failed predictions are an indicator of a weak theory.

tt

I need a new irony meter, it broke again.

 

[Jukia]

Best examples are loss of limbs in whales, snakes, manatees etc. Most of these animals retain parts of pelvises or reduced legs. Again, evolution explains WHY the remnants are there. Why would God create some whales from scratch with bits of pelvis inside?

It is the Christian god's method of separating the wheat from the chaff. either that or he has a strange sense of humor.

 

[kalliste]

What evidence do you have that it ever served any other function?



Apparently... in light of the assumption that evolution is true to begin with. It doesn't seem so apparent to those who don't hold the same assumptions.

Nobody "assumed" it was true to being with - it was tested and so far nobody has proven it false.

There's a difference - even if you won't see it.

 

[jeffblue101]

Nope. Vestigial traits are things that are LOST or reduced during evolution. If evolution were only loss there would be no complex animals.

nope, vestigial refers to the original function(circular reasoning) being loss or reduced. like i said before the coccyx is considered vestigial in 'apes'. not because it lacks function or has reduced function but that it lost its original function.

Best examples are loss of limbs in whales, snakes, manatees etc. Most of these animals retain parts of pelvises or reduced legs. Again, evolution explains WHY the remnants are there. Why would God create some whales from scratch with bits of pelvis inside?

To confuse darwinist like you who use circular arguments against Him.
2 Thessalonians 2:10-11

 

[Granite]

These threads would almost be cute if they weren't so...breathless.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding "vestigial";
It means "no longer has the original function."

wiki:
Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms that have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution

Not bad, for a wiki.

talkorgins:
A vestigial character is reduced and rudimentary compared to the same complex structure in other organisms

Most are, but I can think of one exception; the entirely normal wings, locked under fused elytra in some species of beetles.

so Barbarian will you go on record and admit that talkorgins is wrong on vestigial organs.

I would add that there is at least one exception. I haven't seen that article in a long time, but if I recall correctly, they did mention the fact.

the coccyx is considered vestigial even though apes do not have tails.

We have tails. They are just vestigial. Same bones, muscles, nerves, etc. as in primates that have prehensile/balancing tails.

so its considered vetigial to the supposed ape ancestors. so using that criteria, one can conclude that all organs are vestigal when compared to the proto cell or any supposed ancestor

Nope. Broca's area, for example. Or hooves. Or any of a million other things.

Barbarian observes:
Because it doesn't assume what it indicates to be true
.

you can not use vestigial organs as proof since it assumes the very thing you are trying to prove, which is evolution.

Nope. In fact, vestigial organs were one of the reasons evolutionary theory was first developed. You have it backwards. They were examined by people who didn't accept evolution, and were one of the reasons they came to realize evolution had happened. You might want to look up "homologous" to learn why this is so.

 

[The Barbarian]

It is almost certainly vestigial, since it no longer serves its original function,

What evidence do you have that it ever served any other function?

Consistent with speculations in the literature, our results show that the adipose fin may function to control vortices enveloping the caudal fin during swimming or, alternatively, function as a passive precaudal sensor of turbulent flow. Phylogenetic persistence of this trait among multiple groups of early bony fishes is probably due to its hydrodynamic attributes rather than developmental constraints, and the current widespread practice in fisheries of removing the adipose fin as a marking technique may have significant biological costs.

It seems it minimized drag, but now the evidence indicates that it works to sense the environment, to allow fish to swim more efficiently.

Apparently... in light of the assumption that evolution is true to begin with.

Again, the evidence is what matters, and I don't buy your postmodern idea that the truth is whatever you want to make of it.

It doesn't seem so apparent to those who don't hold the same assumptions.

Lack of knowledge can be an impediment, yes.

 

[jeffblue101]

We have tails. They are just vestigial. Same bones, muscles, nerves, etc. as in primates that have prehensile/balancing tails.

Apes do not have tails. the application of vestigial could apply to the entire body, therefore rendering the word completely useless in evolutionary biology.

Nope. Broca's area, for example. Or hooves. Or any of a million other things.

we lost the original function of the Broca's area in the human species unless you believe that humans have same speech patterns to the other apes. Humans don't have hooves, So I don't see your point on that one.

Nope. In fact, vestigial organs were one of the reasons evolutionary theory was first developed. You have it backwards. They were examined by people who didn't accept evolution, and were one of the reasons they came to realize evolution had happened. You might want to look up "homologous" to learn why this is so.

:rotfl:
Evolution was constructed on circular argument, thanks barbarian I needed a laugh!

 

[kalliste]

Broca's area?
Yes, Jeff, I do think that we have the same speech patterns as other apes.

That's why they can use our sign language and understand our symbols.

Humans may not have hooves, but some insist on wearing blinkers!

 

[One Eyed Jack]

It seems it minimized drag, but now the evidence indicates that it works to sense the environment, to allow fish to swim more efficiently.

Does it no longer minimize drag? How do you know it hasn't always served the same function(s)? Give me an argument that doesn't require me to assume evolution to begin with.

Again, the evidence is what matters, and I don't buy your postmodern idea that the truth is whatever you want to make of it.

That's not my idea, and I don't buy into it either.

 

[jeffblue101]

Broca's area?
Yes, Jeff, I do think that we have the same speech patterns as other apes.

no wonder that I have a hard time communicating with Darwinists. Thanks for clearing up that misconception :thumb:

That's why they can use our sign language and understand our symbols.

Apes don't use speech as we do, therefore vestigial.

 

[Cricket]

If it's not doing the normal function of a fin, it's vestigial. Plus, given the relatively small impact of it's removal can probably still be considered vestigial from that perspective

The idea was that the fin had no function. That idea was shown to be false.

tt

 

[Jukia]

The idea was that the fin had no function. That idea was shown to be false.

tt

Science really has no issue with determining that what it suggested earlier was incorrect based on new information. As opposed to those who must accept the oral tradition of Bronze Age shepherds or risk mythical hell fire.

 

[Cricket]

Science really has no issue with determining that what it suggested earlier was incorrect based on new information. As opposed to those who must accept the oral tradition of Bronze Age shepherds or risk mythical hell fire.

I don't understand what you mean. Are you aware that an evolutionary prediction was just shown false? Are you going to keep holding as strongly to the theory or has the theory been weakened?

tt

 

[Jukia]

I don't understand what you mean. Are you aware that an evolutionary prediction was just shown false? Are you going to keep holding as strongly to the theory or has the theory been weakened?

tt

Evolutionary theory remains the best explanation for the real world.
It is no weaker now than it was prior to this issue.