4 ms·

> I don't see how it is fair to say "thought humans didn’t use". Did you not learn about "vestigal organs" in grade school? Maybe consensus has changed lately

> I don't see how it is fair to say "thought humans didn’t use". Did you not learn about "vestigal organs" in grade school? Maybe consensus has changed lately, but that at least used to be a thing.

roenxi 2y ago
What, if you learn about something at school it is automatically true? The same criticism applies there too. They were calling things like the appendix vestigial when it obviously isn't. People made a big deal about how it doesn't do anything and then it turns out it does something. Who'd have guessed. The so-called vestigial organs probably all have uses. I'd have a much easier time believing most of them do than none of them. Otherwise evolution would have done a much better job of weeding them out.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  > What, if you learn about something at school it is automatically true? It's a decent indication that people thought it was true.
- dahart 2y ago
  > The so-called vestigial organs probably all have uses. You’re right that some organs have been labeled vestigial and turned out not to be, but there are other organs that we know are vestigial because they don’t occur in all humans (same goes for other species). Evolution doesn’t weed things out without there being relatively strong effects on survival, and some of these things don’t affect survival so they drift. This also isn’t binary. There are organs that are still classified as vestigial, but have minor or secondary uses, perhaps enough for evolution to keep them around, or again perhaps because having them doesn’t result in any statistical mortality. Speculating and/or carrying beliefs that contradict modern evolutionary biologists probably isn’t going to work out. School might not be always right, but it is most of the time, and it’s right more often than no school, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > but there are other organs that we know are vestigial because they don’t occur in all humans That argument is completely invalid because it picks up the reproductive organs. At birth most humans don't have ovaries and those are anything but vestigial. It'd also mistake things like melanin production as vestigial because some humans have black skin and others white, when in reality it is a geographic adaption. Furthermore the argument misses situations where something is sometimes an advantage but generally a cost, like adaptions that are expensive to maintain but really help against certain irregular events (like famines, pandemics or more weird edge cases) or that are helpful in small doses (like autism, a couple of autistic geniuses floating around is a great outcome for everyone). > This also isn’t binary. There are organs that are still classified as vestigial, but have minor or secondary uses, perhaps enough for evolution to keep them around, or again perhaps because having them doesn’t result in any statistical mortality. Sure. But if vestigial doesn't mean useless then it isn't relevant to my complaint against the headline and the person bringing it up just made a rookie mistake.
    - dahart 2y ago
      I wasn’t talking about reproductive organs… obviously. How about reading some of the link I provided? > if vestigial doesn't mean useless then it isn't relevant to my complaint against the headline Having some minor use doesn’t imply there’s any evolutionary pressure. The problem with your comment about the headline is that your comment is incorrect; evolution does not automatically remove things. I don’t know why you would go to battle with known science, but good luck!
      - roenxi 2y ago
        So what are you talking about? And do you have an argument or any evidence for why it might be so? You're claiming there are organs that are vestigial because they don't occur in all humans, but then you don't accept that organs not occurring in all humans are vestigial. And they are clearly important - several organs that don't appear in all humans are absolutely critical. And you accept that vestigial organs have minor uses, but you don't seem to want to accept that "vestigial organs are not useless" is probably a correct statement (which lines up pretty well with the Wikipedia article, I might observe). Which parts of your comment are the parts that say something? What are they saying? It appears to me that you are saying there isn't any evolutionary pressure to keep things that are minorly positive to keep from an evolutionary perspective, which is surely a mis-read by me so I'm not sure what you are trying to get at.
RajT88 2y ago
They taught us the appendix was one such organ. Now they are thinking it actually has a use and is not at all vestigial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendix_(anatomy)#Maintaining_gut_flora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendix_(anatomy)#Maintaining...
- Izkata 2y ago
  I remember the pineal gland in the brain as well, that was part of why it got used as a source for psychic powers in older fiction.
  - RajT88 2y ago
    This was a memorable film which feature it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Beyond_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Beyond_(film) Based on Lovecraft, so it fits with "older fiction"

> I don't see how it is fair to say "thought humans didn’t use". Did you not learn about "vestigal organs" in grade school? Maybe consensus has changed lately, but that at least used to be a thing.

roenxi 2y ago

What, if you learn about something at school it is automatically true? The same criticism applies there too. They were calling things like the appendix vestigial when it obviously isn't. People made a big deal about how it doesn't do anything and then it turns out it does something. Who'd have guessed. The so-called vestigial organs probably all have uses. I'd have a much easier time believing most of them do than none of them. Otherwise evolution would have done a much better job of weeding them out.

tbrownaw 2y ago
> What, if you learn about something at school it is automatically true? It's a decent indication that people thought it was true.
dahart 2y ago
> The so-called vestigial organs probably all have uses. You’re right that some organs have been labeled vestigial and turned out not to be, but there are other organs that we know are vestigial because they don’t occur in all humans (same goes for other species). Evolution doesn’t weed things out without there being relatively strong effects on survival, and some of these things don’t affect survival so they drift. This also isn’t binary. There are organs that are still classified as vestigial, but have minor or secondary uses, perhaps enough for evolution to keep them around, or again perhaps because having them doesn’t result in any statistical mortality. Speculating and/or carrying beliefs that contradict modern evolutionary biologists probably isn’t going to work out. School might not be always right, but it is most of the time, and it’s right more often than no school, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality
- roenxi 2y ago
  > but there are other organs that we know are vestigial because they don’t occur in all humans That argument is completely invalid because it picks up the reproductive organs. At birth most humans don't have ovaries and those are anything but vestigial. It'd also mistake things like melanin production as vestigial because some humans have black skin and others white, when in reality it is a geographic adaption. Furthermore the argument misses situations where something is sometimes an advantage but generally a cost, like adaptions that are expensive to maintain but really help against certain irregular events (like famines, pandemics or more weird edge cases) or that are helpful in small doses (like autism, a couple of autistic geniuses floating around is a great outcome for everyone). > This also isn’t binary. There are organs that are still classified as vestigial, but have minor or secondary uses, perhaps enough for evolution to keep them around, or again perhaps because having them doesn’t result in any statistical mortality. Sure. But if vestigial doesn't mean useless then it isn't relevant to my complaint against the headline and the person bringing it up just made a rookie mistake.
  - dahart 2y ago
    I wasn’t talking about reproductive organs… obviously. How about reading some of the link I provided? > if vestigial doesn't mean useless then it isn't relevant to my complaint against the headline Having some minor use doesn’t imply there’s any evolutionary pressure. The problem with your comment about the headline is that your comment is incorrect; evolution does not automatically remove things. I don’t know why you would go to battle with known science, but good luck!
    - roenxi 2y ago
      So what are you talking about? And do you have an argument or any evidence for why it might be so? You're claiming there are organs that are vestigial because they don't occur in all humans, but then you don't accept that organs not occurring in all humans are vestigial. And they are clearly important - several organs that don't appear in all humans are absolutely critical. And you accept that vestigial organs have minor uses, but you don't seem to want to accept that "vestigial organs are not useless" is probably a correct statement (which lines up pretty well with the Wikipedia article, I might observe). Which parts of your comment are the parts that say something? What are they saying? It appears to me that you are saying there isn't any evolutionary pressure to keep things that are minorly positive to keep from an evolutionary perspective, which is surely a mis-read by me so I'm not sure what you are trying to get at.

RajT88 2y ago

They taught us the appendix was one such organ. Now they are thinking it actually has a use and is not at all vestigial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendix_(anatomy)#Maintaining_gut_flora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendix_(anatomy)#Maintaining...

Izkata 2y ago
I remember the pineal gland in the brain as well, that was part of why it got used as a source for psychic powers in older fiction.
- RajT88 2y ago
  This was a memorable film which feature it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Beyond_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Beyond_(film) Based on Lovecraft, so it fits with "older fiction"