3 ms·

> 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 othe

by 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.
    - dahart 2y ago
      Did you read the section on the ear, or any of the entries under musculature? Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_tubercle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_tubercle > you don’t accept that organs not occurring in all humans are vestigial […] several organs that don’t appear in all humans are absolutely critical. Huh? Are you suggesting that female reproductive organs should be considered vestigial because males don’t have them? That’s not what vestigial means. The vestigial organs that serve no known purpose and are missing in some humans demonstrates the lack of criticality and functionality, it demonstrates there’s no human dependency on them and that they actually don’t have any purpose. But not the other way around; a critical organ like a reproductive organ missing in some humans does not imply it’s vestigial… obviously. Is that confusing or hard to grasp? It feels like you’re trying to construct some sort of semantic or logical trap to prove a point, but it seems like you misunderstood me somewhere. Using reproductive organs as your example is a pretty bad idea - in humans, males aren’t missing female organs, nor vice versa. We start with the same organs, and they grow slightly differently. They aren’t missing. What I’m saying, plain and simple, is that your claim that “Evolutionary pressure is pretty brutal to things that actually aren't used” is false. (According to evolutionary biology, not according to me.) There is no pressure to evolve unless things affect survival (mortality or reproduction). Some organs evolved in the past and we still have genes for them, but they no longer serve their evolved purpose and also don’t affect mortality or mating in any significant way, and so there is no force to get rid of them. We call those organs vestigial. Some of them might be evolving away very slowly, which not occurring in all humans might suggest, and some might not - because whatever use they have is not affecting survival rates enough to matter.

by dahart 2y ago

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.
  - dahart 2y ago
    Did you read the section on the ear, or any of the entries under musculature? Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_tubercle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_tubercle > you don’t accept that organs not occurring in all humans are vestigial […] several organs that don’t appear in all humans are absolutely critical. Huh? Are you suggesting that female reproductive organs should be considered vestigial because males don’t have them? That’s not what vestigial means. The vestigial organs that serve no known purpose and are missing in some humans demonstrates the lack of criticality and functionality, it demonstrates there’s no human dependency on them and that they actually don’t have any purpose. But not the other way around; a critical organ like a reproductive organ missing in some humans does not imply it’s vestigial… obviously. Is that confusing or hard to grasp? It feels like you’re trying to construct some sort of semantic or logical trap to prove a point, but it seems like you misunderstood me somewhere. Using reproductive organs as your example is a pretty bad idea - in humans, males aren’t missing female organs, nor vice versa. We start with the same organs, and they grow slightly differently. They aren’t missing. What I’m saying, plain and simple, is that your claim that “Evolutionary pressure is pretty brutal to things that actually aren't used” is false. (According to evolutionary biology, not according to me.) There is no pressure to evolve unless things affect survival (mortality or reproduction). Some organs evolved in the past and we still have genes for them, but they no longer serve their evolved purpose and also don’t affect mortality or mating in any significant way, and so there is no force to get rid of them. We call those organs vestigial. Some of them might be evolving away very slowly, which not occurring in all humans might suggest, and some might not - because whatever use they have is not affecting survival rates enough to matter.