2 ms·
> 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/w
by roenxi 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
That looks like it could be useful. I don't see anything on Wikipedia suggesting it isn't. If you look at the ear it is a maze of wiggles and crevices with interesting auditory properties; that slight curve probably does something.
> Huh? Are you suggesting that female reproductive organs should be considered vestigial because males don’t have them? That’s not what vestigial means.
I agree, and it is obvious. But that isn't what you said or what I disagreed with. You claimed that it was because it don't occur in all humans that we know something is vestigial. Similarly to how you now seem to be trying to argue that vestigial organs are useless which is also obviously not true - most of them are probably there for a reason that we haven't identified.
And if you want to claim “Evolutionary pressure is pretty brutal to things that actually aren't used” is false then you'll need an argument for it. You claim it, then you make an unrelated argument that vestigial organs exist. Which is cool, but not an argument that they are useless. Again, vestigial organs might nonetheless still be useful so the argument is not related to the claim.
> 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.
That would be supported by me asking questions like "So what are you talking about? And do you have an argument or any evidence for why it might be so?". I don't think you've really thought all the way through your claims or word choice.
- dahart 2y ago> That looks like it could be useful. Hehe. Sure. > You claimed that it was because it don't occur in all humans that we know something is vestigial. Nope, you’re insisting on running on your own misunderstanding, even after I cleared it up. Doubling down on a straw man weakens your argument. Again, what I said is that some of the organs we suspect are vestigial have additional evidence that supports and confirms it, when some humans don’t have them and don’t miss them. We can literally see the lack of evolutionary advantage in the results. I’m just letting you know your ideas about evolution don’t match known science. It’s up to you to educate yourself, and it is up to you to defend your own claims. You can rationalize the uses and benefits of any given feature or body part all you want, the only thing that matters with evolution is the outcome. Humans have been getting larger over time, which completely disproves your claim about body mass, regardless of what you think or say. Some vestigial organs appear to be evolving away very very slowly, which matches the known theory, and also disproves your claim that evolution would remove things quickly. I have already mentioned multiple times the reason biologists say that evolution is sometimes very slow: because not everything in the body affects mortality or reproduction enough to result in any evolutionary force, and contrary to your claim, evolution does not cull traits without a force. You don’t have to believe me though. I’m happy to argue about incorrect statements on HN, but I don’t care if you want to hold on to your own ideas about evolution. Take this debate to your local university’s bio or anthro departments and see what they say.