> 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, y

> 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.