Information on Body Waxing…

http://umeshbilagi.blogspot.com/

Topic :-Vestigial organs not necessarily proof of evolution for Darwin

I would postulate that it is possible to have a vestigial organ [ananatomical structure in organisms in a species, thought to have lost its original function through evolution] without the process of evolution. Let me illustrate this idea using an analogy drawn from popular computer software.

Assuming, I have a reasonable amount of storage space on my computer hard disk, if I first create an unformatted document using Microsoft(MS) Word, and then a second MS Word document that I format very rigorously, I do so because I consider MS Word software to be the best option for my purposes, as opposed to using, say, the less sophisticated Notepad software, where little formatting of documentsis possible.

Now, if you argue that there is a vestigial structure to the first MSWord document (the capacity – in this case, unused – for formatting)and that this only became functional in the second document,ultimately concluding that the first document evolved from the second document, you would be incorrect, since I am the creator of both documents.

Similarly, I would argue that vestigial organs do not necessarily confirm evolution; they only point to what tools – improvable overtime – the creator used while making the species. This same principle is seen even in electronic gadgets today.

Most probably, such an explanation did not occur to Darwin given that, in his time, there were no common tools to carry out varied, complex,seemingly disconnected jobs. So he concluded that unless a creator planned to mislead us, vestigial organs should not have existed

It is tendency of creators of to make some useful common tools, which can be used to carry out multiple jobs (or to make machines). so by virtue of this comman tools (if tools get fitted into machines), vestigenesity will come up.

Vestigial organs can be classified in to verticle & tranverse ones

Verticle ones are like appendix which are inherited from ancestor to next species

Tranverse one are in which one sex has fuctional capacity & in opposite sex it is vestigineous

Example
Vertiginous Male breast can be better explained tools of intelligent design than Darwin evolution now look at male nipple which are functional in female. Male & female have come much before mammals, so presence of male nipple in mammals can be explained by theory of tools of intelligent design better than Darwin evolution.

“If genetic mutations occur in wild as well as domesticated animals, why shouldn’t environmental pressures select for beneficial changes as much as human breeders?”

Simply because the environmental pressures can’t possibly have a clue about what the designed end-product requires.

This is just a small example of science’s immense potential for revitalized opportunities. Whereas chance and necessity are basic for a “first glance” there is more. Once the possibility of design is allowed for, science will be enriched with a new degree of freedom.

A basic law of the Universe is that where freedom is permitted, truth flourishes. A working democracy demonstrates that truth and freedom demand a viable, if not loyal, opposition to survive. In the case of science, a healthy skepticism is paramount. Fixating on the stifling notions in neo-Darwinism is not progress in anybody’s language.

Sorry, got carried away.

“Who says vestigials are perpetuated? We’re just seeing a snapshot of one stage of an immensely long process of evolution. Ten thousand years from now the human appendix might have disappeared altogether.”

My ancient textbooks implied that vestigial organs were proof of evolution: they were what was left from something that was once useful.

Now that we know that many previously designated useless organs are, in fact, useful, I doubt that usefulness will disappear.

Thanks- BTW I do see the problem. It happens to be you.

Does anyone else see a problem here?

1of63:
That would be ideal, yes, but something like “Made in Heaven” or “Best before the year 20,000,000,000″ buried in our DNA would be good too.

Thank you for showing us that you are NOT interested in science.

1of63:
As for Sermonti, it’s all very poetic but I’m not sure what point he’s trying to make.

His point is crystal clear. Population variation ocsillates and that sexual reproduction put an end to evolution- that is the Common Descent that evolutionists perpetuate.

1of63:
In the absence of any evidence for a Creator or Designer, the best explanation has to be adaptive evolution.

I take it you require a meeting with the Creator or Designer before you will accept anything as evidence.

That would be ideal, yes, but something like “Made in Heaven” or “Best before the year 20,000,000,000″ buried in our DNA would be good too.

1of63:
If artificial selection can produce significant variation then it is but a short step to allowing that so can natural selection.

Artificial selection does things that natural selection cannot and would not. Natural selection culls the population thereby REDUCING the variation possibilities. Soon the population will be pidgeon-holed to a niche.

Except that the environment is constantly changing the pidgeon-holes on us. Adaptations that work in one environment might not work in another and vice versa. One environment might cull one set of variations but another environment might cull a whole different set.

As for Sermonti, it’s all very poetic but I’m not sure what point he’s trying to make. Such evidence as we have indicates that most of the species that have ever existed have gone extinct so the odds are that we’ll go the same way given time.

I still fail to see how the reality of a successful process for designer animals provides a “short step” to the possibility of the same sort of process for wild animals.

If genetic mutations occur in wild as well as domesticated animals, why shouldn’t environmental pressures select for beneficial changes as much as human breeders?

DaveScot’s implication that vestigials are reproduction “noise” seems to be a reasonable idea.

You’d also expect to see them as byproducts of animals adapting to constantly changing environments.

What kind of natural selection would be so persistent in perpetuating vestigials? IOW, why is it so useful to perpetuate uselessness?

Who says vestigials are perpetuated? We’re just seeing a snapshot of one stage of an immensely long process of evolution. Ten thousand years from now the human appendix might have disappeared altogether.

If we start out with a perfect design and it deteriorates through imperfect reproduction we would expect to see vestiges of functional components that no longer function because they became flawed.

A perfect design could not deteriorate and still be perfect by definition, otherwise, yes.

This is actually the observable trajectory of evolution today. Nothing new and useful is being created. There is only rearrangement of that which already exists or loss of that which already exists. Where’s the evolution in that? Aptly labeled it is devolution.

Why do you need devolution?

Evolution is partly about organisms adapting to environments which are themselves constantly changing. And life seems to have done pretty well for itself over the billions of years it’s been on Earth in spite of a few catastrophic setbacks.

Another point is that, in terms of geological time, our brief span on this planet means we have seen, at best, just one frame of a very long movie. Who knows what life, including us, will be like a billion years from now – assuming it’s still around, of course? We should beware of temporal parochiality.

We have an observed process. It works for domesticated animals, why not for wild ones?

We have also observed that in all cases where we can determine the origin of a machine its design sprang from the mind of an intelligent being. Why would this not be the case for machines of undetermined origin?

No reason, like I said, the possibility of a designer can’t be ruled out.