• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Another Evidence of Evolution.
Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
One rarely seen but very telling.
Life can traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
An immaculate 'creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.

Thanks to 'TalkOrigins'.
I Edited to Less than 1/10th of the article including what I felt was most poignant.
Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted for brevity.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Prediction 2.1: Anatomical vestiges

Some of the most renowned Evidence for evolution are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, both anatomical and molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...
[.......]
Geoffroy was at a loss for why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ", yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.

Confirmation:
There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence, snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles. Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity. Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...
Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes....
[.......]
The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth).
Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted (Notes). These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death [footnotes]

Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix.
While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."

Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,
the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back. Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system ... Our internal tail is Unnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...
[.......]
 
Last edited:
Another Evidence of Evolution.
Just part of an Overwhelming body of such.
One rarely seen but very telling.
Life can traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
An immaculate 'creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.

Thanks to 'TalkOrigins'.
I Edited to about 1/10th of the article including what I felt was most poignant.
Numerous illustrations within as well as references deleted brevity.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.


Which would explain why God said to the snake.

So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
 
snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.

Which would explain why God said to the snake.

So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

Or, you know, bronze age people saw snakes and told each other stories about them. People have always done this. We do it now. Why do people keep trying to find ways for the stories to predate the reality? That's such a weird response.

Also snakes don't eat dust. Nor is slithering particularly analogous to crawling.

Of course the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The entirety of modern biology relies on evolution to function. Our food supply is altered based on genetic evolution. Vaccines work by manipulating the evolution of viruses. Modern dogs exist because we artificially affected the evolution of wolves with artificial selection. The modern world is built on evolution, from the tiniest single-celled creature to humans. Evolution is a part of our lives every single day.

Not only is the evidence for evolution overwhelming, there is not a single piece of evidence to contradict it. There is not one fossil in the wrong strata. There is not one gene in the human genome that spontaneously appeared out of nowhere. There is not a single species of animal or plant whose ancestry to previous species cannot be examined. And there is absolutely nothing to suggest that there is some kind of arbitrary difference between large or small scale evolution. The distinction between micro and macro evolution is a semantic one that exists for our own compartmentalizing.
 
Or, you know, bronze age people saw snakes and told each other stories about them. People have always done this. We do it now. Why do people keep trying to find ways for the stories to predate the reality? That's such a weird response.

Also snakes don't eat dust. Nor is slithering particularly analogous to crawling.

Of course the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The entirety of modern biology relies on evolution to function. Our food supply is altered based on genetic evolution. Vaccines work by manipulating the evolution of viruses. Modern dogs exist because we artificially affected the evolution of wolves with artificial selection. The modern world is built on evolution, from the tiniest single-celled creature to humans. Evolution is a part of our lives every single day.

Not only is the evidence for evolution overwhelming, there is not a single piece of evidence to contradict it. There is not one fossil in the wrong strata. There is not one gene in the human genome that spontaneously appeared out of nowhere. There is not a single species of animal or plant whose ancestry to previous species cannot be examined. And there is absolutely nothing to suggest that there is some kind of arbitrary difference between large or small scale evolution. The distinction between micro and macro evolution is a semantic one that exists for our own compartmentalizing.

Snakes dont eat dust for sustenance that is true BUT you think when the snakes crawl and they are sticking out their tongues as they all commonly do, no dust ever gets on that tongue?

So tell me this how did the authors of Bible know that snakes at one time did not crawl as they do now. You have to admit it awful funny that the bible mentioned this and it is PROVEN FACT that they at one time did not crawl. Think it was a lucky guess?

also crawling and slithering are the same thing. here is a link to a thesaurus Crawl - Synonyms and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

crawl
verb
1
to move slowly with the body close to the ground <the time we had to crawl through a narrow passageway from one cave to another>
Synonyms belly, creep, grovel, slide, slither, snake, worm, wriggle


But hey your Theory of evolution states that they the serpent first developed limbs and then De-evolved them. makes no since But hey lets be honest you think we came from apes.
 
But hey your Theory of evolution states that they the serpent first developed limbs and then De-evolved them. makes no since But hey lets be honest you think we came from apes.

Um ... what.

You might want to read up on evolutionary theory before you attempt to critique it.
 
Um ... what.

You might want to read up on evolutionary theory before you attempt to critique it.

Kobie they are saying snakes had legs,which I agree with. But in their theory of evolution that would mean the snakes had to evolve the limbs first and then De-evolve them again. makes no since.

I just pulled the verse from the bible that also proved that snakes at one time did not crawl. But i will ask you how did the authors of the bible know that snakes at one time did not crawl. was it a lucky guess?
 
Kobie they are saying snakes had legs,which I agree with. But in their theory of evolution that would mean the snakes had to evolve the limbs first and then De-evolve them again. makes no since.

No, snakes did not have legs. An ancestor for snakes likely did. You don't "evolve limbs." You evolve advantageous traits. For a snake's niche in the ecosystem, legs are not necessarily an advantage. You really don't know what you're talking about.
 
Snakes dont eat dust for sustenance that is true BUT you think when the snakes crawl and they are sticking out their tongues as they all commonly do, no dust ever gets on that tongue?

That's right! God sure showed him!
 
Kobie they are saying snakes had legs,which I agree with. But in their theory of evolution that would mean the snakes had to evolve the limbs first and then De-evolve them again. makes no since.

I just pulled the verse from the bible that also proved that snakes at one time did not crawl. But i will ask you how did the authors of the bible know that snakes at one time did not crawl. was it a lucky guess?

Sea mammals used to be land animals too.

Vestigial legs and feet.
 
No, snakes did not have legs. An ancestor for snakes likely did. You don't "evolve limbs." You evolve advantageous traits. For a snake's niche in the ecosystem, legs are not necessarily an advantage. You really don't know what you're talking about.

according to the the linked article yes they did have legs and the bible also states they did not crawl at one time.

"Confirmation:
There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence, snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles"

So even the scientist admit yea snakes had legs, at one time.

But you did not answer my question.

How did the authors of the bible know that snakes at one time did not crawl? Since you seem to think you know WTF is going on in the world.
 
according to the the linked article yes they did have legs and the bible also states they did not crawl at one time.

"Confirmation:
There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence, snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles"

So even the scientist admit yea snakes had legs, at one time.

No, they didn't.

"Snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles." As in, those four-legged reptiles were not snakes.

But you did not answer my question.

How did the authors of the bible know that snakes at one time did not crawl? Since you seem to think you know WTF is going on in the world.

They saw reptiles with legs, they saw snakes without legs, they made up a story to explain why.
 
So tell me this how did the authors of Bible know that snakes at one time did not crawl as they do now. You have to admit it awful funny that the bible mentioned this and it is PROVEN FACT that they at one time did not crawl. Think it was a lucky guess?

Snakes have always slithered. Whatever creatures snakes descended from that did not slither weren't snakes. No, it wasn't a lucky guess. It wasn't even a guess. Nowhere in the story are snakes different beforehand and then altered later. Every common depiction of the snake in the garden has it without legs. You are inferring this from your own interpretation based on the actual science of evolution. Even in your (bad) attempts to disprove evolution, you show how you actually do adhere to it, even if you pretty clearly don't understand it very well. Bronze age people had no idea about how species changed, though they did understand that they could be altered with selective breeding. They also thought that the sun went around the Earth and that evil spirits caused natural disasters.

Also we didn't come from apes. We and apes came from a common ape-like ancestor that is long since extinct. Of course, we and fish also came from a common ancestor that is long since extinct, and we and broccoli also did so.
 
How did the authors of the bible know that snakes at one time did not crawl? Since you seem to think you know WTF is going on in the world.

No where in the Bible do they say this.
 
No, they didn't.

"Snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles." As in, those four-legged reptiles were not snakes.



They saw reptiles with legs, they saw snakes without legs, they made up a story to explain why.

snakes are not reptiles? interesting.

So according to your thinking then if a human evolved with lets say a few less fingers and toes then they would no longer be considered human huh?


well whatever we have reptiles with legs now and snakes with no legs now also what has evolved?


whatever i just love it when science proves the bible to be correct. I love it even more when atheists try to deny the facts.
 
Kobie they are saying snakes had legs,which I agree with. But in their theory of evolution that would mean the snakes had to evolve the limbs first and then De-evolve them again. makes no since.

I just pulled the verse from the bible that also proved that snakes at one time did not crawl. But i will ask you how did the authors of the bible know that snakes at one time did not crawl. was it a lucky guess?

Snakes suck and all the other animals have legs.

Not a big reach. Sounds like a "just so" story. Like "How the Elephant Got His Trunk"
 
snakes are not reptiles? interesting.

Who said that?

So according to your thinking then if a human evolved with lets say a few less fingers and toes then they would no longer be considered human huh?

Humans have evolved new traits over time and still been considered human. Look up "speciation" sometime.

well whatever we have reptiles with legs now and snakes with no legs now also what has evolved?

I don't even know what the hell this means.

whatever i just love it when science proves the bible to be correct. I love it even more when atheists try to deny the facts.

Science has not "proved the Bible to be correct." People in Biblical times made observations and explained them away with religion rather than science.
 
No where in the Bible do they say this.


So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
Genesis 3:14

It happened in the garden of eden.
 
Who said that?



Humans have evolved new traits over time and still been considered human. Look up "speciation" sometime.



I don't even know what the hell this means.



Science has not "proved the Bible to be correct." People in Biblical times made observations and explained them away with religion rather than science.

Right science admits yes snakes had legs at one time, The bible states the serpent was cursed to crawl on their belly. SO they obviously did not crawl before.
yep no connection there. Those Bible people just got lucky on that snake issue huh?
 
Would love to see staunch evolutionists apply the theory to flyers. So far no one can satisfactorily answer my question of how birds evolved. There are skeletal vestiges of intermediate species that have some feathers, but so what? How does that translate from being on the ground to being an aerial species, when evolution takes millions of years? There is no practical reason for that random mutation. It's not like generations of creatures spent their days jumping off cliffs until one day one of them grew some feathers and a million years later we have birds
 
So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
Genesis 3:14

It happened in the garden of eden.

And no where does it say that snakes have legs.
 
Right science admits yes snakes had legs at one time, The bible states the serpent was cursed to crawl on their belly. SO they obviously did not crawl before.
yep no connection there. Those Bible people just got lucky on that snake issue huh?

NO. NO IT DOES NOT. An ancestor of snakes had legs.
 
And no where does it say that snakes have legs.

No it does not mention how they traveled before they were cursed, BUT it does show that they did not crawl before.

But not enough evidence here for you to admit there is a connection?

science admits yes snakes did not always crawl and the bible states the snake was cursed to crawl on their belly.
 
No it does not mention how they traveled before they were cursed, BUT it does show that they did not crawl before.

But not enough evidence here for you to admit there is a connection?

science admits yes snakes did not always crawl and the bible states the snake was cursed to crawl on their belly.

No it did not. All the sentence says is that they will be cursed to crawl forever, not that they didn't crawl before. It's basic grammar.

Also, your understanding of evolution is just plain laughable. Educate yourself on a topic before you wish to discuss it, please.
 
Ancestor or not its still a snake.

Um, no, just as early hominids (ancestors of humans) were not humans.

"Snake" is not a species. Snakes are of the class reptilia, order squamata, suborder serpentes, and different types of snakes are species within that suborder. Lizards are also of the order squamata. The reptilia class also consists of turtles and crocodilians.
 
Back
Top Bottom