Do you know what… never mind.
That’s right, never. Despite the dishonest attempts to cherry-pick and ignore the scientific definition.
Did you go to Ouachita?
Oh look, here’s another definition:
Vestigial: (biology) A structure in an organism that has lost all or most of its original function in the course of evolution, such as human appendixes.
What’s that word in bold say Dale?
What’s that word in bold say, Tim?
Gee, another definition:
Refers to an organ or part (for example, the human appendix) which is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function.
Vestigial structures provide a clue to the evolutionary history of a species because they are remnants of structures found in the ancestral species.
What do those words in bold say Dale?
G’night. You may have the last word if you must. I’m done with the schoolyard quarrel.
That’s one way to admit you were wrong and slink out. I’ll let the lurkers see who ran from the multiple scientific definitions I provided.
Well, I lied, too, because after I brushed my teeth, I came back.
Dear @Timothy_Horton. All that you’ve proven is that you can look up current definitions. …No, you’ve proven a couple of other things too.
Here’s an example of a creationist abusing the definition of “vestigial.”
“Vestigial organs are parts of the body that once had a function but are now more-or-less useless.”
Oh; wait. That sentence is from New Scientist Magazine --my mistake. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13927-five-things-humans-no-longer-need/
Oh, well. Semantic precision can’t be expected everywhere, until it becomes a handy tool to bludgeon those you disagree with, and avoid the deeper issues actually at hand.
Does the human appendix digest cellulose? Nope. Therefore, the human appendix is still vestigial. Does the ostrich wing allow the species to fly? Nope. Therefore, those wings are still vestigial.
Also, scientists have concluded that 90% of the human genome is junk because of evidence, such as lack of sequence conservation. Nothing I have read from Dr. Rana addresses this evidence, and all of the arguments I have seen fail rather badly. For example, finding an Alu sequence that has function does not mean that all Alu insertions have function.
Perhaps this quote will help you understand the concept:
I already understand it; thank you, however, for your attempts to be sure.
Did you not notice that, in order to understand the quote I cited as an equivocation, I had to already understand its meaning did not, in, fact, have to convey entire uselessness or lack of function? It’s a “how much, versus how little” question, as I’ve said previously.
You do realize I was being deliberately ironic in that post, right?
When were scientists allowed to do such things, Guy?
I encourage you, if nothing else, to make use of the reply button attached to the post you’re replying to rather than the reply button at the bottom of the page, which attaches to nothing. That would provide at least a little context to help in interpreting your comments. And people need a lot of help.
Scientists are allowed to do such things every day, but not neccessarily to human beings.
The professionals (physicians, clinicians, social workers) who were carrying out these acts felt as though they were doing so with good scientific warrant.
There’s no sense in denying it; virtually any science, or even moral teaching, can be misunderstood and misapplied.
The appendix doesn’t have to digest cellulose to be vitally useful; this alone makes the assumption that it’s a vestigial organ, whose “original” function no longer continues, a suspect one. How do you know it’s a vestigial stomach?
Either way, it amounts to a classification which, if misapplied or misconstrued, can actually be used to do harm.
If it was vitally useful then people would die without it. Obviously, this isn’t the case.
The appendix is part of a large caecum in other species, and that caecum is responsible for digesting plant matter. It doesn’t do that in humans. What we have left is a rudimentary structure that has taken on functions similar to the wings on ostriches.
Vestigial organs can still have function. Please catch up.