Talk:Human vestigiality

Thermoregulatory effect of Human Arrectores pilorum
Raising the hair is also used to trap an extra layer of air, keeping an animal warm. This reflex formation of goosebumps when cold therefore has a useful function in humans with thick body hair, but the reflex to form them under stress is vestigial.

Although humans' Arrectores pilorum also contract in response to cold or arousal, they are vestigial because humans do not have enough hair to make them effective. –Erectores_pilorum
 * 1) No source is cited to provide evidence that even “particularly hairy humans” are hairy enough to trap a sufficient volume of air to be considered an efficient thermoregulatory mechanism. Without such evidence, the classification of their function as “useful,” even in such people, is unwarranted. Unfortunately, I am unaware of any studies conducted that measure the efficiency.
 * 2) The question of whether or not the contraction of Arrectores pilorum, when a human is cold, is an efficient thermoregulatory mechanism in particularly hairy humans is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the mechanism is vestigial in an overall sense. There is no contention that their contraction, when cold, is has no significant thermoregulatory effect in most humans, thus overall, the mechanism is vestigial in regards to thermoregulation, as well as emotion. (regardless of whether or not particularly hairy humans are exceptions)
 * 3) Even the Wikapidia article on Arrectores pilorum arrives at the same conclusion (despite requiring a necessary citation to provide sufficient evidence to that end):

For these reasons, I have reworded the Human vestigiality article as follows: Raising the hair is also used to trap an extra layer of air, keeping an animal warm. Due to the diminished amount of hair in humans, the reflex formation of goosebumps when cold, as well as when under stress, is vestigial. FutureMolecularBio (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Vestigiality and it's use/relation to evolutionary study/phylogenetics
it seems it would be very useful to show more of how vestigiality in humans and other animals are related - for example: humans/primates don't use their appendix anymore, but what groups of the mammal phylogenetic tree still do? - or which primates don't have a tail and which do? just something I was myself wondering... Spettro9 (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. It would be nice to have a section that talks about homologous traits/vestigial traits and how they are related. It would add new depth to the article beyond just listing a bunch of traits. Bennett.829 (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)bennett.829

Wisdom Teeth?
I have encountered research* that suggests that the diet of hunter-gatherer societies and the original diets of indigenous peoples prevented/still prevents abnormalities of the dental arch, including crowded and misplaced teeth. I am removing Wisdom Teeth from the list of human vestigial organs, unless someone can find a better source to support this idea.


 * Price, Weston Andrew. 1945. Nutrition and Physical Degeneration: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects. Redlands, Calif.

Disconformist 21:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't follow at all. How does this make their wisdom teeth non-vestigial? Do they come through like normal teeth or something? This affects the article wisdom teeth and vestigiality as well, so changes need to be consistent, though I think it should be discussed first. They should never be removed from this article, even if they were only a historical example, though I don't see at all how they could possibly be considered non-vestigial when they don't come through until many past humans would have been dead and when they do they usually only cause problems. I haven't got that book at a nearby library and there is no page number, so I can't really check up on this one. Could you provide a little more context?


 * In Descent of Man, Darwin writes that wisdom teeth are more variable than other teeth, which is a sign of vestigiality. He also writes that they are more vestigial in the 'civilized' races as opposed to African race, which he attributes to diet. Richard001 23:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If wisdom teeth are more vestigial in societies whose diet has changed as a result of agriculture, then their vestigiality is largely dependent on the society in which the diet exists. In addition, peoples living in societies where diet is non-agricultural have no issues with their wisdom teeth. They come in with no problem at all. All of the present-day wisdom teeth difficulties come from the diet of the person having the difficulties, and have nothing to do with a predisposed biological basis.
 * Also, when you say that wisdom teeth come in "until many past humans would have been dead," you are assuming that they came in at the same time they currently do. Disconformist 00:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, what mechanism is proposed that allows them to come in sooner? And how does diet make them grow crooked? This is like ESP, I'm very skeptical if you can't provide a mechanism by which the teeth are delayed and rearranged in alignment by diet. Richard001 01:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did my research, you can see what I've written and improve if need be. Disconformist 02:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts here, but I'm confused as to why you don't think the wisdom teeth are vestigial. One hypothesis is that they are no longer needed because our species stopped eating so much plant food. Another suggests it was because we cook our food and make it softer. I don't see how that suggests they are any less vestigial, and both of these ideas seem to compliment each other in explaining their reduction. Richard001 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess what I'm attempting to explain is that wisdom teeth are not *biologically* vestigial. They are *culturally* vestigial, and I think that makes a lot of difference.
 * Disconformist 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, I see that now with your changes. I'll have to do more reading on this. Cultural vestigiality is interesting too, especially as our environment changes so rapidly. Can we call a trait that is vestigial to modern societies vestigial? It's certainly debatable, as we have no idea what environment we will be living in in the future (and for better or worse, it will certainly be different from our current one). Richard001 23:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we using the word "culture" here as a surrogate for "race", now? or am i missing something... Spettro9 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken in assuming that its an agricultural diet that causes a smaller jaw in humans. It is a processed diet that does so, which causes humans to do less work with their jaw and subsequently does not grow as heavily.--Cutterfl (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The influence of diet on tooth wear and eruption is discussed here (link). Tim Vickers (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not gonna bother signing this (neither will I edit, don't worry), but I'm annoyed. Articles like this one are why the United States, a heavy user of English-language encyclopedias both offline and on, is falling behind in scientific literacy. Only a PETA nut or someone who has not looked hard at the evidence from a cross-discipline point of view is honestly going to believe primates were ever true herbivores. Most primates live by a mix of inherited genetics and taught culture, and are capable of changing their diets according to whim rather than survival value. Gorillas and orangs, the biggest salad-eaters in the primate order, are mostly sedentary with a lot of belly fat--rather like us. I think they eat plants for the easy pickings and the taste, not because they need them--I've heard of gorillas eating meat in captivity, with no ill effects. There's no reason for us to have stereoscopic vision, no reason for us to have canine teeth and no reason for us to be utterly lacking in digestive protozoa, a gizzard, or multiple stomachs, nor for us to be producing so high a level of gastric acid if we have evolved from some weird species of cow or horse with opposable thumbs. Ideology is not science. No matter how many cute widdle fuzzybunnywabbits you think you're saving. The appendix does not appear in cattle or horses; it's not in rabbits either. It *is* in some primates--in fact, researchers sometimes have trouble with appendicitis in their captive primates! And current thinking says primates evolved from an insectivore ancestor. PETA won't like it, but who cares.

As for the person above who wants to know the mechanism for a jaw to not develop properly, well, we don't know for sure, but logically speaking, if a person is undernourished then their body will conserve nutrients to the best extent possible. You don't need a fully-developed jaw to survive. You only need one that works. You do need well-developed arms, legs, spine, and brain case, though, so guess where the minerals go first. Experiments have already shown that animals can be underdeveloped or be missing body parts entirely from malnutrition alone; research demonstrated that a lack of vitamin A caused a lack of eyes in newborn pigs! When those eyeless pigs matured they were fed vitamin A; when they farrowed, *their* piglets had eyes. It isn't always genetics that determine how an organism turns out, at least not directly.

Honestly, I think we overstate the case for jaw exercise. Does it matter? I think it does, somewhat, but I also think we're projecting our biases too much on prehistoric people. Have you ever *eaten* meat, even off of a bone? If you don't dry it out or overcook it, it's pretty soft! Even jerky doesn't have to be tough if you slice it thinly enough and dry it out very well; the habit of some Native Americans for making pemmican would have rendered dried meat even easier still to chew. Much of the meat that was cooked immediately was boiled in water. That makes meat soft as well. And of course, eaten raw as some peoples did, it's soft that way too. There were roots available, certainly, but we already know the human palate strongly prefers fat; it was no different with prehistoric people. Given the choice between a hunting kill and a tough plant part, it's not difficult to figure out what they would have preferred. So, honestly, I'm not sure they *would* have gotten more jaw exercise than we do. Maybe they made up the difference chewing sinew to make weapons and clothes, or something. I don't know, and you don't either. Fact remains that the "primitives" Weston Price, DDS examined weren't that different from the "civilized" he also examined; they lived in houses, grew crops, wore recognizable articles of clothing, and used relatively modern tools. The difference was they ate local foods according to ancient customs, and prepared their own dishes, preferring nutrient-dense foods overwhelmingly--and I saw the photos; their faces showed the difference. Compared to them we starve ourselves, on many different levels, and we deny our own species needs as well. No wonder that on average we modern people are runty and sick. --Anonymous

Eye
"The plica semilunaris of Africans and Indigenous Australians have been said to have slightly larger than other peoples.[2] "


 * Why is this necessary? It appears to be suggesting that African and Indigenous Australians are lower in the evolutionary scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.236.195 (talk) 07:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Variation is pretty important in understanding homology, including vestigial structures. Any idea of an 'evolutionary scale' seems to be your own invention. Richard001 (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll check Darwin's text to see if the context is more elucidative, does not seems to be really noteworthy to me, I think it's pretty much equally vestigial much before the human lineage to be worth mentioning as a [i]human[/i] vestigiality; and about these variations, I don't think that the way they're being described helps to stablish that these are homologue structures rather something totally unrelated. If somehow, this variation didn't exist, if all plica semilunaris in humans were about the same size they are in Europeans and/or Asians, then no one would be able to tell that our plica semilunaris is the plica semilunaris of other animals, in a less developed state? I don't think so, neither it's clear how the variation helps to "prove" it. I also think they may not even represent meaningful stages of "more" or "less" vestigiality, as far as I know. For example, Africans are quite varied to begin with, but some of them have somewhat smaller eye sockets, which may give the impression that the plica semilunaris is larger or may provoke it to develop larger as a byproduct that has no relation with more-or-less vestigiality whatsoever. But that's just my guess. If it have different degrees of functionality, would be interesting to mention. Not having read more about it, I'm with the impression that it's somewhat like pointing that between our fingers and toes there are very little tiny interdigital membranes, webbings, remants of the amphibians'. To me if this is noteworthy, so would be (in addition to the webbing example) the fact that Europeans have more vestigial body hair (actually, everybody, from everywhere, have the same amount of hair or hair follicles than a chimpanzee, but they're just underdeveloped, if I correctly recall Desmond Morris' "the naked ape"), and Europeans and Asians have their hair more like most of the other primates and mammals [I think I've read things suggesting that it could be homoplasic at least to some degree, I don't know --Extremophile (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)]. This also seems somewhat less dubious, both as a human-specific vestigiality, and the the variation seems to be less possibly accidental, but actually representing different degrees of vestigiality (which is not to place any particular continent population at any hierarchical "kickass" or "loser" place on the "evolutionary scale", not even as more or less primitive; the "parent" populations kept evolving after "children" populations split and evolved somewhat separatedly, divergently). As a minor note, I think it's wrong to say it's the "third" eyelid... wouldn't it be the second, as there are one for each eye? It's not like we have it in one eye only, in a total of 3 eyelids. Or do we have yet another pair of eyelids besides plica and the "normal" one? --Extremophile (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I don't have a reference, I know for certain that the plica semilunaris varies across individuals. This is because I have a functioning, but involuntary, nictitating membrane. Mine is white and opaque. I was told that this trait is common in Northern China and Mongolia, but I have never been able to confirm this. I am white and from european ancestry, not that it matters. HairyWombat (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the section on a function for the Orbitalis muscle (Muller's muscle) as what I can read of the cited source, Muller's muscle, no longer vestigial in endoscopic surgery, only talks about the muscle's use as an anatomical landmark, which doesn't constitute a non-vestigial function. The contributor mentioned the protruding of the eye as a function but the abstract of the paper makes no mention of this and the same authors are still describing the Orbitalis muscle as vestigial in subsequent similar papers, Anatomy of the Inferior Orbital Fissure: Implications for Endoscopic Cranial Base Surgery. Since I don't have full access to the cited article I can't be 100% positive so if anyone with such access wants to check this out we could know for certain. Knight of the sorrowful countenance (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Bug in "coccyx" section
"In rare cases it can persist after birth." ~ What's 'it'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.243.195.136 (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Reworded, thank you. Tim Vickers 17:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove Sense of Smell Section
The "sense of smell" section doesn't fit with the rest of the sections on human vestigiality. Sense of smell is still being acted on by natural selection. The section makes a point of this and ignores it. If someone can smell toxic fumes, they know to leave the room and are subsequently able reproduce, and thus able to pass on their "nose" gene. To further emphasize the distinction, several other sections point to parts of the body which either aren't being acted on by natural selection (the muscles that move the ear, as we no longer have shaped ears) and parts that are being pushed out for other parts which are being acted on by natural selection. The 2.1.2.3 dentition of humans in the wisdom teeth section is important, for instance, because many humans are being born with 2.1.2.2 dentition as skull cavity gets bigger. The evolutionary trend has been tracked through Australopithecus (robustus and africanus) and homo erectus & ergaster and into homo sapiens sapiens (American whites, 1954 study1) as a reduction in molar size (M2 at 14 in Africanus and 10 in AmerWhites and M3 at 10 in AmerWhites down from 15 in Africanus (number is derived from adding the length and width of the crown and dividing by two) Bigger brains either means bigger heads or smaller faces. Also, pet peeve. For dynamic subjects like evolution, can we use more recent articles than The Descent of Man? If this were an entry on phrenology I'd understand but Darwin hasn't been in his field for almost a century and a half.

1Robinson, J.T (1954) Prehominid Dentition and Hominid Evolution.Lawrence, KS.: Evolution vol. 8 pp. 324-334


 * If you want to use more recent references, please do so. Darwin used olfaction as an example in Descent. The article isn't suggesting olfaction as a whole is not under selection, but that the ability to detect some chemicals is. Richard001 (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the sense of smell is flawed in another way. I wouldn't say it's vestigial to begin with, unless in some very specific aspect, maybe detecting pheromones or something more qualitatively distinct. If some eagle that can see just enough for its niche evolves from a eagle with astounding, much better sight, would be its vision "vestigial" in comparison with the ancestor sense? Humans certainly have much less sense of smell than earlier primates, but I'm not sure if it fits the description of vestigial, neither I think that the variation presented again has anything to do with different degrees of vestigiality. If it exists, it would probably be better evidentiated with traits such as bigger nasal chambers and maybe even genes for smell receptors, if they vary. The way the article puts it, seems that civilized peoples of European and Asian descent may have evolutionarily lost more of their sense of smell than those people, which is very unlikely the case. The sense of smell is also big part of our sense of taste, which is not thought to be underdeveloped in civilized peoples, as far as I know (I remember watching something about a person who lost his sense of smell, and was unable to differentiate the taste of coffee from the taste of tea). The difference is probably due to different degrees of stimulation and development of the sense, not so much varying degrees of innate potential. Then, wine and coffee connoisseurs with acute sense of smell and taste need not be recruited from indigenous tribes, they are more often of European descent, with a long history of living where a sense of smell is not needed in this "wild" sense, and yet, the is not being eroded by lack of selection for it, or so it seems. --Extremophile (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, the section simply fails to cite any modern authority for its central claims. The reasoning may be sound, but even if it is correct it appears to be original research (or anyway original conjecture).0nullbinary0 (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference 2 seems very racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.148.52.162 (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The thing that strikes me is that the Ear and Eye both have entries in the anatomy section. Shouldn't all the sensory organs be under sensory or under anatomy? The vomeronasal organ (VNO) seems to have a deserved place in this article but the rest seems a bit speculative as it stands. Having said that, there is molecular evidence for variation between caucasians and pygmies in olfactory receptor (OR) protein complement and a clear loss of functional OR genes in humans and the primate lineage generally compared to other mammals. It seems to me that perhaps the VNO should have it own place in the anatomy section and that olfactory receptor gene complement material would be more suitable for the molecular section. Wounded king (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that a developed sense of smell is selected for, even ignoring rare cases like toxic fumes or eating spoiled food. I propose that more sensitive olfactory systems and an increased level of personal and domestic hygiene are correlated, and that both of those are desirable traits in potential partners. Sadly, I'm not a biologist, so I don't have a source for this.137.205.124.72 (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Link to german article
i think this article is pretty much the equivalent of the german article Rudiment. Maybe someone (who knows how to do that) could link the two pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehnwo (talk • contribs) 15:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism in Molecular section
In this revision, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_vestigiality&oldid=295724484, (the one immediately previous to the addition of the template) the last four paragraphs of the Molecular section are copied verbatim from the url indicated. The placement of the plagiarism template in that section wiped that stuff out though it seems. --Rajah (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Simiesc prognatism

 * The prognatism is a vestigiality of the link with the monkeys/animals and "humans"(os mais próximos fenotipicamente e neuro-genotipicamente dos animais/símios/afins..)..!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.52.147.65 (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Vestigiality or atavism in something like chin or the mandibles, or even hair, or whatever, does not imply necessarily in a general closer proximity to ancestral forms in all traits or in some "essential" way, akin to the individual being a "downward step" on the "evolutionary ladder". There are different things labeled as "prognathism". One is a sort of malformation, see prognathism. The other is just, on the human scale, a phenotypically similar variation (also dealt with in the aforementioned article, I guess), but I think we don't know whether either of these are truly vestigial in comparison with less prognathic variation, that is, homologue in nature. Some certainly aren't, when induced by thumb sucking, for instance. To make things more complicated, there is not a single trend, gibbons and gorillas, more distant from humans than chimapanzees, possibly less derived from a common ancestor in various aspects, are also less prognathic than chimpanzees, making "all" the slight variation possibly vestigial in some sense. A similar problem exists, I think, with variation on skin color, racial variation in body hair, or even straight hair. I think it's hard to tell whether those traits are homologues to earlier states or substantially novelties, but also highly homoplasic due to common developmental mechanisms. The same thing with eventual "wolf people", I think, when classifying it as atavic or not. With true tails it's more clear, I think. I don't much about these things, and I doubt that there is much research focusing specifically the classification as vestigially. The closest thing, less risky of original research, perhaps could be variation towards "chinlessness" in women and some peoples, and maybe some "archaic" dental traits, as the chin is more exclusively "sapiens". --Extremophile (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Robert Wiedersheim
I made a recent edit removing a sentence from the History section discussing Robert Wiedersheim, the sentence contained a short quote "By such organs are meant those which were formerly of greater physiological significance than at present." and suggested this was a change in wording from a previous edition, calling it subtle and significant. The section does not expand upon how this is significant, nor do I see it's significance. My main objection however is that the section claimed that this quote was a change between 2 editions when it is not. The section it claims it was a modification of is from page 200 of the translated 2nd edition of 'The Structure of Man' while the quote I removed is from the introduction on page 2  of the same edition. Knight of the sorrowful countenance (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Robert Wiedersheim's list
Robert Wiedersheim had a list of about 80-180 vestigial structures in humans. It would be interesting to take a look at that.
 * Although Wiedersheim originally published a list of 86, later interpretations enlarged his list to 180 vestiges. Thus the zoologist Newman stated in the Scopes Trial: "There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities."

Some of the vestigial organs or organs containing evolutionary vestigial structures, as listed on the article about him:


 * Adenoids
 * Appendix, now speculated to assist with the body's immune system, also providing a storage site for beneficial bacteria during natural bowel cleansing.
 * Nipples on males.
 * Nodes on ears, "Darwin's points"
 * Parathyroid
 * Pineal gland
 * Pituitary gland
 * Plantaris muscle
 * Thymus
 * Toes bones III, IV, V
 * Tonsils
 * Valves in veins
 * Wisdom teeth

I remember reading something interesting about valves in veins. They apparently make more sense for a quadrupedal stance. I'll search for more about these things, but I'll leave it here as a tip just in case someone find it curious and want to add to the article too. --Extremophile (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would assume valves in veins make a lot of sense in animals with upright or generally high bodies. For example in a giraffe rather than in a crocodile. Imagine your heart is not very strong. It would be difficult to pump the blood from the toes back up to the heart. With valves in the veins of the legs, it can be pumped in several steps, and it won't flow back down.
 * Tonsils make sense as part of the immune system. And I've never heard of tonsils having a different function in animals.
 * All the glands still work.
 * But the nipples on males and the superficial toe bones are very good examples for vestigals--TeakHoken91.33.14.206 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I made some recent edits to the list on the Robert Wiedersheim page as a number of the structures on the original page were not in the list as it appeared on p.200 of Wiedersheim's book. Some are from an alternate list of structures which have moved position. A number of the structures, particularly muscles, are considered vestigial based on their variability and sporadic absence in human. Is it worth putting up the whole list of 86 structures somewhere? 193.63.65.242 (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The vestigial grasp of infants
Correct me if I am wrong, but are not primitive reflexes part of human vestigiality? In Jerry Coynes book Why Evolution is True he speaks of a babies grasp being an evolutionary vestigial reflex.

An excerpt:

“The final example from humans takes us into the realm of speculation, but is too appealing to omit. This is the “grasping reflex” of newborn babies. If you have access to an infant, gently stroke the palms of its hands. The baby will show a reflex response by making a fist around your finger. In fact, the grasp is so tight that an infant can, using both hands, hang for several minutes from a broomstick. (Warning: don’t try this experiment at home!) The grasping reflex, which disappears several months after birth, may well be an atavistic behavior. Newborn monkeys and apes have the same reflex, but it persists throughout the juvenile stage, allowing the young to hang on to their mother’s fur as they’re carried about.”

I understand that this is stated as speculation, but is there verified research on this reflex?

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/the-vestigial-grasp-of-infants/

I consider that if appropriate evidence was found it could be an addition to the article.

More sources for the claim:
 * Psychology by Peter Gray (fifth edition) - page 66.
 * Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne – page 85-86
 * Archetype: A Natural History of the Self by Anthony Stevens – page 87

Andrew Colvin (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That would actually be an excellent addition, and I think the URL you gave is a good enough source - Coyne is a reputable scientist, after all. Mokele (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Male nipples
Do male nipples count as vestiges?

From what I've read, they don't have any prior function, but only exist in men because nipples develop prior to sexual differentiation. Does a structure need to have had a prior function to be considered vestigial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.104.195 (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * They don't count because they're the product of shared developmental pathways. In order to be vestigial, the structure must be useless in both sexes. Mokele (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, some males can lactate, and practically i've heard any male can do it but it's difficult and one needs to be subject to high stress. If Women stop breast feeding, then is it vestigial? --75.159.2.59 (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Outdated racial classifications
Specifically, this sentence: "This muscle is very sporadic in frequency always "present" in Malays, in 56% of "blacks", 50% of Japanese, 36% of Europeans, and is "nonexistent" in Hottentots and Melanesians". Now I realize this information was lifted from a text published in 1875, when some of the terms would have been considered appropriate, but this is 2010. Could a more modern source be found for this information? vlad§inger tlk  23:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Human Tale
At what point did a tail stop being useful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.22.204 (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yolk sac
Human embryos have a yolk sac even though they do not obtain nutrition from yolk (the yolk sac does perform other secondary functions, though).

“A phylogenetic remnant that was better developed in an ancestor is vestigial. The pelvic girdle of whales is said to be vestigial because ancestors of whales were tetrapods with functional tetrapod appendages. The yolk sac of the mammalian embryo is vestigial.” (George C. Kent & Robert K. Carr, Comparative Anatomy of the Vertebrates: Ninth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2001, p26) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.235.88 (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The pelvic bones of snakes are vestigial. The appendix of humans are vestigial Peter Yankson (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Definition of vestigial
"Judgeking" deleted useful paragraphs that give examples of human body structures that had important functions in our evolutionary past and which biologists once believed have little or no function in humans, but for which important functions in humans were later discovered. The reason given for the deletion was "Once again, vestigal doesn't mean it serves no purpose, only that it has lost most or all of its ORIGINAL purpose." Such a definition is useless because in many cases a functional structure in modern humans is homologous to some structure in our evolutionary past that had a different function. Our arms and legs are homologous to fins and flippers in fish. Because in fish the original function of fins and flippers was to enable navigation in the water, does that make our arms and legs vestigial? Of course not. What makes a human body structure vestigial is that presently it is useless or almost useless, i.e. having no important function. Greensburger (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The references you listed do not backup your statements, they mention mainly the appendix, and a few other structures. The rest of your edit appears to be original research or your personal opinion. --Judgeking (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is from Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 26th edition, "vestigial - of the nature of a vestage, trace, or relic, rudimentary... the remnant of a structure which functioned in a previous state of a species or individual development". ::Yes, "functioned" - past tense - not functioning now.  This is a matter of definitions.  If a structure was once called vestigial, but is now known to be functional, then calling it "Functioning Vestigial Structures" violates the definition of vestigial, because by definition, it is not vestigial.  It was previously called vestigial, but that was a mistake.  It is not correct to call the vermiform appendix vestigial.  It is correct to say it was previously believed to be vestigial. Greensburger (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * See Vestigial, its description reads 'seemingly lost all or most of their original function', so yeah, they can still be functioning structures. --Judgeking (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I doubt that you are claiming that your arms and hands are vestigial because their original functions in fish were as fins for swimming and not for grasping and moving objects. The flaw is with the definition in Vestigial which could be amended to say "seemingly lost all or most of their original function and has no important function now."  If a structure now has important functions, then that structure is not vestigial.  Greensburger (talk)

vestigal gill, vestigal penile spines
I've always been told the small kidney bean like nodules behind some people's ears are vestigial gills. And that these Hirsuties coronae glandis are vestigial penile spikes.

These 2 aren't mentioned in the article.83.101.79.208 (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you find a reference for these (outside of Wikipedia)? Stuff added to Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. HairyWombat 03:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have to look for verifiable sources for anything, this is the talk page , finding verification is done on the article page. I am merely stating that to my knowledge these 2 things are vestigial organs , if people want to investigate it to make the article more complete they should. I was hoping for nothing more than a discussion on the subject. 83.101.79.208 (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want these two to be added to the article then you (or somebody else) will need to find sources. HairyWombat 14:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Discussion 83.101.79.208 (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As for the gills it is incorrect. The homologous structure corresponding to gills are in our inner ear. They have been exapted for a new important function - hearing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep! Having previously been exapted for a new, important function - eating! ;-)  (Hmmm, would that have been in the Devonian maybe? Or even earlier?) JonRichfield (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC) (Mind you, that should have been "middle ear", shouldn't it? No matter; it is nothing like an external kidney bean...)  JonRichfield (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

JonRichfield
Butchering text wholesale when it is referenced, coherent, and a requested expansion to a section, is simply vandalism. OR is not simply a matter of composing quoted items of information from various verifiable sources. Summarising is not simply chopping out text ad lib. Kindly take such matters to the talk page in future before indulging yourself. JonRichfield (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The text removed by judgeking was poorly written and mostly editorializing. Anyone can and should remove poorly written or otherwise unencyclopedic text without prior discussion. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Jon, I don't see the Talk anywhere before you added your original, long-winded drivel --Judgeking (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is just tons of POV wording in your edits, it's ridiculous. ', 'such questionable opinions', 'seemed very moderate', etc. To who?!? To you, that's who.  It doesn't get more POV than that. --Judgeking (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The talk should have been before you saw fit to walk in as master wrecker. Good faith editors start that way; they don't use Talk pages as last resorts. It gets a great deal more POV than the samples you mention; you are quoting very little, and quoting out of context at that. If you wish to argue the point about a particular bit of wording, try justifying it. For example, if you think that "apparent, or even obvious, ancestral functions" means the same as "their obvious, original functions", go back to biology 101. And if you see any POV in that go back to English 101; for a start, your version is far more POV -- who says what is obvious, you? And what makes you think that "ancestral" means "original"? If you are impugning the sources quoted, then you need to provide justification with more than your own opinion. Also, the material you removed was not just phraseology such as 'Quite understandable', 'probably irrelevant' etc, it included articulately referenced historically relevant quotes. "Seemed very moderate" had nothing to do with my opinion or POV at all, as you would see if you took the trouble to read. If you don't understand, ask; I'll explain if no one else gets in first.  Let's see you support your criticism of the latter in context for instance? Are you suggesting that there could possibly be a connection between removal of questionably unhealthy appendices and trigeminal neuralgia? What next? Water memory? How would you word or characterise the case? And in whose opinion? Yours? This is a history section. It deals with more than established modern opinion, and the opinions of the actors in the events must be documented as well, both in fact and in context. That is why I ref'd so many of them. Just your personal abuse doesn't license you to remove substantial material without more justification than your personal taste. Now,how about justifying some of your items as being non-substantial? By all means remove "Quite understandable" if you like, but then put in some form of wording that conveys the same relevance of the material supported. Pointless deletion isn't contribution, it is self-indulgent vandalism. You haven't done a constructive stitch of work on the article, but see fit to justify your personal taste by gross removal of information. Well, I'll have a look at what wording you might want changed, but the samples you mentioned are not among them. Why not drop a hint or two? But quotes out of context won't cut it. JonRichfield (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Had someone I know look at article, they agree, as do many others I've talked to. --Judgeking (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Tailbones are proof of evolution?
So, all of this is proof of evolution? We evolved from apes? Or a "common ancestor" of apes? Why do humans have a tailbone, and some are even born with actual tails? Apes don't have tails, only monkeys do. Do apes have a tailbone, at least? Are they ever born with tails, like some rare humans? Did our "common ancestor" have a tail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.252.56 (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The article makes no such claim. Let's keep discussion to how to improve the article. HairyWombat 02:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Vestigial gill pore (near the ear)
In the first part of the 3-part PBS special "Your Inner Fish" (website here), near the end of the episode, the host Dr. Neil Shubin talks with a woman who has a small opening/pore-like structure on the side of her face near the ear. According to the show, it's actually a rare manifestation of the pharyngeal arch and the woman uses to it "prove" (somewhat jokingly) that she's more fish than most other humans. Apparently the opening/pore is truly part of the pharyngeal arch system, although it's rare. Does anyone know what it's actually called? I've tried searching for it but can't find anything beyond the embryonic arches themselves and stuff relating to the inner ear which all humans have. I think it would be an interesting addition to this article, especially since not everyone has it but "it" is a real thing (similar to Darwin's tubercle). Coinmanj (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a bit late I'm sure, but you're probably thinking of the preauricular sinus. There haven't been scientifically tested explainations concerning its potential for a vestigial trait; however, it's developmental cause is known.  Andrew. Z. Colvin  •  Talk  10:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human vestigiality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080310041049/http://txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage12.html to http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage12.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)