Talk:Vestigiality/Archive 01

From article
"Because vestigial organs can be used as supporting evidence for evolution, some creationists oppose the idea."

This, I think, is vague. Does this mean that some creationists deny the existence of the appendix? --cuiusquemodi 21:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Creationists don't dispute the existence of the appendix, but the idea that it is vestigial. (In the sense that is has no function.) PrometheusX303 20:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The appedix helps with your immune system and with out it you are more septible to some diseases. Just because you can live with out it doesn't mean you dont need it. You can live with out both your eyes both your arms, legs, ears, but that doesn't mean you dont need it.

Deletion of evolutionist evidence sentence by unknown user
(moved by endy from talk page) What do you mean by "this belongs to an encyclopaedic article" on the Vestigial Organ article? The content of the article clearly states that it relates to evolution (not creationism).


 * Well, this is actually neither about evolution nor about creationism - it's about a Vestigial Organ. It is absolutely NPOV to write that this argument is used in the evolution vs. creationism debate. Note that I do NOT mess with your belief, but this is an ongoing debate with opposing views. You should not simply ignore evolutionist arguments by deleting them, as this is not fair the other way round. It is absolutely legitimate to keep this sentence in the article, so if you have another view, you can add a sentence why this argument is doubted by creationists.

Be Blessed, Endymi0n 08:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Jay Gould and female orgasm
Thanks for the link to the Furlow/Thornhill article on female orgasm, mentioning Gould's thesis that the clitoris (and its function) are vestigial.

I wonder, given the (IMO compelling) other findings to the contrary mentioned in the article (cervical contractions pulling off condoms, etc.) if anyone, Gould (peace be upon him) included, could continue to hold this opinion?

But hey, Gould is cited in many, many places as having held opinions or argued corners which are untenable in the long run, without really tarnishing his own reputation -- you know, he's been misinterpreted by people who are too defensive of their own thesis. This is yet another instance. --xoddam


 * While Gould did seem to have a remarkable ability to continue arguing the completely implausible while maintaining a fine reputation,


 * That's because Gould *didn't* argue the implausible, he just pointed out places where other people's "obvious" arguments were flawed because they ignored genuinely obvious data. --xoddam 09:14, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * others do support his theory with regard to the clitoris and female orgasm. For examble, Dr. Elisabeth Lloyd has critiqued the evolutionary explanations and studies presented thus far. I found little on the web about her work, other than introductions to her talks. However, I think she is fairly well regarded. I saw a seminar of hers last year, and basically what she said was that most studies regarding female orgasms and increased fertility have been seriously flawed in their methodology, and that many scientists simply assume that they are correct. She basically argues that most people in the field are too eager to find a tidy evolutionary explanation for the female orgasm, and that they are afraid of offending women by implying that the female orgasm serves no evolutionarily derived purpose.

Peregrine981 03:58, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Lloyd's abstract says "a trait must meet a high set of standards in order to be considered an evolutionary adaptation".  This makes perfect sense when discussing, for instance, hair colour.  OTOH Occam's Razor pretty much removes the obligation "to find a tidy evolutionary explanation" for something so directly involved in reproduction, as the explanation is ready-made.  (I am not claiming that the research is incontrovertible -- I haven't even read the primary sources -- just that its conclusions fit perfectly with the principle of selection).


 * Sexual selection is not in doubt, why should variations in the act of procreation not be an intrinsic part of that? If female orgasm really does affect sperm retention, for it to have had no effect on heredity would be very strange indeed.  Expecting orgasm to play a role in selection isn't about not offending feminists, it's about not offending common sense. --xoddam 09:14, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, Lloyd does not dismiss the possibility of an evolutionary purpose for female orgasm, she simply thinks that the current evidence is flawed and insufficient to demonstrate what it is. I agree with you as far as I can tell, but am unqualified to really speak to the real research that exists today. Too bad there isn't more information about her work on the web. I can't find any except in very summarized format. She has a book on the subject, but it is unavailable so far as I can tell. If only I remembered that lecture a bit more clearly!


 * Peregrine981 10:43, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * I know, this is way late, but first of all: Lloyd's book on Pharyngula and second, her book on Amazon. Quite definitely available. --Superiority 05:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The idea of goosebumps being vestigial in humans must have been coined by a very smooth person, as the appearance of raised hairs over the body of most adult caucasian men is certainly noticeable and conveys the message.


 * Moreover, it does actually protect against the cold if it's not too windy :-) xoddam 07:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Male Nipple
Question: I don't understand how the male nipple (or the female clitoris) can be considered vestigial. In order to be vestigial doesn't the organ need to have had a use at some point in evolutionary history? At what point did the male nipple or female penis (clitoris) actually have a use?Wjwma 23:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 3 billion women will hotly disagree that the clitoris has no function. JFW | T@lk  00:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. The point is it never functioned as a penis, so why call it a vestigial penis.Wjwma 01:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be called a vestigal penis. It's a clitoris. Sometimes one wonders. JFW | T@lk  08:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Early in mammalian evolution, both males and females nursed the young, but eventually it was lost in males. Sorry, but I don't have a reference to back that up.

That sounds like a strange way to put things. You are the first person I have ever heard say that. Can you give me a single example of a mammal whose males nurse the young? I also thought evolution required the addition of new information not the loss of existing information. Alisyd 16:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The male of a type of fruit bat nurses their young. See Lactation, or the BBC Record Breakers Animal site. The male nipple appears because we start out as the nipples appear around week 3, then the Y chromosome kicks in for males around week seven. The nipple is still there, but the fetus is now male. The vestigal penis thing confuses me though, since the biological texts I've read put the clitoris as homologus to the head of the penis, not the entire thing. Plus I was always sure that the female orgasm enhances bonding between partners etc. Maeve 13:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if what you claim is true, what does it prove? It shows devolution not evolution. There is a loss of information and no gain of information. Alisyd 16:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the line "The clitoris is responsible for one of the major driving reasons for having sex, since humans have no heat cycles" because it is bulky and unclear. I don't feel that the gist of the article was lost by removing it.


 * Note from archiver: See male lactation. Male nipples are vestigial because they are not used to produce milk, and only do so when something is amiss. -- Ec5618 18:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Page move
I moved this article from vestigial organ to vestigial structure. It is more broad in scope (not all vestigial structures are organs) and gets more hits on Google Scholar than vestigial organ. --Neutralitytalk 06:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Vestigial organ" OR "Vestigial organs"–547 hits
 * "Vestigial structure" OR "Vestigial structures"–634 hits
 * Neutralitytalk 01:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note from archiver: I have corrected the link description (both read Vestigial organ(s)). -- Ec5618 18:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert explanation
An anonymous user recently removed several examples of vestigial structures, citing functions for them. I restored the examples, since what makes a structure vestigial is that the loss of its original function; it need not be completely useless. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Now aren't you assuming (key element of evolution) that they had a previous function? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.55.207.87 (talk • contribs).


 * Well, it's not quite an assumption. By observing other life forms, we can deduce information about homologous structures in different life forms. For instance, the anonymous user mentioned "the tail bone has 9 muscles that [wrap] around it for important [function]". It is true that several muscles attach to the coccyx. However, it is quite easy to see that the human coccyx is equivalent to the tail bones of other animals, although there are fewer bones in it and they are fused together. A muscle attachment point it certainly is, but its structure gives away its history as part of a longer tail. In addition, fossil remains of human ancestors show the tail in fuller form, leaving little room for doubt. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding vestigial tails
"Many people maintain that the coccyx is a remnant of a lost tail." Not only do many people maintain this, but it is actually true. During embryotic development, humans have a tail for a short period of time. As a matter of fact, all mammals have a tail at one point in their development (this is a trait, like hair, that is shared by all mammals). This is a fact, check out any biology or anatomy & physiology book and this will most likely be in there. I'll try to find an appropriate reference for this, but for the time being, I'm leaving the article alone.

"Because vestigial organs can be used as supporting evidence for evolution, some creationists oppose the idea." A reference for this would be nice. I'm sure its true, but how exactly do they "oppose" the idea? I think this could be rephrased "Because vestigial organs are often used as supporting evidence for evolution, some creationists oppose the validity of the theory/idea." (Not sure if it would be more correctly called a theory.) Fuzzform 17:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and edit the article anyway. Input would be appreciated! Thanks in advance. Fuzzform 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)