Talk:Vestigiality/Archive 02

Ill-informed Statement
This statement was in the article,


 * If these are truly imperfect organs, it has yet to be explained why researchers into this hypothetical theory ignore the possibility that some of these organs may be in the process of becoming perfect organs of the future, rather than degenerating.

I have to point out that evolution does not work that way. This is a very ill informed statement. I have removed it.


 * Would you please inform me? (Diligens 16:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC))


 * I agree that that was a highly misinformed addition. Evolution simply doesn't work that way: no organism is more or less "perfect" or "imperfect" than any other. They've merely adapted to different situations and circumstances in a variety of ways. To explain: biological evolution is not a process of organisms advancing or improving themselves in any inherent way. Humans are not "more evolved" than other apes, or even than amoebas: every living thing is equally evolved, just evolved differently. Most vestigial structures degenerated precisely because they aren't useful or necessary to the specific organisms anymore: for example, we didn't need tails anymore, so they degenerated, and now tailbones are a vestigial remnant of that tail; we don't have a diet consisting significantly of foliage anymore, so our jaws changed shape and our digestive system reprioritized itself, and now wisdom teeth and appendices are vestigial remnants of our former need to efficiently digest cellulose; etc. So vestigial structures and fully-functional structures alike are evidence of organisms' traits changing over time due to changing circumstances: neither one nor the other is "imperfect", they're just the result of gradual change over millennia.
 * Almost all vestigial structures will, with sufficient time, either degenerate entirely or take on new functionalities; such holdovers are not evidence that evolution is arbitrary, merely that it's a very slow process, and acts on piecemeal trial-and-error, not the planning or guiding of an intelligence. :) So, there is no "becoming more perfect" or "becoming less perfect" in evolution; describing evolution as "moving in a certain direction" is meaningless, because it presumes some sort of vague goal or purpose or destination for evolution, when obviously no such objective purpose or conclusion exists, merely the self-propagating processes of genetic information. And it is thus even more meaningless to talk of two directions for organisms, one "good" one and one "bad" one (with your mistaken assumption that scientists are only looking for how organisms are becoming "less perfect", not how they could be becoming "more perfect", whatever that means): by whose standards can a certain change be considered "good" and another one be considerd "bad"? Science is descriptive and predictive, not prescriptive.
 * By the way, Seminumerical, please remember to assume good faith and not accuse other editors of being "trolls". There are many more misinformed and mistaken people in the world than there are malicious ones. :) -Silence 17:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ about being misinformed. Wiedersheim, in the article, says, "imperfect condition" for the organ (not the organism, or animal). You are talking about the organism; I am speaking of the part called an organ and I used the term "imperfect" which is legitimate. My point was also legitimate. The scientizsts never consider, for example, that an ostriches wings may be actually in the reverse process of generating into wings that will allow the whole organism to fly in the future. This is my point in a nutshell, and it is neither ill-informned nor illgical. Explain if you can why that whole organism is not preparing itself for flight rather than only degenerating those wings. (Diligens 18:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC))


 * Weidersheim says no such thing in the article; what work of his are you quoting "imperfect condition" from? The article itself says the word "imperfect" once, probably in error. Such misleading ambiguities should be removed or clarified, not exacerbated with further use of the same error. The only time the word "imperfect" is legitimately used in biology, that I know of, is in the field of botany, referring to flowers, where it means "Having either stamens or a pistil only." Describing an organ as "imperfect" or "perfect" is misleading, as it is impossible for any organic structure or organism to be "perfected" or "completed": evolution is an indefinite, continuous process.
 * Nor is your point legitimate, for to claim that vestigial structures are "just one side of the story", you must provide a valid alternative theory. In other words, you have to provide evidence explaining every single vegistigial structure in existence that doesn't rely on their being degenerate and diminished forms of fully functional structures of the past. The reason ostrich wings would formerly have been effective for flying, and are now vestigial (i.e. no longer useful for flying), is because ostriches are birds, and all birds seem to have evolved from common ancestors that were originally capable of flight (or at least gliding); as certain bird species, such as the ostrich and emu, increased in size, their wings became useless for such purposes (since their body weight was too great to glide in the air or be sustained by wings), and become vestigial, diminished things. Other birds developed their wings for other purposes: penguins, for example, lost their capacity for flight, but in turn adapted their vestigial wings for swimming; and so on.
 * The problem with your theory that "ostriches wings may be actually in the reverse process of generating into wings that will allow the whole organism to fly in the future" is that you misunderstand how evolution works, imagining that species evolve based on abstract, long-term plans and future purposes, that every stage in the evolution is specifically guided so as to allow a certain future eventuality (such as the attainment of flight) to occur: this is absolute nonsense. All wings are merely adapted organs that were originally used for other purposes, such as cooling, bug-swatting, gliding from tree to tree, etc. They then became adapted for short flights when species began to exhibit higher survival rates when they used their protowings for such maneuvers, and the wings became increasingly developed to be useful for flights as species that were able to fly became increasingly successful. Thus, the problem with your theory that ostriches' small, non-functional wings are just in the process of becoming big, functional ones (as opposed to the opposite) is that ostriches' wings don't have any actual, significant use for ostriches right now! There is therefore no evolutionary impetus for ostriches with useless wings to survive while those without the wings don't, and there should really be far more ostriches without wings than with them, since there's no reason unwinged ostriches would ever have been driven out of the gene pool, so long as winged ostriches are not any better at survival than wingless ones. You see, there's next to no chance of a species of large animal evolving brand-new wings because they would be useless for flight. You're essentially asking ostriches to evolve fully-developed wings for the sake of being able to fly while they're still clearly too heavy to fly (being the largest birds in the world!), and then to for them to shrink and massively change their whole body structure and behavioral patterns, all for the sake of being able to use those wings!
 * In the real world, things never actually happen that way. Every stage in a structure's development must be useful for the species in question, else individuals without that structure in the species won't diminish in relative population (i.e. the survival rate for the species won't be altered by the difference to the extent that the species with the difference flourishes and those without it don't). Noone would argue that the vestigial leg-bones all whales have are just "proto-legs" that will soon become fully-developed ones, because legs would be useless for whales. Likewise for ostriches having "proto-wings" for future flight, or humans' tailbones being "proto-tails" for future tails. And the current legbones of of whales are similarly useless; they provide absolutely no survival benefit. There is thus no reason for whales to have developed such ridiculous, seemingly arbitrary little leg-remnants: natural selection would have ensured that whales without leg-bones and ostriches without wings (and humans without wisdom teeth, appendices, tailbones, etc.) would remain in the overwhelming majority. Consequently, the only likely explanation for such ubiquitous features that are useless or near-useless for the survival of the species in question, such as wings for ostriches, appendices for humans, and leg-bones for whales, is that they're remnants, or vestiges, of traits that were originally extremely important for the species' survival (when ostriches' ancestors flew, when whales' ancestors walked, and when humans' ancestors regularly ate foliage), and that are not harmful to the species' survival, and thus very slow to be bred out of the species' population. -Silence 19:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You have not explained why it is impossible for an ostrich to be generating wings rather than degenerating. IF the ostrich started out with full blown wings and was flying, and that every single stage of degeneration was allowable, then logically every step of generation of wings and stages would also be allowable. Evolutionists don't know whether ostriches were once flying and had full blown wings; they merely imagine it possible. The opposite direction of generation is also possible for ostriches not being able to fly and gradually becoming able to. (Diligens 20:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC))


 * "You have not explained why it is impossible for an ostrich to be generating wings rather than degenerating." - That's because it's not. Nothing is impossible. You are clearly unfamiliar with basic epistemology: everything (or almost anything, depending on your interpretation of analytic truths) in this universe is possible. Something must be much more than possible, though, to have any scientific validity: it must be likely, and your hypothesis is profoundly unlikely. It's not impossible that leprechauns are real, but until we have sufficient evidence to show that it's not unlikely that they're real, arguments that they may be real are speculative and insubstantial.
 * "IF the ostrich started out with full blown wings and was flying, and that every single stage of degeneration was allowable, then logically every step of generation of wings and stages would also be allowable." - Fallacious reasoning. "A therefore B" does not necessitate "B therefore A". Something that can occur in a certain order can't necessarily occur in the reverse order: it would be nonsensical to speak of "backwards gravity", for example, much like the "backwards evolution" you're speaking of is patently absurd. The issue is not whether wings can be generated or degenerated: obviously both are possible (though you seem unwilling to accept the latter, despite the overwhelming evidence suggesting it is). The issue is whether it's remotely plausible that ostriches are in the process of developing flight-capable wings, rather than that they've lost their flight-capable wings: and the answer is that it's not, since no evidence indicates that this is the case. Moreover, until you provide a citation for your claims, your arguments are all unverifiable original research and thus a violation of Wikipedia's core policies. So we couldn't include it even if we wanted to (and we don't: it's speculative pseudoscience).
 * "Evolutionists don't know whether ostriches were once flying and had full blown wings; they merely imagine it possible." - Gravitationists don't know whether the earth revolves around the sun: they merely imagine it is. Your arguments are degenerating faster than ostriches' flight capabilities. :) Scientists do not "imagine", they theorize based on available evidence. You're the only one who is imagining and speculating obscure and unlikely possibilities just because they "sound good" to you. Without evidence, you have as much justification for your belief about backwards-evolution as you would if you were proposing that Santa Claus causes evolution. Evidence is everything; we don't need absolute proof to make a reliable assumption based on all past observations. If we did, we'd not even be able to make the reasonable assumption that we aren't brains floating in vats. It is fundamental to an empirical, scientific understanding of the world that one be willing to accept things as probably true which are not absolutely proven, and reject things as unlikely which have zero evidence in their favor, like your fantasizing about flying super-ostriches.
 * "The opposite direction of generation is also possible for ostriches not being able to fly and gradually becoming able to. " - But even if that were the case, ostriches' ancestors would also have been able to fly in the past, because ostriches are birds and all birds developed their wings from flying ancestors, though many no longer use their wings for the same purposes (or at all). Even if ostriches' descendants have functional, flight-capable wings ten million years from now, it will in no way refute the fact that ostriches' wings are currently vestigial, which they are. It would merely mean that ostriches' ancestors had flight-capable wings, ostriches have vestigial wings, and ostriches' descendants will have flight-capable wings again due to some bizarre and unlikely quirk in their development (almost certainly requiring that ostriches first become much, much, much smaller, and have almost their entire genetic makeup and lifestyle dramatically altered in the future due to major environmental changes; the developed wings, in any case, would not predate the capacity to use them, which requires a massively different body structure, size, diet, etc.); the "dip" in the wings' usefulness would still be a vestigial period for them. Likewise, if ostriches' wings develop somehow into hands in the future, they'll still be forms developed from vestigial wings, much as some fish have vestigial lungs which are now used as gas bladders. Your argument therefore carries no weight, and demonstrates a misunderstanding of basic study of the empirical, phenomenal world, of the fundamental processes of evolution, of the meaning of the word "vestigial", and of the mountains of fossil, comparative, genetic, and anatomical evidence supporting the existence of vestigial structures. It rests entirely on speculation, fallacious and unsubstantiated claims, misunderstandings, and wishful thinking. -Silence 21:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a present fact that if THIS article mentions that organs can be in an "imperfect condition", nobody can claim I am ill-informed for referring to what the article explicitly says. First you must change what the article says before you claim that I am wrong. I am presently correct by default verification.
 * You are correct that "A therefore B" does not necessitate "B therefore A". But you are misapplying it in my case because I never suggested the necessity. I am merely saying that "A therefore B" does not necessarily deny "B therefore A".
 * I am not talking mere hypothetical possibility. A solid fundamental theorem of evolutionism includes that organisms have generated wings from not once having them. Unless you have empirical proof that the ostrich once had giant wings, you must logically accept that the ostrich's present wings are EITHER degenerating OR generating. And the same goes for any claimed "vestigial" structure, or ANY structure at all that is not even classified as "vestigial" by humans. For that matter, since evolution is designed based on changing external conditions, an organism can also concievably start to grow wings, but changing conditions made the organism degenerate them before it was capable of flying. Humans cannot discern what these conditions are, nor what they necessitate for any organism. (Diligens 04:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC))


 * "It is a present fact that if THIS article mentions that organs can be in an "imperfect condition", nobody can claim I am ill-informed for referring to what the article explicitly says." - Certainly we can. Both you and the article are ill-informed. :) I specifically stated above that the article was in error in seaking of "imperfect" structures, though it wasn't even a hundredth as error-filled as your additions. But anyway, to resolve this confusion, I've removed the misleading word from the intro.
 * "First you must change what the article says before you claim that I am wrong." - Incorrect. I am entirely justified in pointing out, correctly, that both you and the article are wrong. :) Writing something on a Wikipedia article does not magically make it true.
 * "I am presently correct by default verification." - That's an incredible load of nonsense and you (hopefully) know it. Wikipedia is an extremely unreliable resource for empirical information. Putting your faith in it is extremely ill-advised, and putting your faith in it without consulting alternative sources (as you clearly haven't) is an especially poor idea. Moreover, trying to argue that something you're adding to Wikipedia is true because something something else on Wikipedia says something similar is cyclic logic, and therefore invalid. Provide external basis for your claims, to demonstrate that you didn't simply make it up wholescale out of your own imagination (which seems more and more likely as this conversation progresses).
 * "I am merely saying that "A therefore B" does not necessarily deny "B therefore A"." - Which, as I correctly pointed out, is meaningless rhetoric, because it is a foundational empirical principle that nothing is impossible. Merely showing that something is possible is just about the weakest argument one can possibly make, because it's equally possible that emus are evolving into unicorns or that their vestigial wings were put there by Santa Claus. Anything's possible, but what distinguishes reliable facts from insubstantial speculation is the likelihood, and your claims are less than 1% likely to be true. It's incredibly easy to show that something, that anything, is possible: all you have to do is claim that mountains and mountains of reliable, widespread, concrete material evidence is being wildly misinterpreted by tens of thousands of scientists across the world. Which is what you've done: but by failing to substantiate this idle claim with anything other than your personal convictions, you render your claim no more likely than the claim that Santa Claus is real, which is similarly possible, and similarly unsupported by evidence. In fact, it's much, much more likely that Santa is real than that your claims are correct, since at least Santa Claus doesn't contradict the empirical facts to the extent that your absurd hypothesis does.
 * "A solid fundamental theorem of evolutionism includes that organisms have generated wings from not once having them." - Utter nonsense. No such "fundamental theorem" exists. If one does, then provide a source to back up your idle claim.
 * "Unless you have empirical proof" - There is no such thing, strictly speaking, as empirical proof. Proof only exists in conceptual mathematics and logic.
 * "that the ostrich once had giant wings," - Strawman. The ostrich never had giant wings. Ancestors of the ostrich had functional wings for flight, as indicated by the body of comparative fossil and genetic evidence available to us.
 * "you must logically accept that the ostrich's present wings are EITHER degenerating OR generating." - False. There are tens of thousands of other possibilities, many of them equally as likely as the possibility that they are generating. For example, they could be entirely stable, they could be rudimentary feathered bear-claws, they could secretly be musical instruments, etc. You're succumbing to yet another fallacy: the false dilemma.
 * "For that matter, since evolution is designed" - Evolution is not designed.
 * "based on changing external conditions, an organism can also concievably start to grow wings, but changing conditions made the organism degenerate them before it was capable of flying." - You clearly still don't understand the basics of evolution. An organism never "starts to grow wings". Over hundreds of thousands of years, species may develop organs which later develop the capacity for short flights or glides as a multi-functional aspect, but there is no such thing, strictly speaking, as a "partly-developed" structure, because such a structure would never have evolved in the first place. Only in retrospect can we claim that a wing was "partly-developed", because until it was fully-developed it was not a wing at all. Similarly, before humans' ancestors adapted two of their legs into arms, they didn't have "two legs and two proto-arms", they had four legs. Now, "partly-undeveloped", on the other hand, is possible, and that's exactly how vestigial structures work: formerly useful organs lose their original functionality and become degraded, rudimentary organs. This is why it's a million times more likely that ostrich wings are "partly-undeveloped" (they used to be functional, flight-capable wings), not "partly-developed" (they're in the process of becoming functional, flight-capable wings): a useless structure could never possibly become ubiquitous among an entire species; there's no way that all ostriches would somehow magically end up with the same partly-developed wing structure, because such an arbitrary feature would have no use whatsoever in ensuring that ostriches with this feature survive more often than ones without it. Unless it used to be markedly useful, these wings could never possibly have arisen, and by far the most likely explanation for how these wings came to be is that they were formerly useful for flight, but lost this use as the ancestors of ostriches (and the species related to them) became larger and heavier and could no longer be held aloft any sort of wings. Understand? Evolution works in very, very, very small baby steps, one little difference at a time; it does not plan what will happen two steps from now while it's still going through one step. There is no known way for partly-developed (i.e. useless) wings to ever develop in any species unless they weren't originally wings to begin with. Otherwise we'd have just as many ostriches with rudimentary squid tentacles, ape arms, or crab claws as with rudimentary bird wings. -Silence 05:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I made an edit according to Oxford Dictionary and livescience.com (http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/top10_vestigial_organs.html) saying:
 * "The term “vestigial organ” is often poorly defined, most commonly because someone has chosen a poor source to define the term. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines vestigial organs as organs or structures remaining or surviving in a degenerate, atrophied, or imperfect condition or form. This is the accepted biological definition used in the theory of evolution.". Someone will need a scientific source quote that explicitly says my rv cannot be said about an organ (not organism). (Diligens 06:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

I have always felt that whether "imperfect" is used or not, it does not affect my point. Allow me to continue my rejoinder. You are picking on the wordings of my example (probably rightly so in themselves), but you are doing so to obscure the underlying logic. Therefore, allow me to talk more simply and generically so as to throw away the straw man. I will simply speak of an "appendage" without speaking of its function(s).
 * It is a FIRST PRINCIPLE in evolution, according to Darwin and his Origin of the Species that there is common descent which implies that generation comes chronologically before degeneration. Big Bang, one-celled animals, etc. Something has to generate first before it degenerates, going from simplicity to more complexity. That is a first principle in the theory of evolution. This means that generation is presumed first in all life forms and that degeneration becomes a purely hypothetical possibility unless there is solid empirical evidence suggesting a reversal.
 * Since change of organisms depends on external changes in environment, this process of generation and degeneration can change from year to year fluctuating slightly in one direction and then reversing itself slightly in the other. Your concept of an appendage being "entirely stable" is unreasonable, because it gives to an organism divine intelligence of the future external conditions. If it has the potential to change based on external influences, such a state is not stable by its very inherent potential.
 * A "vestigial" structure was named that because evolutionists presumed it was a trace of something that was previously more fully functioning. This presumption is the opposite of the presumption that should be had by default based on the first principle of evolution. Some scientists not only presumed it had less function than before, or currently no function, since it could have a function that was not apparent, and they presumed it was degenerated when in fact it is supposed to be presumed it is still generating unless empirical evidence reasonably shows otherwise.
 * The raison d'etre of this whole system of "vestigial", by its very name, was a violation of logic in respect to the first principle of evolution. For example, let us call the "wing" of an ostrich merely an "appendage", regardless of its function(s). It must be presumed by default it is still in the process of becoming more fully functional, and also by default presumed that man may not know all of its functions. So it was not only a logical fault in presuming against logic of a first principle, it was the fault of some founding scientists presuming they were smarter than they really were by thinking they truly knew enough about the functioning of the organ to claim it was a "vestige" to begin with. (Diligens 15:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC))


 * Common descent requires evolution, evolution does not require common descent. Evolution is observed; it can lead to things becoming less complicated or more complicated. It can lead to fish with blind eyes in dark caves as easily as eagles that can spot prey from miles away. The difference is that there is no or little advantage to the fish-in-a-cave not to have eyes, so evolution away from having eyes will be very slow or non-existent, relying more on genetic drift than selection. By contrast, there is a clear advantage for an eagle to be able to see further, so eagle's eyes will evolve faster than fish-in-a-cave's. This means you are quite likely to find fish-in-a-cave that still have eyes.


 * You say "It is a FIRST PRINCIPLE in evolution, according to Darwin and his Origin of the Species that there is common descent which implies that generation comes chronologically before degeneration." I say, it is not. Evolution is a process that is observed. It can be used to provide mechanisms by which common descent is possible. Evolution is not concerned with generation and degeneration in the way you seem to think. It is not a progressive process working to produce 'better' things, it simply tends to result in suitable things.


 * For wings to develop, every stage of development must be advantageous. Evolution does not work by an end-point being picked and worked towards; for the current upper limbs of ostriches to have evolved from less wing-like limbs, there would have to be an advantage to ostriches in having them compared to the previous situation. I have yet to hear anyone propose such an advantage for the ostrich. There is, however, an advantage in not growing the massive wings that would be required for flight as ostrich-ancestors evolved to be bigger; expending less energy in growth and being lighter and more aerodynamic when running. It appears that as the approached the current size, the advantage of having yet-smaller wings became less, reducing the driving force. However, while being vestigial wings (ie, they are no longer useful as wings, they are 'remnants' of ostrich-ancestors having wings), they may still serve a purpose. Their purpose may have changed as the ostrich evolved; maybe to help regulate temperature, maybe being involved in sexual displays. SO an ostrich may not be the best example of vestigial organs, although it shows some nice adaptation.


 * The tailbones in humans are vestigial. They have muscles attached to them, but why wouldn't they? They do not do anything, they are simply there. (Occasionally a person is born with a longer tail than usual, sometimes with smaller, showing the natural variation possible. I think that's quite cool.)


 * None of this is really relevant, as we are simply discussing how to make the article accurately reflect the current concept, and history, of Vestigial Organs. Creationist opposition deserves as much mention here as science deserves in the article on the Bible. If you have published, preferably peer-reviewed but that may be hard, sources that are relevant to this article, please bring them here so we can incorporate their information in the article. If not, take it to talk.origins. It helps nobody to debate the theory of Evolution here. Skittle 14:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I must admit to not having read everything above, but it is clear to me that Diligens is unclear on the working of evolution. All organisms are works in progress, in that adaptation is continually ongoing, for most creatures. As Skittle has tried to explain, no devolution can exist, as devolution is simply evolution. Adaptation to changed circumstances in which, for example, wings no longer serve a purpose, can lead to the wings disappearing altogether, or becoming vestigial organs.
 * Diligens, if an organ no longer serves a purpose, but is not a hindrance to survival either, there is no pressure for the organ to disappear. If the organ serves a secondary (though minor) purpose, there is even selective pressure to preserve part of the organ. (Think of vestigial wings, which can still be used in social behaviour, to increase circulation, and provide ventilation)-- Ec5618 18:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Body Vestigial?
Some have proposed that the entire human body is, by some definition, vestigial. This comes from the fact that, among the great apes (Gorillas, Orang-utans, Chimpanzees and Humans), those with the greatest intelligence have the weakest, frailest bodies. It has been suggested that as human ancestors evolved larger, more complex brains which began to draw off larger quantities of energy for function (the human brain consumes 20% of the body's blood capacity in continuous operation), that the bodies of these early humans became smaller and weaker. Physicality would thus become less and less important in the face of an intellect, which provided such a great evolutionary advantage. Originally, animal intelligence likely developed for the purposes of social functioning and to enhance the ability of animals successfully to utilise mobility, strength and other physical attributes. It may be that intelligences provided such great advantages in these areas that it became a strong evolutionary pressure in and of itself. H. sapiens sapiens, of course, now rarely use their bodies for anything other than minor feats of locomotion, or else we massively collectivise our physical labour, supplemented by our intellectual prowess and associated ability to socially organise ourselves on immense scales. As technology has developed and tools have become more important in day-to-tay lifestyles, it may be that human beings are moving out of the physical stage of evolution altogether, and in to a primarily sensory-driven existence.


 * If any of this is to be included, it needs a verifiable source. It is not obvious, so we can't leave it in while finding a source.
 * If it has a source or two, it will need to be rewritten. 'Some have proposed' are weasel words that don't really mean anything. 'Body vestigial?' is not quite the sort of heading that works here. 'By some definition' is so loose that you could follow it with anything!
 * Maybe you only use your body for minor feats of locomotion; I use mine regularly for much more :-)

Skittle 08:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If this is put on the article then it definatley needs to be sourced. Below is a version where I removed the few instances of Weasel Words. This concept is feasible on some levels, and if there is a valid source, should be included in some sort of theory section.


 * "It is possible that the entire human body is, by some definition, vestigial. This is is derived from the fact that, among the great apes (Gorillas, Orangutans, Chimpanzees and Humans), those with the greatest intelligence have the weakest, frailest bodies. As human ancestors evolved larger, more complex brains which began to draw off larger quantities of energy for function (the human brain consumes 20% of the body's blood capacity in continuous operation), that the bodies of these early humans became smaller and weaker. Physicality would thus become less and less important in the face of an intellect, which provided such a great evolutionary advantage. Originally, animal intelligence likely developed for the purposes of social functioning and to enhance the ability of animals successfully to utilise mobility, strength and other physical attributes. It may be that intelligence provided such great advantages in these areas that it became a strong evolutionary pressure in and of itself. H. sapiens sapiens, of course, now rarely use their bodies for anything other than minor feats of locomotion, or else we massively collectivise our physical labour, supplemented by our intellectual prowess and associated ability to socially organize ourselves on immense scales. As technology has developed and tools have become more important in day-to-day lifestyles, it may be that human beings are moving out of the physical stage of evolution altogether, and in to a primarily sensory-driven existence."


 * On another note, I intend to begin work on this article. This is an important topic that should have a better article. Any picture suggestions?-- SomeStranger ( T  |  C ) 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, any pictures of vestigial organs or structures would do! Also, if you're graphically inclined, some sort of image comparing a vestigial with non-vestigial versions of a similar structure would be good.


 * I'd still like to know by what definition the human body can be considered vestigial. Yes, we have no claws and cannot run that fast, but the body itself still serves the purpose of a body. But obviously, all we need is a source that says thins stuff, then we can sayt he source says it. Skittle 18:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're seeking out images to add to this article, SomeStranger, I strongly recommend trying to find some free-use (or otherwise appropriate) depictions of the skeletal structure of a cetacean (whale, dolphin, porpoise, etc.) which shows the vestigial leg-bones they all possess. I made such a request to WikiProject Cetaceans recently, but haven't gotten any word back yet. If such an image were high-quality (and free) enough, I could even see it being added to the evolution article itself, under morphological evidence; it'd provide a much better (or at least more dramatic) example of evolution at work than Image:Knightia.jpg does. -Silence 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we use pictures from other wikipedias? The spanish version of this page, and the german one both have very nice pictures. As a side note, does anyone know the techinal terms for the three muscles in the ear that allow mammals to wiggle them? That is what the picture in the spanish wikipedia displays, and is also a piece of information which should be added to this article.-- SomeStranger ( T  |  C ) 22:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no reason we couldn't use images from other Wikipedias; generally foreign-language Wikipedias have more stringent image-inclusion requirements, not less. Good find! I don't think that the image of the ear in the Spanish Wikipedia page is related to the vestigial ear-moving-muscles, though: it seems to be a depiction of Darwin's tubercle. I agree that we should find out the name for the actual muscles, though. -Silence 23:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There are only two images that are of use, es:Imagen:Tiliqua_multifasciata.jpg and de:Bild:Skelett vom Wal MK1888.png, both of which have incorrect copyright statements. Not sure what to do here... (Is it okay to just take them).-- SomeStranger ( T  |  C ) 00:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Take that back, only the spanish one has a bad copyright, the German one is just....in german. I think it depicts the vestigial structures of a whale but I can't be sure. We need to get someone in here who can translate...-- SomeStranger ( t 01:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No need, we can simply use the version that doesn't have any German on it: Image:Skelett_vom_Wal_MK1888_ohne_Text.gif. -Silence 01:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

'Controversy' section
Hi! As established, I'm not good at footnotes. Also, I'd rather one person was making these changes as they may have an overall super-plan in mind. Baring that in mind, here are some potential sources for the 'controversy' section. Please use as appropriate. Also, should this section touch on the claims that 'evolutionists' have 'redefined' the word vestigial? I'm also wondering whether 'controversy' should be renamed 'differences of opinion' :-)


 * Creationists who have claimed vestigial organs would have to be useless, and thus concluded they don't exist.
 * Bergman, J. and Howe, G. (1990) "Vestigial Organs" Are Fully Functional. Kansas City, MO. Creation Research Society Books.
 * Sarfati J (2002) "AiG misunderstands evolution?" Answers In Genesis Feedback Response. June 3 (accessed 2006-06-08)
 * In which he says "Some evolutionists, like Dr Meiss, now want to re-define 'vestigial' to mean simply 'reduced or altered in function'. . . . AiG isn't going to let evolutionists change the rules at their whim when they are losing the argument." (Note AiG means Answers in Genesis)


 * Textbooks
 * "A vestigial structure is a functionless or rudimentary version of a body part that has an important function in other, closely allied species." Freeman S & Herron JC (2004) Evolutionary Analysis 3rd edition. Pearson Prentice Hall (Upper Saddle River, NJ) p39
 * "vestigial Occuring in a rudimentary condition, as a result of evolutionary reduction from a more elaborated, functional character state in an ancestor." Futuyma DJ (1998) Evolutionary Biology 3rd edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc (Sunderland, MA) from Glossary
 * Scientific Encyclopedia (already footnoted once)
 * "Vestigial organs and structures (also called vestigia, rudiments, or remnants) are reduced body parts or organs, often without visible function in the derived bearers, that were fully developed and functioning in earlier members of that phylogenetic lineage. These structures, sometimes described as atrophied or degenerate, are usually small in comparison with their relative size in ancestral generations or in closely related species. ... vestigial structures may have acquired new, less obvious functions that differ from the original ones. Hence, a vestigium should not generally be considered without function, or only with respect to its ancestral, adult roles." "Vestigial Organs and Structures" Encyclopedia of Evolution (2002) Mark Pagel, editor in chief. Oxford University Press (New York, NY) pp 1131-1133
 * 19th Century scholarly works that show it is not a recent redefinition
 * "Rudimentary organs sometimes retain their potentiality, and are merely not developed. . . ."
 * "An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other. . . . [A]n organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object. . . ."
 * Darwin CR (1859) On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. John Murray (London) Chapt 13

(Wiedersheim 1893, p 2)
 * "Rudimentary organs, on the other hand, are either quite useless, such as teeth which never cut through the gums, or almost useless, such as the wings of an ostrich, which serve merely as sails." Darwin CR (1872) On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection Sixth Edition. John Murray (London) p. 398
 * "Comparative morphology points not only to the essentially similar plan of organization of the bodies of all Vertebrates, . . . but also to the occurrence in them of certain organs, or parts of organs, now known as "vestigial." . . . By such organs are meant those which were formerly of greater physiological significance than at present."
 * "Retrogressively modified, the Organs having become wholly or in part functionless, some appearing in the Embryo alone, others present during Life constantly or inconstantly. For the greater part Organs which may be rightly termed Vestigial."

(Wiedersheim 1893, p 200)
 * ". . . as was pointed out in the introduction, the term vestigial, is, as a rule, only applied to such organs as have lost their original physiological significance."

(Wiedersheim 1893, p 205)
 * Wiedersheim R (1893) The Structure of Man: An Index to His Past History Second Edition. Translated by H. and M. Bernard (1895). Macmillan and Co. (London)


 * "... for, although the latter [ostrich] does not fly, it still uses its wings as aids in running swiftly over the African plains and deserts ... Retrogression is, however, not always carried so far as to do away with a structure altogether ... But not infrequently the degenerating organ can be turned to account in some other way, and then retrogression either stops just short of actual elimination, as in the case of the wings of the ostrich, or so alters and transforms the structure as to fit it for new functions ..."
 * Weismann, A. (1886) "IX. Retrogressive Development in Nature." rerpoduced in Essays upon Heredity and Kindred Biological Problems. Volume II. Poulton, E. B. and Shipley, A. E., editors., Clarendon Press: Oxford. 1892. pp. 5-9

NB These sources are sourced from the talk.origins page referenced on this page. I have seen the Darwin quotes in context, so know they are as they seem. The others I take their word on because I trust them to provide good sources. Skittle 15:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest with you, I don't really have an overarching "plan" for this article. The topic of Vestigial structures is not very large and I think that the four sections currently covered in the article encompass the general ideas of the topic. What I still plan to do is to expand on these four categories as opposed to making new ones. I will look through these things when I get a chance later today. As far as footnotes go, I suggest you head over to WP:FN where there is an indepth guide on how to use footnotes. Thanks for all your help!-- SomeStranger ( t 15:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okee Dokey, I shall try not to destroy the formatting in the process... Skittle 16:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What else to add
I have to admit that I am at a loss for any other information I might add to this article. I had hoped that it might eventually become at least a good article, but now I wonder if Vestigial structures are too small a topic. Does anyone else have any suggestions on possible topics that have not yet been covered. I figure I could continue to add to the list of vestigial structures in animals, but at this point I am not sure if that is a very useul list to create.-- SomeStrang  e  r ( t 22:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed
The Good article nomination for has failed
 * Good content, but the bullet-pointed list of examples should be converted to normal prose. Worldtraveller 10:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to say that i think the list format was far superior to the prose. To call it a list is probably incorrect, rather subtitled paragraphs. In the 'list' format the content is clear as the eye scans the page.  This is not the case for the prose. My gut instinct would be to keep the bullets despite the failure at the good article nomination page. David D. (Talk) 02:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree with you in this case which is why I brought it over to Good articles/Disputes where I was told that having it in lists was actually acceptable. I actually left a message on Silence's page to see what he thought before I went ahead and reverted it.-- SomeStrang  e  r ( t 09:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)