Vestigial Organs?

no apology necessary i've done the same thing myself and im sure most others have too...its the nature of forumsBut yes you do get wound up and i apologise if my comments get you that way. i'll try to be more tactful and less irritating lol

Most of the planet is inhabitable...we just choose to stay close to the oceansWe could live in the desert, we could live in the mountains (some people do, dont they?) Some live in the antarctic on ice....so the whole planet IS inhabited its just that most of us choose to stay near the water.

Including the 70% that is the oceans?

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

I gave you the name of the man who first listed them among the vestigial. His book was called The Structure of Man: An Index to His Past History'no one is making it up. Perhaps you need to read a bit of the book to see that no one is lying....i've linked it for you. And the page i've linked makes mention of darwins book 'decent of man' as a reference, not to tonsils but to the whole vestigial organ theory that Darwin proposed as evidence for evolution. they play a role in the immune system...its been researched and the medical opinion is that they are a part of the working immune system.
I'm not claiming they ARE vestigial. Im pointing out that many of the organs first identified vestiginal, have been proved false....the tonsils being one of them. if i'm lying, read the book and come back and tell me how i'm lying.i

woops. Correction.I do mean 'earth' or 'land'

Not in a literal sense, but figuratively, a live star is one, such as our sun, that is producing light energy by means of nuclear fusion, whereas a dead star is one that has stopped. Without dead stars there are no available chemical elements to eventually form life, that is
minerals, water, ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane etc.Edited by bluescat48, : typo

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

So you can live at the north pole? The South pole? What about the Amazon Rain forest? The congo? The everglades? I am talking in the natural habitat, because for sure we could easily tear down the trees (which would have it's own repurcussions)The percentage of this earth that we can and do maintain as habitat is strikingly low, Peg. But yet, you see it as "perfect".I fear I have made too many off topic remarks in this thread. I do apologize to the OP and the rest of you.

---

"The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" -Galileao

No you have not.Did you even look at your link?You have linked to one page of a review of the book.You have not linked to the book.What you have not done is prove that the tonsils are vestigial. Before I believe that they are, I want proof. And you must now know perfectly well what Darwin meant by rudimentary organs.Now prove that the tonsils are vestigial. Perhaps they play a minor role, though that has not been proved. And you have no evidence whatsoever for what you claim to be "pointing out". Not a scrap of a shred of a scintilla of a shadow of evidence.And we know that the tonsils play no important role in humans. So the only open question is whether they are vestiges of something that was important ancestrally. PROVE TO ME THAT TONSILS ARE VESTIGIAL. Which book?The only link with which you have provided me is one page of a review of the book. Which does not mention tonsils at all.IF YOU WANT TO PROVE THAT TONSILS ARE VESTIGIAL, THEN PROVE THAT TONSILS ARE VESTIGIAL.It's a perfectly straightforward request that any biologist claiming that tonsils are vestigial would be able to answer. Because they wouldn't claim stuff before finding out about it.

im not sure where the link is taking you, i'll check it again to make sure.And im not trying to prove that tonsils are vestigials...my argument is that they are NOT vestigials because modern medics are beginning to understand their function. they play a role in the immune system...is that system not important?They're composed of lymphoid tissue which are generally located at spots where there may be an entry for pathogens in order to trap them before they enter the body. Thats a fairly important function!I know they are not completely undertsood just yet, but that doesnt mean that they have no purpose. you keep saying that but im not trying to prove that they are. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

But:(1) You have not quoted one single scientist saying that they are vestigial.(2) You have supplied no evidence that they have a function.(3) ABOVE ALL, as I have explained, and as the creationist site that you quoted explained, vestigial does not mean without a function. The immune system is important, but obviously the role of the tonsils in that system is not important. But would you at least try to prove that someone thinks that they are? Show me some scientist explaining why they're vestigial, and I might believe that they're vestigial. Or refuse to show me any scientist explaining why they're vestigial, and I won't believe that they're vestigial.But you seem to want to have your cake and eat it. You want to say that scientists (whom you cannot quote) say that tonsils are vestigial, and that scientists (whom you cannot quote) say that they aren't. And so much for science, because it's been conclusively disproved by science.

Sorry, i did have the wrong link...here is the 'book' link On page 2, last paragraph, he explains that organs become vestigial thru 'degeneration' of the organ.On page 164 under the subtitle 'Bursa Pharyngeal' he goes on to say it is a 'degenerative' organ meaning it becomes vestigial.A current medical terminology definition of bursa pharyngeal is:"a cystic notochordal remnant found inconstantly in the posterior wall of the nasopharynx at the lower end of the pharyngeal tonsil." Its the tonsils. His claim is that it becomes a vestigial which is probably why doctors in the past have routinely removed them.Please show me if i'm wrong, but this is how i'm reading it.

On which page does he say that tonsils are vestigial? They aren't mentioned in the index (which rather suggests that he DOESN'T say it).

quote:

---

Its the tonsils. His claim is that it becomes a vestigial which is probably why doctors in the past have routinely removed them.

​

Please show me if i'm wrong, but this is how i'm reading it.

---

So you think that doctors routinely removed tonsils because of a claim that you think that Wiedershiem made, despite the fact that you haven't quoted him making such a claim or even provided significant evidence that he did make that claim - and despite knowing nothing of the history of tonsillectomy ? (A procedure that has been around, for a long, long time before Wiedersheim, Wikipedia claiming 2,000 years and even citing evidence for tonsillectomies 1,000 years earlier than that).

he seems to be using terminology that we dont routinely use, he calls it the bursa pharyngea...i think its old terminology. I provided the medical definition which said:a cystic notochordal remnant found inconstantly in the posterior wall of the nasopharynx at the lower end of the pharyngeal tonsil.the image shows a digagram of where the pharyngeal tonsil is located...its highlighted in green. im aware that its been done for a long time but that is not what is being discussed.... we are talking about the 'idea' of vestigial organs which has nothing to when tonisils first started being removed.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

quote:

---

he seems to be using terminology that we dont routinely use, he calls it the bursa pharyngea...i think its old terminology. I provided the medical definition which said:

​

a cystic notochordal remnant found inconstantly in the posterior wall of the nasopharynx at the lower end of the pharyngeal tonsil.

---

And a little investigation tells me that it is not the tonsils since it is in the wrong place (nasopharynx instead of oropharynx) and has the wrong description. Perhaps you should learn to check your facts rather than jumping to conclusions ?

quote:

---

im aware that its been done for a long time but that is not what is being discussed.... we are talking about the 'idea' of vestigial organs which has nothing to when tonisils first started being removed.

---

WHEN tonsils started being removed has rather a lot to do with WHY they were removed. Isn't it more likely given this history that it was the long experience of removing tonsils without any sign of serious ill effects that drove both the interpretation of the tonsils as vestigial and the continued removal of the tonsils ?

You are clearly confusing 2 separate usages of the term degeneration. p.164 clearly describes degeneration of the tonsils as involving shrinking, fusing and the formation of crypts and cysts as well as linking it to the onset of puberty, clearly not a description of anything to do with being an evolutionarily vestigial organ.The Bursa Pharyngeal is not an old term for tonsils it is a term for itself, it isn't the pharyngeal tonsils but a structure associated with them.As PaulK has also pointed out the tonsils being discussed here are the pharyngeal tonsils, also known as the adenoids, rather than the palatine tonsils which are what are removed in a normal tonsillectomy.It is also pretty clear from any rudimentary knowledge of medical history that the reason tonsils are removed are not for evolutionary reasons but because their structure often forms a breeding ground for bacteria leading to painful and potentially dangerous infections.So you are reading things wrong in at least 2 or 3 different ways.TTFN,WK