Re: Useless Body Parts? Ok need some help here

John -
    It seems to me that if one really takes evolution seriously (& you say
you're a TE) then the idea of vestigial organs shouldn't be particularly
disturbing. E.g., if our remote ancestors lived in the sea while we're now
adapted to life on land, it would be rather surprising if there _weren't_
some structures or systems useful in the former habitat but not in the
latter. Is there any reason to expect that God would just abolish them?

    & ID proponents have pointed out, I think correctly, that "intelligent
design" need not imply "optimal design." There is no reason, scientific or
theological, to think that our organs are the most perfect ones possible.

    Of course this general argument says nothing about whether or not one or
the other organ in fact is "useless" in our present situation. But you need
to be aware that some of the people who have labored to show that there are
no truly "vestigial" organs have done so with the purpose of remving one of
the traditional supports of evolution. (I think e.g. of Jerry Bergman.)

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hewlett" <john.hewlett@usa.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 1:35 PM
Subject: Useless Body Parts? Ok need some help here

Hey Guys and Gals,

Ok folks I have a challenge for you. I am going into a career as a scientist
not to make a lot of money but because I feel that I can delve into the
depths of Lords works. However there are a few out there that are making
this slightly difficult and tainting my passion with something distasteful.
First let me give you a little run down of popular science magazine. There
are a few that I browse through at Wally World, when I am bored and looking
for hopefully some cool. I look at "Popular Science", "The New Scientist",
"Scientific American", and *sigh* "Discover". Now if you are a theist
"Discover" magazine is probably the absolute worst magazine to look in. In
the past two years I have found TWO articles in their worth reading. It
should be noted that all of these magazine publish (non-peer reviewed by the
way) the most speculative science around. I lost my flavor with Discover
Magazine when I find in the back an ad for "Pro-science" slogans, and if
course they had the infam!
ous Darwin fish. Now from my theistic evolution stand point this shouldn't
bother me. BUT IT OFFENDED THE DAY LIGHTS OUT OF ME! I am Christian before I
am theistic evolutionist, and I take science extremely seriously, after all
it is my life's work and I love it. But what should not be a "pro-science"
slogan is an "anti-Christian" slogan. After all about half of us scientist
are Christians. Ok I am completely digressing here. Anyway last June I was
thumbing through the June 2004 issue of Discover magazine and ran across an
are called "Useless Body Parts: Who Sinus Anyway". I didn't read it but it
has bothered me a lot since I saw it and as I was doing a search tonight it
reared its ugly face once more. This time it was more pleasant because it
was being bashed by a couple of medical doctors, one of which being Geoffrey
Simmons who wrote "What Darwin Didn't Know" (GREAT BOOK!!), and the other
was by a ER radiologist. Simmons letter was:

"One needs to be very careful when applying the term "useless" ["Useless
Body Parts," June]. Just because we don't understand its use, whatever
entity it is, doesn't mean that it doesn't have a very valid use or need.
The automobile and airplane were considered useless at their inception. The
washing of hands before delivering a baby was useless before Dr. Semmelweis.
Indeed, in Darwin's day there were thought to be 200 useless or "vestigial"
parts to the human anatomy; many contemporary experts have honed that down
to 6 and still counting. For example, the appendix is as useless as the
navel if one views it in the postpartum world, yet it plays a significant
role in immunity and development of the colon in the fetus. The spleen was
useless, yet it protects us from certain infections. Studies on the
vomeronasal organ show this may be the site of sexual arousal (pheromone
reception). Pubic hair seems, based on the presence of these scent glands at
their bases, to be nature's !
wicks for sending out pheromones. The presence of male or female remnants
within the bodies of the opposite sex may represent design efficiency,
somewhat like an automobile manufacturer adding a different frame and
different extras, yet using the same chassis over and over again. We begin
virtually the same and end up with different color eyes, different heights,
different sexes, different likes, and different dislikes, but the chassis
(two legs, two arms, one head, two nipples, etc.) remains the same. Useless
may only be a temporal phenomenon.

GEOFFREY SIMMONS, M.D.
Eugene, Oregon

http://www.discover.com/letters/letters-aug04/

Ok that is hunky dory because the parts about the appendix have been backed
up by studies and so have the vomernasal organ experiments. The author of
the "Useless Body Parts" article was Jocelyn Selim. And here are the other
useless body parts that should included in her article and they came out of
the "Descent of Man" by Darwin.

EXTRINSIC EAR MUSCLES
NECK RIB
THIRD EYELID
DARWIN'S POINT
SUBCLAVIUS MUSCLE
PALMARIS MUSCLE
MALE NIPPLES**
ERECTOR PILI
PLANTARIS MUSCLE
THIRTEENTH RIB
MALE UTERUS**
FEMALE VAS DEFERENS**
PYRAMIDALIS MUSCLE

** Effects of prenatal development and differentiation, which in my opinion
does not count as useless, rather just development effect NOT A defect.

However on the other I am challenging you guys, to find scientific articles
that indicate the functions of the other muscles and such. I have seen a
rebuttal about the muscles however I am not impressed because I don't know
the creditials of the author and it hasn't been published. The folks over
EvoWiki dictionary have posted some "Suboptimal designs" on their website:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Suboptimal_design

Esophogus Prone to Choking
Carpal Tunnel
and of course The Vertibrate Eye (Ayoub's article pretty much shuts this one
down)

Now what do these people do just sit around and come up with this? I mean
don't they have better things to do like enjoy nature, rather than dissing
it. I could point out a better way to build a house, however it may not be
the way the designer intended. I find great joy in nature, and love to study
I hate seeing it bashed around by these people. AND I know I am a theistic
evolutionist, but I support ID because I like to think nature is
intelligable even those I think it gradually took shape. These people make
me sick. And I am very serious about God, and I don't think it is our right
to pass judgement on His works. We were given absolutely marvelous brains,
brains that let us delve into the grandure of His creation.
I really we wish we could get some help from the doctoral level with the
issues above and I sincerley hope you guys will help in finding me useful
data that refutes the claims about. I know its wrong to hate, but I hate
people that put down nature. Its such a paradoxical way of think, how can
they be so enthralled in something a deam defective. I look at nature as a
beautiful orchestra and many scientist do too.

Also one final thing and I really hope you all will help me with this. But
besides "What Darwin Didn't Know" Do you all know of any just general
science books that are good reads that are by people that are God friendly,
they don't have to be Christian. I just want to read some good books about
the body they show its grandure. I have "The Genius Within" comeing and I am
looking forword to reading it. But please if you know any good books about
the body by any MD's or PhD's that demostrate the amazingness of its systems
I would love to know.

Thanks,
John

PS: Books I own: "What Darwin Didn't Know", "More than Meets the Eye", "Life
It's Self". I am just looking for some good popular style books (not text
books) that deal with the amazingness of nature and aren't
reductionistically vulgar. "What Darwin Didn't Know" is a great book because
it talks about the grandure of the body. I actually enjoyed the physiology
more than the argument against macro-evolution. I was just wondering if you
all know any good books about the body, biochemistry, or cells that are not
anti-religion. So if you all could suggest some that would be great.

-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm