> The so-called vestigial organs probably all have uses.
You’re right that some organs have been labeled vestigial and turned out not to be, but there are other organs that we know are vestigial because they don’t occur in all humans (same goes for other species). Evolution doesn’t weed things out without there being relatively strong effects on survival, and some of these things don’t affect survival so they drift.
This also isn’t binary. There are organs that are still classified as vestigial, but have minor or secondary uses, perhaps enough for evolution to keep them around, or again perhaps because having them doesn’t result in any statistical mortality.
Speculating and/or carrying beliefs that contradict modern evolutionary biologists probably isn’t going to work out. School might not be always right, but it is most of the time, and it’s right more often than no school, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality
> but there are other organs that we know are vestigial because they don’t occur in all humans
That argument is completely invalid because it picks up the reproductive organs. At birth most humans don't have ovaries and those are anything but vestigial. It'd also mistake things like melanin production as vestigial because some humans have black skin and others white, when in reality it is a geographic adaption. Furthermore the argument misses situations where something is sometimes an advantage but generally a cost, like adaptions that are expensive to maintain but really help against certain irregular events (like famines, pandemics or more weird edge cases) or that are helpful in small doses (like autism, a couple of autistic geniuses floating around is a great outcome for everyone).
> This also isn’t binary. There are organs that are still classified as vestigial, but have minor or secondary uses, perhaps enough for evolution to keep them around, or again perhaps because having them doesn’t result in any statistical mortality.
Sure. But if vestigial doesn't mean useless then it isn't relevant to my complaint against the headline and the person bringing it up just made a rookie mistake.
I wasn’t talking about reproductive organs… obviously. How about reading some of the link I provided?
> if vestigial doesn't mean useless then it isn't relevant to my complaint against the headline
Having some minor use doesn’t imply there’s any evolutionary pressure. The problem with your comment about the headline is that your comment is incorrect; evolution does not automatically remove things. I don’t know why you would go to battle with known science, but good luck!
So what are you talking about? And do you have an argument or any evidence for why it might be so? You're claiming there are organs that are vestigial because they don't occur in all humans, but then you don't accept that organs not occurring in all humans are vestigial. And they are clearly important - several organs that don't appear in all humans are absolutely critical. And you accept that vestigial organs have minor uses, but you don't seem to want to accept that "vestigial organs are not useless" is probably a correct statement (which lines up pretty well with the Wikipedia article, I might observe).
Which parts of your comment are the parts that say something? What are they saying? It appears to me that you are saying there isn't any evolutionary pressure to keep things that are minorly positive to keep from an evolutionary perspective, which is surely a mis-read by me so I'm not sure what you are trying to get at.
> you don’t accept that organs not occurring in all humans are vestigial […] several organs that don’t appear in all humans are absolutely critical.
Huh? Are you suggesting that female reproductive organs should be considered vestigial because males don’t have them? That’s not what vestigial means. The vestigial organs that serve no known purpose and are missing in some humans demonstrates the lack of criticality and functionality, it demonstrates there’s no human dependency on them and that they actually don’t have any purpose. But not the other way around; a critical organ like a reproductive organ missing in some humans does not imply it’s vestigial… obviously. Is that confusing or hard to grasp?
It feels like you’re trying to construct some sort of semantic or logical trap to prove a point, but it seems like you misunderstood me somewhere. Using reproductive organs as your example is a pretty bad idea - in humans, males aren’t missing female organs, nor vice versa. We start with the same organs, and they grow slightly differently. They aren’t missing.
What I’m saying, plain and simple, is that your claim that “Evolutionary pressure is pretty brutal to things that actually aren't used” is false. (According to evolutionary biology, not according to me.) There is no pressure to evolve unless things affect survival (mortality or reproduction). Some organs evolved in the past and we still have genes for them, but they no longer serve their evolved purpose and also don’t affect mortality or mating in any significant way, and so there is no force to get rid of them. We call those organs vestigial. Some of them might be evolving away very slowly, which not occurring in all humans might suggest, and some might not - because whatever use they have is not affecting survival rates enough to matter.
That looks like it could be useful. I don't see anything on Wikipedia suggesting it isn't. If you look at the ear it is a maze of wiggles and crevices with interesting auditory properties; that slight curve probably does something.
> Huh? Are you suggesting that female reproductive organs should be considered vestigial because males don’t have them? That’s not what vestigial means.
I agree, and it is obvious. But that isn't what you said or what I disagreed with. You claimed that it was because it don't occur in all humans that we know something is vestigial. Similarly to how you now seem to be trying to argue that vestigial organs are useless which is also obviously not true - most of them are probably there for a reason that we haven't identified.
And if you want to claim “Evolutionary pressure is pretty brutal to things that actually aren't used” is false then you'll need an argument for it. You claim it, then you make an unrelated argument that vestigial organs exist. Which is cool, but not an argument that they are useless. Again, vestigial organs might nonetheless still be useful so the argument is not related to the claim.
> It feels like you’re trying to construct some sort of semantic or logical trap to prove a point, but it seems like you misunderstood me somewhere.
That would be supported by me asking questions like "So what are you talking about? And do you have an argument or any evidence for why it might be so?". I don't think you've really thought all the way through your claims or word choice.
> You claimed that it was because it don't occur in all humans that we know something is vestigial.
Nope, you’re insisting on running on your own misunderstanding, even after I cleared it up. Doubling down on a straw man weakens your argument. Again, what I said is that some of the organs we suspect are vestigial have additional evidence that supports and confirms it, when some humans don’t have them and don’t miss them. We can literally see the lack of evolutionary advantage in the results.
I’m just letting you know your ideas about evolution don’t match known science. It’s up to you to educate yourself, and it is up to you to defend your own claims.
You can rationalize the uses and benefits of any given feature or body part all you want, the only thing that matters with evolution is the outcome. Humans have been getting larger over time, which completely disproves your claim about body mass, regardless of what you think or say. Some vestigial organs appear to be evolving away very very slowly, which matches the known theory, and also disproves your claim that evolution would remove things quickly.
I have already mentioned multiple times the reason biologists say that evolution is sometimes very slow: because not everything in the body affects mortality or reproduction enough to result in any evolutionary force, and contrary to your claim, evolution does not cull traits without a force. You don’t have to believe me though. I’m happy to argue about incorrect statements on HN, but I don’t care if you want to hold on to your own ideas about evolution. Take this debate to your local university’s bio or anthro departments and see what they say.
You’re right that some organs have been labeled vestigial and turned out not to be, but there are other organs that we know are vestigial because they don’t occur in all humans (same goes for other species). Evolution doesn’t weed things out without there being relatively strong effects on survival, and some of these things don’t affect survival so they drift.
This also isn’t binary. There are organs that are still classified as vestigial, but have minor or secondary uses, perhaps enough for evolution to keep them around, or again perhaps because having them doesn’t result in any statistical mortality.
Speculating and/or carrying beliefs that contradict modern evolutionary biologists probably isn’t going to work out. School might not be always right, but it is most of the time, and it’s right more often than no school, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality