Vestigial Talk

[Mr. Potato Head]

I want to talk about things we do or have today that aren't so needed anymore and what we think or know why they were used.

For instance, the appenix. From what I have heard, it was formerly used to help digest raw meat.

Or on a behavioral note, how about when you are somewhere doing something and someone walks in. Even if your back is turned and you hear the door open and close, you have to turn around and see who it is. I do this all the time in the gym. Who's there!? Is this some sort of protective instinct we used to need?

What other things are there?

[Buffy]

My favorite is nipples on men. Proof to many that there is no intelligent designer!

Cheers,
Buffy

[alxian]

and how odd would we look without them?

if anything male nipples means that their is little difference between the sexes, there doesn't need to be. why waste DNA on making men and women more different and incompatible?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by alxian

and how odd would we look without them?

Have you ever thought about how silly you guys look *with* them?

Originally Posted by alxian

if anything male nipples means that their is little difference between the sexes, there doesn't need to be. why waste DNA on making men and women more different and incompatible?

But if we're designed, why *put* them there? It takes *less* DNA to leave them out! The only reason it would take more is if they were a product of....random evolutionary changes....

Cheers,
Buffy

[alxian]

again

we are one species [vive la difference.. and so forth]

it would be silly to be that different

and no,

imo we'd look sillier without 'em.

males can be induced to lactate.. like hyper gynecomastia where they not only look like breasts but are functionally equivelant. wouldn't it be funny to learn that at some point in history men did lactate to feed children? kind of an exaggerated example of phisiological sympathy men go through when their wives become pregnant.

Originally Posted by Buffy

But if we're designed, why *put* them there?

if you want to be biblical about it god designed adam first, thus men had the nipples first, when eve was created as an after thought they were given a function. one which adam could have had (should have) since he too should have the capacity given the proper body chemistry to create milk should anything have happened to eve.

expressing them versus not expressing them the data needs to be there genetically there is no point shunting them to the female x chromosome... i don't know, i like 'em, they add character.

It takes *less* DNA to leave them out

debatable, the more differences the more our early development would have to change to compensate.

we store quite a bit of genetic data, like a book from which individuals pull out and express pages or paragraphs, where males of course are missing a little bit of it y not x the difference is minimal.

so i guess saying that genetically keeping them saves on male dna versus not expressing static data required to produce another human when propagating the species means there is little difference to the diversity between man and woman according to the dna we each carry around. a matter of expressing versus ignoring the data that would be there no matter what.

what if nipples became female only, a recessive trait.. and a woman was born without 'em?

[Turtle]

___How about our bilateral vestigiality? We need 2 eyes for binocular vision, but you can get by on one. Less obvious is the need for 2 lungs or 2 kidneys. Now that I think of it, aren't humans the only animal with 2 hemispheres in the brain? Removing 1 hemisphere is actually curative for some conditions.
___Maybe vestigiality's purpose is waiting 'till it's needed.

[alxian]

whoa whoa... binocular vision is almost primordial.. its not like monocular (if they even exist*) creatures had any kind of advantage nor is one eye more important than the other.

*its like once photosynsitive tissues evolved into eyes that creatures with multiple eyes did much better than blind or monocular creatures, there was no competition and they must have died out (again if they ever existed).

the eyes evolved as a single system, at least in humans, while yes having two allows for redundancy and you can get by with one its not like many cyclopses are born.

[Turtle]

___My point I guess is that just because something has no apparent use, it isn't logical to assume it has no use..
___As to the turning around at someone's approach, it still seems to serve a survival purpose so I don't think it's vestigial.

[Mr. Potato Head]

I guess I was referring more to the turning around to be misunderstood. It's funny because the cardio equipment faces away from the door and you can see everyone turn around. Some people do their best to resist but you know they want to! Anyways, I don't think anyone there thinks of it as some natural instinct to check for predators but just as being nosy. I think that's a little funny.

Do you think having two of some organs evolved to overcome certain diseases? I mean, taking it to an extreme, I'd love to have a spare body in case I "total" this one.

[Turtle]

___A vestigial "feeling" then? Have you surveyed these folks about this? Do they say "nosy"? It seems maybe the environment puts them more at ease thus giving their cognitive awareness time to ameleorate the fight-or-flight. Hey, come to think of it, why not hook them up to EKG's & do some experiments?!
___Still, most people know that just because a setting appears safe, it's no guarantee.