Question about "Darwin's tubercle"

[cubeus19]

Hey guys I've got a question concerning a apparent vestigal organ around our ears called "Darwin's tubercle" which is like either a bump around the top of either one or both ears. I think not all people have these but many do. I think I've got one myself. I was just curious how non evolutionists respond to this. I was wondering if scientists have found a use for this since many vestigal structures have recently in the past few years have shown to have use. So I was just wanting to see your thoughts on this. Thanks!

[Danieltwotwenty]

Hi Cubeus

I actually have these and I have never heard of the term before, I had a quick look on wiki and found out that it isn't an vestigial organ but evidence of a vestigial feature.
Meaning that they think this point was the tip of the mammalian ear, but as far as I can see from the article it is only proposed and there is no direct evidence to say so ( I may be wrong ).
I am sure there are more people on this forum who will be able to expand on this.
Here is a link to another article that says it debunks the myth http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mytheartubercle.html I am still reading it myself and I am not an expert on biology so I got no idea.

Dan

[Ivellious]

Obviously evolutionary biologists love this piece of evidence. Vestigial structures, organs, and DNA are all strong evidence for evolution. I can't speak for creationists, though I really can't personally think of a good rebuttal to vestigial structures and DNA.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Obviously evolutionary biologists love this piece of evidence. Vestigial structures, organs, and DNA are all strong evidence for evolution. I can't speak for creationists, though I really can't personally think of a good rebuttal to vestigial structures and DNA.

To be honest I don't care either way, if evolution is true; great God exists and uses evolution in the creation process, if it is not true; great God exists and however he did it I will find out someday.


Dan

[sandy_mcd]

Here is a link to another article that says it debunks the myth http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mytheartubercle.html I am still reading it myself and I am not an expert on biology so I got no idea.

The myth the link debunks is that this is a simple Mendelian dominant/recessive trait. It says nothing about the origin of this feature:

Unfortunately, what textbooks, lab manuals and web pages say about these human traits is mostly wrong. Most of the common, visible human traits that are used in classrooms do NOT have a simple one-locus, two-allele, dominant vs. recessive method of inheritance. Rolling your tongue is not dominant to non-rolling, unattached earlobes are not dominant to attached, straight thumbs are not dominant to hitchhiker's thumb, etc.
In some cases, the trait doesn't even fall into the two distinct categories described by the myth. For example, students are told that they either have a hitchhiker's thumb, which bends backwards at a sharp angle, or a straight thumb. In fact, the angle of the thumb ranges continuously, with most thumbs somewhere in the middle. This was clearly shown in the very first paper on the genetics of hitchhiker's thumb (Glass and Kistler 1953), yet 60 years later, teachers still ask students which of the two kinds of thumb they have.
In other cases, the trait really does fall into two categories, but it isn't determined by genetics. For example, students are asked to fold their arms, then told that the allele for having the right forearm on top is dominant. It is true that most people fall into two categories, right arm on top or left arm on top, but the very first study on the subject (Wiener 1932) clearly demonstrated that there is little or no genetic influence on this trait: pairs of right-arm parents are just about as likely to have right-arm children as are pairs of left-arm parents.
Some traits, such as tongue rolling, were originally described as fitting a simple genetic model, but later research revealed them to be more complicated. Other traits were shown from the very beginning to not fit the simple genetic model, but somehow textbook authors decided to ignore this. A quick search in the standard reference on human genetics, Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM), makes it clear that most of these traits do not fit the simple genetic model. It is an embarrassment to the field of biology education that textbooks and lab manuals continue to perpetuate these myths.

[sandy_mcd]

I actually have these and I have never heard of the term before, I had a quick look on wiki and found out that it isn't an vestigial organ but evidence of a vestigial feature.

part of a brief story on vestigiality:

New Scientist

May 17, 2008

Remnants of evolution;
History has revised them, creationists deny them, but vestigial organs are still an unmistakable part of our evolutionary heritage

BYLINE: Laura Spinney.

VESTIGIAL organs have long been a source of perplexity and irritation for doctors and of fascination for the rest of us. In 1893, a German anatomist named Robert Wiedersheim drew up a list of 86 human "vestiges", organs "formerly of greater physiological significance than at present". Over the years, the list grew, then shrank again. Today, no one can remember the score. It has even been suggested that the term is obsolete, useful only as a reflection of the anatomical knowledge of the day. In fact, these days many biologists are extremely wary of talking about vestigial organs at all.
This may be because the subject has become a battlefield for creationists and the intelligent design lobby, who argue that none of the items on Wiedersheim's original list are now considered vestigial, so there is no need to invoke evolution to explain how they lost their original functions. While they are right to question the status of some organs that were formerly considered vestiges, denying the concept altogether flies in the face of the biological facts. While most biologists prefer to steer clear of what they see as a political debate, Gerd Müller a theoretical biologist from the University of Vienna, Austria, is fighting a rearguard action to bring the concept back into the scientific arena. "Vestigiality is an important biological phenomenon," he says.
Part of the problem, says Müller, is semantic: people have come to think of vestigial organs as useless, which is not what Wiedersheim said. In an attempt to clear up the confusion, he has come up with a more explicit definition: vestigial structures are largely or entirely functionless as far as their original roles are concerned - though they may retain lesser functions or develop minor new ones. Müller points out that it is useful to know if a given structure is vestigial, both for taxonomic purposes - understanding how different species are related to one another - and for medical reasons, as in the case of an organ that has no obvious use in adults but turns out to be crucial in development.
Nobody doubts that some human structures that were once considered vestigial have proved to be far from redundant in the light of growing medical knowledge. For example, Wiedersheim's original list included such eminently useful structures as the three smallest toes and the valves in veins that prevent blood from flowing backwards. It also contained several organs we now know to be part of the immune system, such as the adenoids and tonsils, lymphatic tissues that produce antibodies, and the thymus gland in the upper chest, which is important for the production and maturation of T-lymphocytes.
...

[Stu]

Obviously evolutionary biologists love this piece of evidence. Vestigial structures, organs, and DNA are all strong evidence for evolution. I can't speak for creationists, though I really can't personally think of a good rebuttal to vestigial structures and DNA.

Wait, what vestigial structures are you referring to here?
And exactly what about DNA is strong evidence for evolution?

[wrain62]

Obviously evolutionary biologists love this piece of evidence. Vestigial structures, organs, and DNA are all strong evidence for evolution. I can't speak for creationists, though I really can't personally think of a good rebuttal to vestigial structures and DNA.

Wait, what vestigial structures are you referring to here?
And exactly what about DNA is strong evidence for evolution?

Similar features in us and animals or animals to other animals that they both have, but wierdly one needs them and the other does not. It can also be similar features between animals that are unneccesary for both the species. The evidence is for the common descent aspect of evolution. It provides the answer that these features exist because they were there when species diverged; then, later each new species that emerged from that old one retained features that are arbitrary in existence but still there in both species. The description of this phenomenon even goes as far as saying some similarities of these features are stronger in more related species and they become more dissimilar with respect to how old the last common ancestor was. Some creationists say that it was common design not descent.

[Stu]

Similar features in us and animals or animals to other animals that they both have, but wierdly one needs them and the other does not. It can also be similar features between animals that are unneccesary for both the species. The evidence is for the common descent aspect of evolution. It provides the answer that these features exist because they were there when species diverged; then, later each new species that emerged from that old one retained features that are arbitrary in existence but still there in both species. The description of this phenomenon even goes as far as saying some similarities of these features are stronger in more related species and they become more dissimilar with respect to how old the last common ancestor was. Some creationists say that it was common design not descent.

Sure, I was hoping for specifics though. What else apart from the tubercle are we talking about, the appendix?

[Ivellious]

The appendix is one such example. The human tailbone is another "remnant" of evolution. In other animals there are examples such the wings on the Emu (a flightless bird).

As far as "vestigial DNA" goes, there are lots of examples. For instance, humans have a gene that codes for development of a fully funtional tail (like other primates), but the gene is simply deactivated or inhibited in humans. Chickens and other birds that we consider to be somewhat closely related to carnivorous dinosaurs have the genes for dinosaur-like teeth, but they are likewise no longer activated.

[Stu]

The appendix is one such example.

Well the problem of course is that the appendix was shown to have a possible function as far back as 60 years ago.
And here is a recent study; Your Appendix Could Save Your Life

"The Appendix serves as a storehouse for probiotics and also provides a variety of immune-related functions, helping to produce and train white blood cells, as well as playing an important role during fetal development."

The human tailbone is another "remnant" of evolution. In other animals there are examples such the wings on the Emu (a flightless bird).

Again this is just plain wrong What is a Coccyx and What Does It Do

"It is used for the attachment of muscles, tendons, and ligaments which support the bones in our pelvis."

There are several possible reasons for the Emu's wings:

a) They derived from smaller birds that once could fly. This is possible in the creationist model. Loss of features is relatively easy by natural processes; acquisition of new characters, requiring new DNA information, is impossible.

b) The wings have a function. Some possible functions, depending on the species of flightless bird, are: balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the rib-cage in falls, mating rituals, scaring predators (I’ve seen emus run at perceived enemies of their chicks, mouth open and wings flapping), sheltering of chicks, etc. If the wings are useless, why are the muscles functional that allow these birds to move their wings?

c) It is a result of ‘design economy’ by the Creator. Humans use this with automobiles, for example. All models might have mounting points for air conditioning, power steering, etc. although not all have them. Likewise, all models tend to use the same wiring harness, although not all features are necessarily implemented in any one model. In using the same embryological blueprint for all birds, all birds will have wings.

As far as "vestigial DNA" goes, there are lots of examples. For instance, humans have a gene that codes for development of a fully funtional tail (like other primates), but the gene is simply deactivated or inhibited in humans. Chickens and other birds that we consider to be somewhat closely related to carnivorous dinosaurs have the genes for dinosaur-like teeth, but they are likewise no longer activated.

I am unfamiliar with the gene that codes for the development of a "fully functional tail", could you point me in the right direction.

Well the chicken gene has been known for some time, but it is only proof of evolution or common descent if you interpret it from that perspective. Creationists (and non) have known for some time that chickens contain such genes but it merely points to the fact that the bird from which the chicken decended had the ability to generate teeth. You must remember that before homology and the like was used as proof for evolution, creationists used it as evidence for a common designer.
In fact I remember hearing somewhere that a modern bird has teeth, think it was a hummingbird, I'll see if I can find the source.

It truely amazes me how some of these myths are continually recycled by the Darwin camp when many such claims as these have been proven to be false, some even decades ago.

It's the same with Haeckels embryo drawings and Othniel C. Marsh's false horse evolution sequence, I mean Haeckel was convicted of fraud in his very own university yet for some reason they are even referenced in modern text books. Why not create the modern day equivalent of the drawings -- no doubt because the results would not be what they had hoped for, so the best possible source remains one that was faked over a 100 years ago.

[jlay]

The problem with the term vestigal is that it is begging the question. It presumes what it attempts to prove. Further, even if vestigiality could be proved, it doesn't prove Darwinism.

For example, the appendix. Some claim that it is vestigial because 1) we can survive without it. Of course there are many things we can survice without. 2)that it resembles another organ in another species that functions differently.
So one can presume it, but there is literally ZERO evidence. How many appendixes have we studied from a million years ago? Oh wait, there aren't any. But, what if we could prove that the human appendix did in fact degenerate or atrophy. What have we proved? Evolution? Hardly. In fact, the opposite would be true. The is devolving. Loss of function and loss of information does NOT NOT NOT support the tree of Darwinism.

The human tailbone is even more of a stretch. It serves critical mounting points for muscles that hold our guts in. To call it vestigal, is presumptive. We know what functions the appendix and the tailbone serve today. Try living without a tailbone.

Even if humans had DNA for a tail, the fact that it is deactivated is NOT NOT NOT evolution. (I have searched and have yet to find any evidence being coded for tails.) Suppose humans had a tail. Today they do not. That is loss of information, or subtraction of information. Are you seriously trying to contend that humans are devolved from some other primate? If one is arguing for vestigual tails, then devolution is exactly what they are arguing for. Some humans produce little or no facial hair. Did they evolve a new trait? No. They lost a trait, or a trait has been switched off for some reason. If a trait exists and then is switched off or lost, just how in the heck does that support molecules to man evolution? I'd like someone to honestly propose that humans with less facial hair or pigmentation are more evolved. Come on, any of you evolutionists want to propose that lack of skin pigment is evidence of a more evoloved species. I eagerly await.

None of this is proof. It is an example of reading ones presuppositions into the evidence. I understand presuppositions. we all have them. But seriously, to take something that actually is counter evolution and try to spin it pro-evolution, just shows how Darwinist approach things with a distoring bias which refuses to approach the evidence with any academic objectivity.

Similar features in us and animals or animals to other animals that they both have, but wierdly one needs them and the other does not.

Please give an example with sources. My Honda lawn mower, Honda motorcycle and my Honda all have engines, but they have a common designer. Similar features is no more evidence for evolution than it is for design.

we aren't confusing vestigal with useless. However if vestigiality is true, then one would expect leftovers with no remaining function at all. Vestigial as I said before is begging the question. Science should be beyond such fallacious reasoning.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I know nothing of biology so could someone answer me, how do they know the tubercle is not just some coincidence that is similiar to an other mammels ears or could it be just a random feature that can present like birthmarks etc...


Dan

[jlay]

Dan,

You just asked the million dollar question. They don't.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Dan,

You just asked the million dollar question. They don't.

When do I get paid?