Thompson's Vampire Bat Cheek Teeth have been discredited as proof of Vestigal Structures
T Pagano
Thompson's Vampire Bat Cheek Teeth have been discredited as proof of
Vestigal Structures
Let's recap:
1. Thompson clearly implied that the lack of enamel on the vampire
bat cheek teeth was proof that the vampire bat cheek teeth had no
function.
2. A wikipedia article showed that extant vampire bats use the
cheek teeth for cutting and that the lack of enamel makes/keeps the
cheek teeth sharp. See
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O8-cheekteeth.html
3. Thompson implies a biological law of molars being used solely for
grinding.
4. The wikipedia article crashes that law.
5. Thompson asserted that "a vestigial structure is one that is a
leftover from some earlier form."
6. Nonetheless Thompson replies that historical evidence was not
required to prove the vestigal claim. Without historical evidence of
the structure and function of the cheek teeth in an evolutionary
predecessor the claim of vestigal is unscientific story telling.
7. Thompson presented evidence of varying sizes and shapes of extant
molars in populations of vampire bat.
8. This is a simple matter of population genetics. The existence of
such variations in the genome of extant populations is not prima facie
evidence of disuse or changed function.
9. A secular evolutionist expert entered a statement at the Scopes
Trial in 1925 that 180 vestigal structures existed in the human body
proving that evolution was true. By 2002 when Thompson began his
vampire bat cheek teeth vestigal campaign the number of human vestigal
structures had dwindled to about 6 tenuous examples all of which had
possible functions. As a matter of history the claim of vestigal is
more often than not a place holder for ignorance of function.
Thompson thought that his bat cheek teeth story telling some how
discredited me. Not by a long shot. Thompson's credibility
is another story.
See this post for the long story and the thread which spawned it
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/47e2d4d8cbc33303#
Regards,
T Pagano
RAM
> Thompson's Vampire Bat Cheek Teeth have been discredited as proof of
> Vestigal Structures
>
> Let's recap:
> 1. Thompson clearly implied that the lack of enamel on the vampire
> bat cheek teeth was proof that the vampire bat cheek teeth had no
> function.
> 2. A wikipedia article showed that extant vampire bats use the
> cheek teeth for cutting and that the lack of enamel makes/keeps the
> 3. Thompson implies a biological law of molars being used solely for
> grinding.
> 4. The wikipedia article crashes that law.
> 5. Thompson asserted that "a vestigial structure is one that is a
> leftover from some earlier form."
> 6. Nonetheless Thompson replies that historical evidence was not
> required to prove the vestigal claim. Without historical evidence of
> the structure and function of the cheek teeth in an evolutionary
> predecessor the claim of vestigal is unscientific story telling.
> 7. Thompson presented evidence of varying sizes and shapes of extant
> molars in populations of vampire bat.
> 8. This is a simple matter of population genetics. The existence of
> such variations in the genome of extant populations is not prima facie
> evidence of disuse or changed function.
> 9. A secular evolutionist expert entered a statement at the Scopes
> Trial in 1925 that 180 vestigal structures existed in the human body
> proving that evolution was true. By 2002 when Thompson began his
> vampire bat cheek teeth vestigal campaign the number of human vestigal
> structures had dwindled to about 6 tenuous examples all of which had
> possible functions. As a matter of history the claim of vestigal is
> more often than not a place holder for ignorance of function.
>
> Thompson thought that his bat cheek teeth story telling some how
> discredited me. Not by a long shot. Thompson's credibility
> is another story.
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
You are a loon. You believe in a stopped sun, a global flood, a young
earth, and geocentrism.
In your failed proof you cite no empirical studies but declare and
assert what is factual. How "loonitypical!"
I920 biology is not definitive of contemporary understandings. Do you
understand that an minimal set of empirical citations of contemporary
scientific research is required in this scientific debate. It seems
obvious that you do not. This appears to be the consequence of you
being a reactionary religious troll. Grow up and learn to deal with
contemporary reality and stop being an ass.
Klaus Hellnick
>
>
>
> Thompson's Vampire Bat Cheek Teeth have been discredited as proof of
> Vestigal Structures
>
>
>
> Let's recap:
> 1. Thompson clearly implied that the lack of enamel on the vampire
> bat cheek teeth was proof that the vampire bat cheek teeth had no
> function.
No, he stated that they were now longer used for their original function
of grinding solid food. You are lying about what he said.
> 2. A wikipedia article showed that extant vampire bats use the
> cheek teeth for cutting and that the lack of enamel makes/keeps the
> cheek teeth sharp. See
> http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O8-cheekteeth.html
> 3. Thompson implies a biological law of molars being used solely for
> grinding.
No, he pointed out that they were used as normal molars in the ancestral
species and no longer used for grinding.
> 4. The wikipedia article crashes that law.
He never stated any such "law".
> 5. Thompson asserted that "a vestigial structure is one that is a
> leftover from some earlier form."
> 6. Nonetheless Thompson replies that historical evidence was not
> required to prove the vestigal claim. Without historical evidence of
> the structure and function of the cheek teeth in an evolutionary
> predecessor the claim of vestigal is unscientific story telling.
I don't recall him ever stating that.
> 7. Thompson presented evidence of varying sizes and shapes of extant
> molars in populations of vampire bat.
> 8. This is a simple matter of population genetics. The existence of
> such variations in the genome of extant populations is not prima facie
> evidence of disuse or changed function.
> 9. A secular evolutionist expert entered a statement at the Scopes
> Trial in 1925 that 180 vestigal structures existed in the human body
> proving that evolution was true. By 2002 when Thompson began his
> vampire bat cheek teeth vestigal campaign the number of human vestigal
> structures had dwindled to about 6 tenuous examples all of which had
> possible functions. As a matter of history the claim of vestigal is
> more often than not a place holder for ignorance of function.
Yet, you have never produced any evidence for this assertion, especially
the Scopes list.
>
>
> Thompson thought that his bat cheek teeth story telling some how
> discredited me. Not by a long shot. Thompson's credibility
> is another story.
Thompson's credibility is fine, although I don't agree with his
political and economic views.
chris thompson
> On 7/6/2010 8:29 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>
>
>
> > Thompson's Vampire Bat Cheek Teeth have been discredited as proof of
> > Vestigal Structures
>
> > Let's recap:
> > 1. �Thompson clearly implied that the lack of enamel on the vampire
> > bat cheek teeth was proof that the vampire bat cheek teeth had no
> > function.
>
> No, he stated that they were now longer used for their original function
> of grinding solid food. You are lying about what he said.
Agreed.
>
> > 2. �A wikipedia article showed that extant vampire bats use the
> > cheek teeth for cutting and that the lack of enamel makes/keeps the
> > cheek teeth sharp. �See
> >http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O8-cheekteeth.html
Yes. And as I pointed out, as has been known since Darwin published
(if not before) that unused structures are often coopted for other
purposes. To paraphrase Gould, "My credit card was not designed to
open a locked classroom door but it seems to do the job."
> > 3. �Thompson implies a biological law of molars being used solely for
> > grinding.
>
> No, he pointed out that they were used as normal molars in the ancestral
> species and no longer used for grinding.
Not only that I would never invoke a biological "law". There are no
biological laws; there are rules of thumb.
>
> > 4. �The wikipedia article crashes that law.
>
> He never stated any such "law".
>
> > 5. �Thompson asserted that �"a vestigial structure is one that is a
> > leftover from some earlier form."
Yes. The premolars of the genus in question are leftover from a
previous form that was used for grinding the hard chitinous shells of
insects. This is clearly seen from the related forms that are either
opportunistically sanguivorous, or opportunistically insectivorous.
> > 6. �Nonetheless Thompson replies that historical evidence was not
> > required to prove the vestigal claim. �Without historical evidence of
> > the structure and function of the cheek teeth in an evolutionary
> > predecessor the claim of vestigal is unscientific story telling.
>
> I don't recall him ever stating that.
I did not say that. I said that we could draw conclusions from related
extant forms. Tony's assertion that we must know the entire
evolutionary history of a structure before we can assess it as
vestigial is simply BS.
>
> > 7. �Thompson presented evidence of varying sizes and shapes of extant
> > molars in populations of vampire bat.
Indeed I did. We see a beautiful transitional series from
insectivorous species to sanguivorous species.
> > 8. �This is a simple matter of population genetics. �The existence of
> > such variations in the genome of extant populations is not prima facie
> > evidence of disuse or changed function.
Really? Care to provide the maths behind that assertion? Population
genetics is a *highly* mathematical field, and things like this are
pretty well worked out. If you want to invoke pop-gen, do the maths.
> > 9. �A secular evolutionist expert entered a statement at the Scopes
> > Trial in 1925 that 180 vestigal structures existed in the human body
> > proving that evolution was true. �By 2002 when Thompson began his
> > vampire bat cheek teeth vestigal campaign the number of human vestigal
> > structures had dwindled to about 6 tenuous examples all of which had
> > possible functions. � As a matter of history the claim of vestigal is
> > more often than not a place holder for ignorance of function.
You continue to conflate "vestigial" with "without function". You are
wrong, plain and simple. A vestigial organ or structure is one left
over from some previous structure. It might or might not have acquired
some secondary function or it might not. Please quit lying about this,
since you have been corrected about it *numerous* times.
>
> Yet, you have never produced any evidence for this assertion, especially
> the Scopes list.
Tony, Tony, Tony. YOU asserted the list of structures in the first
place. This is another dishonest tactic on your part. Don't you get
tired of lying? Isn't there some point at which honesty becomes
preferable to you?
>
>
>
> > Thompson thought that his bat cheek teeth story telling some how
> > discredited me. �Not by a long shot. �Thompson's credibility
> > is another story.
>
> Thompson's credibility is fine, although I don't agree with his
> political and economic views.
And while I do not agree with your political or economic views, you've
done a fine job of rebutting Tony's evasions, misdirections, and
outright bullshit. Thank you for your time and effort, Klaus.
Chris
>
>
>
> > See this post for the long story and the thread which spawned it
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/47e2d4d...
>
> > Regards,
> > T Pagano
Rusty Sites
>
>
>
> Thompson's Vampire Bat Cheek Teeth have been discredited as proof of
> Vestigal Structures
>
>
>
> Let's recap:
> 1. Thompson clearly implied that the lack of enamel on the vampire
> bat cheek teeth was proof that the vampire bat cheek teeth had no
> function.
No, you just insist on misstating the meaning of vestigial. At this
point, I think it is fair to say that you are lying.
> 2. A wikipedia article showed that extant vampire bats use the
> cheek teeth for cutting and that the lack of enamel makes/keeps the
> cheek teeth sharp. See
> http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O8-cheekteeth.html
This page shows me some dentists that are in my state but nothing about
vampire bats.
You might want to check out "Mammals of South America"
By Rexford D. Lord, 2007 p. 90 where it says,
"Because blood does not require mastication, vampire bats have vestigial
molar teeth that cannot be used to check effectively."
> 3. Thompson implies a biological law of molars being used solely for
> grinding.
Not a law, but that is what most species use them for.
> 4. The wikipedia article crashes that law.
Do you think the wings of flightless birds were not originally designed
for flying?
> 5. Thompson asserted that "a vestigial structure is one that is a
> leftover from some earlier form."
I think that is probably a reasonable definition. It is certainly a lot
better than you "has no function whatsoever,"
> 6. Nonetheless Thompson replies that historical evidence was not
> required to prove the vestigal claim. Without historical evidence of
> the structure and function of the cheek teeth in an evolutionary
> predecessor the claim of vestigal is unscientific story telling.
No, vampire bats have close relatives with molars used for grinding.
The overall picture is quite consistent with vampire bats having evolved
from ancestors with molars used for grinding. That's the best that
anybody can do and is light years ahead of what you do which is just
proclaim that you somehow see the truth without actually looking.
> 7. Thompson presented evidence of varying sizes and shapes of extant
> molars in populations of vampire bat.
> 8. This is a simple matter of population genetics. The existence of
> such variations in the genome of extant populations is not prima facie
> evidence of disuse or changed function.
> 9. A secular evolutionist expert entered a statement at the Scopes
> Trial in 1925 that 180 vestigal structures existed in the human body
> proving that evolution was true. By 2002 when Thompson began his
> vampire bat cheek teeth vestigal campaign the number of human vestigal
> structures had dwindled to about 6 tenuous examples all of which had
> possible functions. As a matter of history the claim of vestigal is
> more often than not a place holder for ignorance of function.
This sounds like something from a creationist site. The giveaway is
"had possible functions". That is irrelevant.
>
>
> Thompson thought that his bat cheek teeth story telling some how
> discredited me. Not by a long shot. Thompson's credibility
> is another story.
Well I guess so since you have proclaimed it thus oh pompous, bloviating
one.