Talk:Human vestigiality

message: Raising the hair is also used to trap an extra layer of air, keeping an animal warm. This reflex formation of goosebumps when cold therefore has a useful function in humans with thick body hair, but the reflex to form them under stress is vestigial.
# No source is cited to provide evidence that even “particularly hairy humans” are hairy enough to trap a sufficient volume of air to be considered an efficient thermoregulatory mechanism. Without such evidence, the classification of their function as “useful,” even in such people, is unwarranted. Unfortunately, I am unaware of any studies conducted that measure the efficiency.
# The question of whether or not the contraction of Arrectores pilorum, when a human is cold, is an efficient thermoregulatory mechanism in particularly hairy humans is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the mechanism is vestigial in an overall sense. There is no contention that their contraction, when cold, is has no significant thermoregulatory effect in most humans, thus overall, the mechanism is vestigial in regards to thermoregulation, as well as emotion. (regardless of whether or not particularly hairy humans are exceptions)
# Even the Wikapidia article on Arrectores pilorum arrives at the same conclusion (despite requiring a necessary citation to provide sufficient evidence to that end):
Although humans' Arrectores pilorum also contract in response to cold or arousal, they are vestigial because humans do not have enough hair to make them effective. –Erectores_pilorum
For these reasons, I have reworded the Human vestigiality article as follows:
Raising the hair is also used to trap an extra layer of air, keeping an animal warm. Due to the diminished amount of hair in humans, the reflex formation of goosebumps when cold, as well as when under stress, is vestigial.
FutureMolecularBio (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermoregulatory effect of Human ''Arrectores pilorum'' 

message: it seems it would be very useful to show more of how vestigiality in humans and other animals are related - for example: humans/primates don't use their appendix anymore, but what groups of the mammal phylogenetic tree still do? - or which primates don't have a tail and which do? just something I was myself wondering... Spettro9 (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vestigiality and it's use/relation to evolutionary study/phylogenetics 

message: "The plica semilunaris of Africans and Indigenous Australians have been said to have slightly larger than other peoples.[2] "
:Why is this necessary? It appears to be suggesting that African and Indigenous Australians are lower in the evolutionary scale.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.236.195 (talk) 07:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Variation is pretty important in understanding homology, including vestigial structures. Any idea of an 'evolutionary scale' seems to be your own invention. Richard001 (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Although I don't have a reference, I know for certain that the plica semilunaris varies across individuals. This is because I have a functioning, but involuntary, nictitating membrane. Mine is white and opaque. I was told that this  trait is common in Northern China and Mongolia, but I have never been able to confirm this. I am white and from european ancestry, not that it matters. HairyWombat (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Eye

message: "In rare cases it can persist after birth."
~
What's 'it'?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.243.195.136 (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reworded, thank you. Tim Vickers 17:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug in "coccyx" section 

message: The "sense of smell" section doesn't fit with the rest of the sections on human vestigiality. Sense of smell is still being acted on by natural selection. The section makes a point of this and ignores it.  If someone can smell toxic fumes, they know to leave the room and are subsequently able reproduce, and thus able to pass on their "nose" gene.  
<P>To further emphasize the distinction, several other sections point to parts of the body which either aren't being acted on by natural selection (the muscles that move the ear, as we no longer have shaped ears) and parts that are being pushed out for other parts which are being acted on by natural selection.  The 2.1.2.3 dentition of humans in the wisdom teeth section is important, for instance, because many humans are being born with 2.1.2.2 dentition as skull cavity gets bigger. The evolutionary trend has been tracked through Australopithecus (robustus and africanus) and homo erectus & ergaster</I> and into homo sapiens sapiens</I> (American whites, 1954 study1) as a reduction in molar size (M2 at 14 in Africanus and 10 in AmerWhites and M3 at 10 in AmerWhites down from 15 in Africanus (number is derived from adding the length and width of the crown and dividing by two)  Bigger brains either means bigger heads or smaller faces.</P>
Also, pet peeve. For dynamic subjects like evolution, can we use more recent articles than The Descent of Man? If this were an entry on phrenology I'd understand but Darwin hasn't been in his field for almost a century and a half.
1Robinson, J.T (1954) Prehominid Dentition and Hominid Evolution.</B>Lawrence, KS.: Evolution vol. 8 pp. 324-334
:If you want to use more recent references, please do so. Darwin used olfaction as an example in Descent. The article isn't suggesting olfaction as a whole is not under selection, but that the ability to detect some chemicals is. Richard001 (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Sense of Smell Section 

message: i think this article is pretty much the equivalent of the german article Rudiment.
Maybe someone (who knows how to do that) could link the two pages  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehnwo (talk • contribs) 15:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to german article 

message: In this revision, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_vestigiality&oldid=295724484 ,  (the one immediately previous to the addition of the template) the last four paragraphs of the Molecular section are copied verbatim from the url indicated. The placement of the plagiarism template in that section wiped that stuff out though it seems. --Rajah (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism in Molecular section

message: *The prognatism is a vestigiality of the link with the monkeys/animals and "humans"(os mais próximos fenotipicamente e neuro-genotipicamente dos animais/símios/afins..)..!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.52.147.65 (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Simiesc prognatism

message: Correct me if I am wrong, but are not primitive reflexes part of human vestigiality? In Jerry Coynes book Why Evolution is True he speaks of a babies grasp being an evolutionary vestigial reflex. 
An excerpt:
“The final example from humans takes us into the realm of speculation, but is too appealing to omit. This is the “grasping reflex” of newborn babies. If you have access to an infant, gently stroke the palms of its hands. The baby will show a reflex response by making a fist around your finger. In fact, the grasp is so tight that an infant can, using both hands, hang for several minutes from a broomstick. (Warning: don’t try this experiment at home!) The grasping reflex, which disappears several months after birth, may well be an atavistic behavior. Newborn monkeys and apes have the same reflex, but it persists throughout the juvenile stage, allowing the young to hang on to their mother’s fur as they’re carried about.”
I understand that this is stated as speculation, but is there verified research on this reflex?
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/the-vestigial-grasp-of-infants/
I consider that if appropriate evidence was found it could be an addition to the article.
More sources for the claim:
*Psychology by Peter Gray (fifth edition) - page 66.
*Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne – page 85-86
*Archetype: A Natural History of the Self by Anthony Stevens – page 87
Andrew Colvin (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That would actually be an excellent addition, and I think the URL you gave is a good enough source - Coyne is a reputable scientist, after all. Mokele (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The vestigial grasp of infants 

message: Do male nipples count as vestiges?
From what I've read, they don't have any prior function, but only exist in men because nipples develop prior to sexual differentiation.
Does a structure need to have had a prior function to be considered vestigial?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.104.195 (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't count because they're the product of shared developmental pathways.  In order to be vestigial, the structure must be useless in both sexes. Mokele (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, some males can lactate, and practically i've heard any male can do it but it's difficult and one needs to be subject to high stress. If Women stop breast feeding, then is it vestigial? --75.159.2.59 (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male nipples 

message: Specifically, this sentence: "This muscle is very sporadic in frequency always "present" in Malays, in 56% of "blacks", 50% of Japanese, 36% of Europeans, and is "nonexistent" in Hottentots and Melanesians". Now I realize this information was lifted from a text published in 1875, when some of the terms would have been considered appropriate, but this is 2010. Could a more modern source be found for this information?  vlad§inger  tlk  23:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated racial classifications 

message: At what point did a tail stop being useful?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.22.204 (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Tale 

message: Human embryos have a yolk sac even though they do not obtain nutrition from yolk (the yolk sac does perform other secondary functions, though).
“A phylogenetic remnant that was better developed in an ancestor is vestigial. The pelvic girdle of whales is said to be vestigial because ancestors of whales were tetrapods with functional tetrapod appendages. The yolk sac of the mammalian embryo is vestigial.”
(George C. Kent & Robert K. Carr, Comparative Anatomy of the Vertebrates: Ninth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2001, p26)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.235.88 (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yolk sac 

message: I've always been told the small kidney bean like nodules behind some people's ears are vestigial gills. And that these Hirsuties coronae glandis are vestigial penile spikes.
These 2 aren't mentioned in the article.83.101.79.208 (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find a reference for these (outside of Wikipedia)? Stuff added to Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. HairyWombat 03:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have to look for verifiable sources for anything , this is the talk page , finding verification is done on the article page. I am merely stating that to my knowledge these 2 things are vestigial organs , if people want to investigate it to make the article more complete they should. I was hoping for nothing more than a discussion on the subject.  83.101.79.208 (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

text: If you want these two to be added to the article then you (or somebody else) will need to find sources. HairyWombat 14:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion 83.101.79.208 (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Yep! Having previously been exapted for a new, important function - eating!  ;-)  (Hmmm, would that have been in the Devonian maybe? Or even earlier?) JonRichfield (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  vestigal gill , vestigal penile spines 

message: Butchering text wholesale when it is referenced, coherent, and a requested expansion to a section, is simply vandalism. OR is not simply a matter of composing quoted items of information from various verifiable sources. Summarising is not simply chopping out text ad lib. Kindly take such matters to the talk page in future before indulging yourself. JonRichfield (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The text removed by judgeking was poorly written and mostly editorializing. Anyone can and should remove poorly written or otherwise unencyclopedic text without prior discussion. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Jon, I don't see the Talk anywhere before you added your original, long-winded drivel --Judgeking (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is just tons of POV wording in your edits, it's ridiculous. ', 'such questionable opinions', 'seemed very moderate', etc.  To who?!? To you, that's who.  It doesn't get more POV than that. --Judgeking (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

text: The talk should have been before you saw fit to walk in as master wrecker. Good faith editors start that way; they don't use Talk pages as last resorts. It gets a great deal more POV than the samples you mention; you are quoting very little, and quoting out of context at that. If you wish to argue the point about a particular bit of wording, try justifying it. For example, if you think that "apparent, or even obvious, ancestral functions" means the same as "their obvious, original functions", go back to biology 101. And if you see any POV in that go back to English 101; for a start, your version is far more POV -- who says what is obvious, you? And what makes you think that "ancestral" means "original"? If you are impugning the sources quoted, then you need to provide justification with more than your own opinion. Also, the material you removed was not just phraseology such as 'Quite understandable', 'probably irrelevant' etc, it included articulately referenced historically relevant quotes. "Seemed very moderate" had nothing to do with my opinion or POV at all, as you would see if you took the trouble to read.  If you don't understand, ask; I'll explain if no one else gets in first.  Let's see you support your criticism of the latter in context for instance? Are you suggesting that there could possibly be a connection between removal of questionably unhealthy appendices and trigeminal neuralgia? What next? Water memory? How would you word or characterise the case? And in whose opinion? Yours? This is a history section. It deals with more than established modern opinion, and the opinions of the actors in the events must be documented as well, both in fact and in context. That is why I ref'd so many of them. Just your personal abuse doesn't license you to remove substantial material without more justification than your personal taste. Now,how about justifying some of your items as being non-substantial? By all means remove "Quite understandable" if you like, but then put in some form of wording that conveys the same relevance of the material supported. Pointless deletion isn't contribution, it is self-indulgent vandalism. You haven't done a constructive stitch of work on the article, but see fit to justify your personal taste by gross removal of information. Well, I'll have a look at what wording you might want changed, but the samples you mentioned are not among them. Why not drop a hint or two? But quotes out of context won't cut it. JonRichfield (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Had someone I know look at article, they agree, as do many others I've talked to. --Judgeking (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: JonRichfield

message: So, all of this is proof of evolution? We evolved from apes? Or a "common ancestor" of apes? Why do humans have a tailbone, and some are even born with actual tails? Apes don't have tails, only monkeys do. Do apes have a tailbone, at least? Are they ever born with tails, like some rare humans? Did our "common ancestor" have a tail?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.252.56 (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article makes no such claim. Let's keep discussion to how to improve the article. HairyWombat 02:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tailbones are proof of evolution? 

message: In the first part of the 3-part PBS special "Your Inner Fish" (website here), near the end of the episode, the host Dr. Neil Shubin talks with a woman who has a small opening/pore-like structure on the side of her face near the ear. According to the show, it's actually a rare manifestation of the pharyngeal arch and the woman uses to it "prove" (somewhat jokingly) that she's more fish than most other humans. Apparently the opening/pore is truly part of the pharyngeal arch system, although it's rare. Does anyone know what it's actually called? I've tried searching for it but can't find anything beyond the embryonic arches themselves and stuff relating to the inner ear which all humans have. I think it would be an interesting addition to this article, especially since not everyone has it but "it" is a real thing (similar to Darwin's tubercle). Coinmanj (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bit late I'm sure, but you're probably thinking of the preauricular sinus. There haven't been scientifically tested explainations concerning its potential for a vestigial trait; however, it's developmental cause is known. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 10:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vestigial gill pore (near the ear) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Human vestigiality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080310041049/http://txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage12.html to http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage12.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified