Seven Evolutionary Leftovers in the Human Body

[Geriatrix]

http://www.divinecaroline.com/article/22353/67814-seven-evolutionary-leftovers-human-body

Wings on a flightless bird, eyes on a blind fish, and sexual organs on a flower that reproduces asexually—the casual observer might ask, what’s the point? But these vestigial organs and structures, once useful in an ancestor and now diminished in size, complexity, and/or utility, carry important information and give us clues to our evolutionary past.

Though humans often think of vestigial organs as useless little fixtures that sometimes, as in the case of the appendix, cause us extreme anguish, we wouldn’t know nearly as much about macroevolution as we do now without their presence. In On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin used vestigial organs as evidence for evolution, and their presence has helped define and shape our phylogenetic trees.

Why the Leftovers?
Contrary to what most think, vestigial doesn’t necessarily mean useless; in some cases, we may just not yet know exactly how the organ is used in its current incarnation. (The human thymus was once thought to be vestigial). Because these structures can be traced back through the ancestors, they essentially serve as a marker of evolution; no organism can have a vestigial organ that hasn’t been found in its forefathers. For this reason, you won’t ever find feathers on a mammal or gills on a primate.

Similar in concept to vestigial structures are atavisms, which are the reappearance of a structure or trait that isn’t found in the immediate ancestors. For instance, whales and dolphins have been found in nature with hind limbs; this rare occurrence is due to the reemergence of a trait they inherited from their terrestrial ancestors.

Humans also contain structures that mark where we came from and perhaps, which structures’ evolution will take care of over time...

Human Tail (Bone)
One striking example of an atavism is the human coccyx, or tailbone, which is a relic of the mammalian tail. Useful for mammals that use tails for balance, species-to-species signaling, and support, the tail is missing in apes and in humans. However, all human embryos initially have a tail. Normally, they regress into four to five fused vertebrae (the coccyx). However, there have been numerous case studies of human children being born with an extended coccyx—a tail—that was removed without incident. Ranging from one inch to five, the gene that normally stops vertebrae elongation is decreased and the human tail remains at birth.

Wisdom Teeth
Our ancestors, known to be herbivores, needed strong molars for mashing up and chewing plant material. This relic is why many of us will develop wisdom teeth, also known as third molars. Theoretically, they could still be used for chewing, but in one third of people, they can come in sideways, impacted, or can cause pain and infection. This is why these vestigial structures are almost always removed when they begin to come in.

Appendix
Another leftover from our plant eating ancestors is the vermiform appendix, which is an organ attached to the large intestine. A similar sac is much bigger in other animals than it is in humans and is used to aid in digesting high cellulose diets.

While appendicitis can be a potentially fatal condition, and removing the appendix has no adverse effects, some researchers think that the appendix might have an auxiliary function, such as aiding the immune system.

Vitamin C Synthesis
In humans, vitamin C deficiency causes scurvy, and can eventually cause death. We can’t synthesize vitamin C (ascorbic acid), but our ancestors, save for the guinea pig and primates, were able to do so. Therefore, it makes sense that we have a vestigial molecular structure, now defunct, that manufactures the vitamin. The gene required for vitamin C synthesis was found in humans in 1994, but it was a pseudogene, meaning it was present but unable to function. The pseudogene was also found in some primates and guinea pigs, as expected.

Male Nipples
Male nipples are sometimes referred to as vestigial, although they aren’t truly, because they were never functional in our ancestors. Instead, they most likely occur because in the embryonic stage we are essentially sexless, only differentiating into male and female with the presence of hormones.


Goose Bumps
When we get goose bumps, it’s the action of muscle fibers called erector pili, which cause the hairs in follicles to stand to attention. In animals, such as a cat, this causes a larger appearance and can be used to thwart an attacker, as well as trap air between feathers and fur for insulation. However, humans, with our minimal coating of fur, don’t really need the raised hair; we use jackets instead. It is therefore thought that goose bumps don’t really serve much of a purpose. However, the small expenditure of energy used to contract the muscles could, perhaps, cause a tiny release of heat. Or, because goose bumps are associated not only with cold, but emotional responses as well (listening to a good song, seeing a scary movie) they could now serve as a form of communication with others.


Vomeronasal Organs (VNOs)
In mice and other animals, the tiny vomeronasal organs (VNOs) are thought to be responsible for pheromone detection, helping to pick up the chemicals that signal a potential mate, reproductive status, and other social cues. Although similar structures have been found in humans, they’re largely thought to be vestigial and inactive, having lost nerve connection to the brain.

There are other vestigial and atavistic structures in humans, especially when you consider the potential leftovers in our genomes. And if they don’t require too much energy or resources to make, chances are they’ll stick with us for the long haul.

 

[w1z4rd]

If we are designed. Carp design He really must be a blind watch maker.

 

[mercurial]

You won't believe this, but I was thinking about this recently. I was about to ask questions about our DNA, because it seems at some point in our development, we have gils, like fish, but then it "deactivates" and disappears, or something like that.

 

[Geriatrix]

Without it, we could live 30% longer, have much improved metabolism, and thus eat less, meaning slowed aging, and increased lifespan.

Yes but maybe that gene was usefull in a hunter gatherer society, where there wasn't a KFC and McDonalds around every corner. Storing
some fat would be usefull if food is hard to come by.

 

[Kornhub]

"Appendix
Another leftover from our plant eating ancestors is the vermiform appendix, which is an organ attached to the large intestine. A similar sac is much bigger in other animals than it is in humans and is used to aid in digesting high cellulose diets.

While appendicitis can be a potentially fatal condition, and removing the appendix has no adverse effects, some researchers think that the appendix might have an auxiliary function, such as aiding the immune system."

I think I read in YOU magazine that all your good bacteria goes into the appendix (if you have a runny tummy) so that it avoids getting errr flushed away?

I can't remember if it was the appendix though

 

[Phronesis]

Well, with this kind of logic, what is stopping anyone from coming to the conclusion that brains are evolutionary leftovers as well?

Let's see:
1) Human Tail (Bone)
Bit of a misnomer here. The coccyx actually has a function:
Several muscles converge from the ring-like arrangement of the pelvic (hip) bones to anchor on the coccyx, forming a bowl-shaped muscular floor of the pelvis called the pelvic diaphragm. The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs. Fun hey...

2) Wisdom Teeth
Apparently some have them some don't. Just like common sense. Guess common sense is also just an evolutionary left over.
Some have them removed, some don't, just like stomachs, kidneys, gallbladders, the appendix etc. Does that make gallbladders and stomachs also just evolutionary leftovers?

3) Appendix
Well, contrary to the beliefs of some, this little structure actuallt has a function.
The Appendix Has a Purpose After All

A few other articles indicating function:
1) Dasso JF. Howell MD. 1997. "Neonatal appendectomy impairs mucosal immunity in rabbits." Cellular Immunology. 182(1):29-37.
2) Dasso JF. Obiakor H. Bach H. Anderson AO. Mage RG. 2000. "A morphological and immunohistological study of the human and rabbit appendix for comparison with the avian bursa." Developmental & Comparative Immunology. 24(8):797-814.
3) Fisher, RE. 2000. "The primate appendix: a reassessment." The Anatomical Record (New Anatomist) 261:228-236.
4) Weinstein PD. Mage RG. Anderson AO. 1994. "The appendix functions as a mammalian bursal equivalent in the developing rabbit." Advances in Experimental Medicine & Biology. 355:249-53.
5) A more detailed survey of the evidence, with numerous references to other technical literature, showing that the appendix is not a vestigial organ can be found in J.W. Glover, The Human Vermiform Appendix—a General Surgeon’s Reflections, CEN Technical Journal, 3:31–38, 1988.

In short:
The appendix contains a high concentration of very specialized structures called lymphoid follicles (also found throughout the GIT). Lymphoid follicles in the appendix produce cells that produce antibodies that control which essential bacteria come to reside in the caecum and colon in neonatal life. The "strategic" placement of the appendix is important during the development of neonatal life in the setup of healthy intestinal flora therefore neonatal appendectomy will impair mucosal immunity. And as the OP article stated: "The appendix's job is to reboot the digestive system..." and "acts as a good safe house for bacteria,".

Hey, it has a finction and it is an evolutionary leftover...just like brains and common sense.

4) Vitamin C Synthesis
Sooo, the L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (GULO) gene is not making vitamin C in primates? Evolutionary leftover? Yep, just like the failures some brains to produce common sense. Point being?
And is the GULO gene functionless?

5) Male Nipples
Leftovers from what is what I want to know.

6) Goose Bumps
Those small muscle contractions that generate heat when it is cold? Well they do help a little, just a little thinking helps no and again from those other evolutionary leftovers... brains.

7) Vomeronasal Organs (VNOs)
So perhaps these don't have a function with regards to pheromone detection...
Perhaps the possibility of some other function since immunohistochemical expression of neuronal markers, intermediate filaments, lectins, integrins, caveolin, CD44, and aquaporins have been described
Goodness knows positing that it is functionless might well turn out to be another argument from ignorance as in the case of the appendix, junk DNA etc...


But, let's for argument sake look at the assertion that these things are bad designs and the result of a blind watch maker. What makes such a person think a blind watch maker did a good job with brains... those structures that help make thoughts and arguments? Just another botced leftover like the appendix by a blind watch maker? Why is this a good argument then ?

 

[cyghost]

It is impossible not to know and understand that the Blind Watchmaker in this analogy implies there *is* no watchmaker... oh wait

 

[Phronesis]

Try replacing blind watch maker with natural selection .
Metaphor.

Then... consider this:
Natural selection does not do anything. Will Provine in his book:
The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics
From page 199 (see above link):

As John Endler has argued eloquently in Natural Selection in The Wild (1968), natural selection is not a mechanism. Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push or adjust. Natural selection does nothing. Natural selection as a natural force belongs in the insubstantial category already populated by the Becker/Stahl phlogiston (Endler 1986) or Newton's "ether".
Natural selection is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quantifiable causes.

Natural selection does nothing.


So, to help you along....
Let's for argument sake look at the assertion that these things are bad designs and the result of natural selection. What makes such a person think natural selection did a good job with brains... those structures that help make thoughts and arguments? Just another botced leftover like the appendix by natural selection? Why is this a good argument then?

 

[cyghost]

No. You simply do not understand.

Nothing is designed. Nothing is badly designed. IF it was designed, it is a bad design. Because it could have been done better and more effeciently and done away with wisdom teeth for instance.

As it isn't designed, it is exactly as we would expect it to be if we got here though entirely natural progression. Including brains and appendixes.

I don't care how you misunderstand or misrepresent Natural Selection. This was adequately explained to you before and I won't rehash. There is no hopes that you'll suddenly comprehend what is actually fairly simple.

 

[Phronesis]

You make an interesting assertion. Three in fact. Care to expand a little on these three statements.
1) Nothing is designed.
2) Nothing is badly designed.
3) It is exactly as we would expect it to be if we got here though entirely natural progression.

What would an entirely supernatual progression look like?
Differentiate between an entirely natural and an entirely supernatural progression.

You seem to be stuck with the term "design".
Let me put it to you in a different way:

A) Your body including your brain and wisdom teeth are evolutionary leftovers and the result of natural selection.
B.1) Why do you think your brain, which is just another leftover like wisdom teeth, is a good design if it was designed while wisdom teeth are bad designs if they were designed? Of course you don't think anything is designed, but mind elaborating on what you think a good and bad design is?
B.2) Why do you think your brain, which is just another leftover like wisdom teeth, is capable of design since you assert that nothing is designed or badly designed?
C) If nothing is designed, why is your argument a well designed argument?

Do you understand natural selection? Read here and explain what you understand of natural selection:
Natural selection does not do anything. Will Provine in his book:
The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics
From page 199 (see above link):

As John Endler has argued eloquently in Natural Selection in The Wild (1968), natural selection is not a mechanism. Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push or adjust. Natural selection does nothing. Natural selection as a natural force belongs in the insubstantial category already populated by the Becker/Stahl phlogiston (Endler 1986) or Newton's "ether".
Natural selection is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quantifiable causes.

Tell the good people what natural selection does and while you are at it, differentiate between artificial selection and natural selection.

 

[cyghost]

We are talking about life. Not about everything or nothing. Please pay attention.

1) Life isn't designed
2) See above - no design implies no bad OR good design
3) Indeed

Differentiate between an entirely natural and an entirely supernatural progression?

One we can explain, one we cannot explain. Seems simple really.


A: Word
B1: Non sequitur - there *is* no design
B2: Equivocvation and has been explained to you before
C: Been there done that - remember our legless artist?

Read here on Natural Selection. kthx

 

[rwenzori]

Natural selection does nothing.

Let me quote your Provine quote back at you:

Natural selection is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quantifiable causes.

The phrase "natural selection" is a convenient generic name for the outcomes of said "discernible and often quantifiable causes". Or do you also deny such causes?

This is basic stuff, man. Or can you not even grasp the concept when put so simply?

 

[Alan]

The human body is rather pathetic. Whether you believe we "evolved" or were "created". Clearly both did a pretty crap job of it

Then again with the "evolve" theory there is some hope for the future. Very, very distant future lol

 

[Phronesis]

We are talking about life. Not about everything or nothing. Please pay attention.

Indeed. And you assert that life is not designed, but somehow believe life that designs somehow emerged somewhere in time... You still don't say how. Evolution-did-it? Natural-selection-did-it? Now is a good time to expand a little on what you actually know . Your own words of course, like you constantly tell others to do .

1) Life isn't designed

As you should have picked up by now, this is not a scientific statement. This has about as much truth as the statement that "science has scientifically determined the presence of minds".
Either our reality is based on mind and life is the result of design (either directly or indirectly) or it is not. This is a philosophical question that has perplexed humans for millenia and continues to do so. Your statement is meaningless.

2) See above - no design implies no bad OR good design

Nothing scientific about it as you know .

3) Indeed

Differentiate between an entirely natural and an entirely supernatural progression?

One we can explain, one we cannot explain. Seems simple really.

We can't scientifically explain minds, are they supernatural because we can't explain them? Perhaps another attempt at differentiating between an entirely natural and an entirely supernatural progression for you because that was just a dismal failure?

A: Word
B1: Non sequitur - there *is* no design

Then the statement that the appendix and wisdom teeth are bad designs are also non-sequiturs. Yet these non-sequiturs keep getting raised by the same bunch of non-sequitur blabbing "minds". Well, according to your assertion that those statements are non-sequiturs anayway...

B2: Equivocvation and has been explained to you before

You have actually failed to elaborate on the belief that non-designed brains can design.

C: Been there done that - remember our legless artist?

Remember how you could not elaborate on why you think well-designed arguments can come from non-designed entities...like brains? Waiting....

Read here on Natural Selection. kthx

Remember how you constantly moan others can't give an understanding of something by themselves? You still do not seem to understand natural selection. Even wiki explains it in simple terms, simple enough for you to understand. I think now is a good time for you to show that you actually understand what is being said there. In your own words of course, wouldn't want people to think you are a hypocrite now .

Mind you, you still have not differentiated between natural selection and artificial selection . Now is also a good time.

Even rwenzori gets it now, after reading a little Provine. here it is just in case you can't put it in your own words:
"Natural selection is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quantifiable causes."

Like a ball falling from the sky... gravity, the necessary outcome of a quantifiable cause. Gravity does not "naturally select" FOR the ball to fall. The ball falls because it is a necessary outcome of the law of gravity. Where do laws come from again?

Like he said... basic stuff.

Contrast natural selection with agency.
1) Natural selection: "The necessary outcome of discernible and often quantifiable causes."
2) Agency: An agent is not a passive spectator of unfolding actions, but the author thereof and has the ability to manipulate information.

Agents, like yourself, can choose between outcomes. You can choose to throw a ball and let gravity take over after that. Or you can choose not to. You are the author of your actions. You can choose to explain YOUR understanding of the difference between natural selection and artificial selection or not.

Molecular autonomous agents able to monitor (sensing receptors), interprit (genetic code and intracellular signaling) and act (chemotaxis) in response to environmental information have been around ever since the emergence of life, manipulating their outcome. It should thus be clear by now that biological evolution happens as a result of molecular autonomous agents manipulating their environment for survival and natural selection is just the outcome of the actions of these molecular autonomous agents.

Now let's focus a little on minds. Science has not scientifically verified the presence of minds. There is no scientific theory or scientific explanation or scientific evidence that verifies the existence of other minds, including yours, mine and any other MyBB member. Does this mean minds do not exist? Who knows, but I certainly believe that you, me and other human beings have minds. Can I scientifically show you the evidence for my belief? No. Call me a faith head if you want .

The human body is rather pathetic. Whether you believe we "evolved" or were "created". Clearly both did a pretty crap job of it

Brains are pathetic because of natural selection. I believe our pathetic brains can make use of our "pathetic-brain" designed science to make better pathetic brains in the future...BUHLIEVE it .
Oh crap.... that was just 100% self-refuting dribble.

Then again with the "evolve" theory there is some hope for the future. Very, very distant future lol

Hope in the future for what? Does evolution have a direction?

 

[cyghost]

Indeed. And you assert that life is not designed, but somehow believe life that designs somehow emerged somewhere in time... You still don't say how. Evolution-did-it? Natural-selection-did-it? Now is a good time to expand a little on what you actually know. Your own words of course, like you constantly tell others to do.

Billions of years ago self replicating organisms appeared. They acted on their environment and their environment acted on them. Some became extinct, some for various reasons didn't. They were Naturally Selected

These changes and replication and variations went on for millions and millions and millions of years. Some of these organism became so complex that they could start changing their environment to better survive - ants build ant heaps, birds build nests, and beavers build dams. Suddenly we have design. Well not so suddenly is it? Took a couple of years but what the hell eh? Now obviously I just skipped about a few billion years in the explanation there, but we'd be here all day if I had to lay out the whole process, every step of the way. So can we bury this ridiculous assertion of yours that design cannot come from non-design. Whatever *that* really means.

As you should have picked up by now, this is not a scientific statement. This has about as much truth as the statement that "science has scientifically determined the presence of minds".

Not being a scientist, I have no problem that most of my statements aren't scientific. But I'll have it for the record, neither are yours. So what now Mr Brainy Sciency guy? What now?

Either our reality is based on mind and life is the result of design (either directly or indirectly) or it is not. This is a philosophical question that has perplexed humans for millenia and continues to do so. Your statement meaningless.

Nothing scientific about it as you know


We can't scientifically explain minds, are they supernatural because we can't explain them? Perhaps another attempt at differentiating between an entirely natural and an entirely supernatural progression for you because that was just a dismal failure?

There are lots of things we cannot explain. *Your position is that these are all supernatural. Mine is that we'll have natural explanations someday or never know. You asked me to distinguish between a natural and a supernatural progression. There *is* no supernatural progression. The supernatural does not exist. It is a redundant word that explains exactly nothing. The problem is not so much with my answer to you, but with the question itself. I'll leave you to work it out then shall I?

Then the statement that the appendix and wisdom teeth are bad designs are also non-sequiturs.

YES YES YES he gets it!

Yet these non-sequiturs keep getting raised by the same bunch of non-sequitur blabbing "minds". Well, according to your assertion that those statements are non-sequiturs anayway...

Maybe not? Those are raised when your side make claims for a perfect designer. Silly. Pay attention now please.

You have actually failed to elaborate on the belief that non-designed brains can design.

No I haven't.

Remember how you could not elaborate on why you think well-designed arguments can come from non-designed entities...like brains? Waiting....

I have adequately done this. Many times over. All that remains is that you don't quite understand...words?

Remember how you constantly moan others can't give an understanding of something by themselves? You still do not seem to understand natural selection. Even wiki explains it in simple terms, simple enough for you to understand. I think now is a good time for you to show that you actually understand what is being said there. In your own words of course, wouldn't want people to think you are a hypocrite now.

Phrony you do me a dishonor. I gave you the wiki link because it simply and clearly explains it. Here, I'll rather just extract what I think is the pertinent parts and leave you to try and comprehend.

Natural selection is the process...
The term natural selection has slightly different definitions in different contexts
the term is often used to refer to both the evolutionary consequence of blind selection and to its mechanisms


So what Natural Selection is, is a name for all the mechanisms that plays a roll in the survival of organisms. It is not complicated and I hope you can lay this to rest now once and for all.

Mind you, you still have not differentiated between natural selection and artificial selection. Now is also a good time.

Even rwenzori gets it now, after reading a little Provine. here it is just in case you can't put it in your own words:
"Natural selection is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quantifiable causes."

Like a ball falling from the sky... gravity, the necessary outcome of a quantifiable cause. Gravity does not "naturally select" FOR the ball to fall. The ball falls because it is a necessary outcome of the law of gravity. Where do laws come from again?

Like he said... basic stuff.

Contrast natural selection with agency.
1) Natural selection: "The necessary outcome of discernible and often quantifiable causes."
2) Agency: An agent is not a passive spectator of unfolding actions, but the author thereof and has the ability to manipulate information.

Agents, like yourself, can choose between outcomes. You can choose to throuw a ball and let gravity take over after that. Or you can choose not to. You are the author of your actions. You can choose to explain YOUR understanding of the difference between natural selection and artificial selection or not.

Molecular autonomous agents able to monitor (sensing receptors), interprit (genetic code and intracellular signaling) and act (chemotaxis) in response to environmental information have been around ever since the emergence of life, manipulating their outcome. It should thus be clear by now that biological evolution happens as a result of molecular autonomous agents manipulating their environment for survival and natural selection is just the outcome of the actions of these molecular autonomous agents.

So what is the problem then?

Now let's focus a little on minds. Science has not scientifically verified the presence of minds. There is no scientific theory or scientific explanation or scientific evidence that verifies the existence of other minds, including yours, mine and any other MyBB member. Does this mean minds do not exist? Who knows, but I certainly believe that you, me and other human beings have minds. Can I scientifically show you the evidence for my belief? No. Call me a faith head if you want .

You are a faith head I know I exist. I know I am aware. And I interact with others around me. That is all the evidence I (and most humans) need. I really don't see you problem and why you are hampering on and on and on and on about this. Do you think that I somehow think their are no "mind"? Who are you addressing this to and why?

*paraphrased to make a point
** had to cut some of your emoticons to have my own - 8 is our limitation.

 

[Phronesis]

Billions of years ago self replicating organisms appeared. They acted on their environment and their environment acted on them. Some became extinct, some for various reasons didn't. They were Naturally Selected

These changes and replication and variations went on for millions and millions and millions of years. Some of these organism became so complex that they could start changing their environment to better survive - ants build ant heaps, birds build nests, and beavers build dams. Suddenly we have design. Well not so suddenly is it? Took a couple of years but what the hell eh? Now obviously I just skipped about a few billion years in the explanation there, but we'd be here all day if I had to lay out the whole process, every step of the way. So can we bury this ridiculous assertion of yours that design cannot come from non-design. Whatever *that* really means.

Self-replicating organisms aka molecular autonomous agents just magically appeared...naturally selected of course. Suddenly we have design and designers.
Magic and design... naturally selected since... forever.

Your understanding of evolution, natural selection and the emergence of design is non-existent. Fail. try again.

There are lots of things we cannot explain. *Your position is that these are all supernatural. Mine is that we'll have natural explanations someday or never know.

My position is that we will someday know .

You asked me to distinguish between a natural and a supernatural progression. There *is* no supernatural progression. The supernatural does not exist. It is a redundant word that explains exactly nothing. The problem is not so much with my answer to you, but with the question itself. I'll leave you to work it out then shall I?

There *is* no supernatural progression hey? Wow, another meaningless assertion. And you have the nerve to say you are not a naturalist or a materialist. Try being coherent next time .

YES YES YES he gets it!

Maybe not? Those are raised when your side make claims for a perfect designer. Silly. Pay attention now please.

Try reading up on the word "coherent", "non-sequitur" and then read what you have written again. Do try and be at least consistent and coherent.

No I haven't.

I have adequately done this. Many times over. All that remains is that you don't quite understand...words?

Well then, please do elaborate then your belief that non-designed brains can design. No magic appearance of molecular autonomous agents and sudden emergence of design. Just a good old scientific explanation and no more meaningless assertions...

Phrony you do me a dishonor. I gave you the wiki link because it simply and clearly explains it. Here, I'll rather just extract what I think is the pertinent parts and leave you to try and comprehend.

snipped the copy paste part...

So what Natural Selection is, is a name for all the mechanisms that plays a roll in the survival of organisms. It is not complicated and I hope you can lay this to rest now once and for all.

What a catastrophic failure at understanding natural selection. You can't even get it right after copying and pasting from wiki.

Natural selection is NOT a mechanism - William B Provine
"As John Endler has argued eloquently in Natural Selection in The Wild (1968), natural selection is not a mechanism. Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push or adjust. Natural selection does nothing. Natural selection as a natural force belongs in the insubstantial category already populated by the Becker/Stahl phlogiston (Endler 1986) or Newton's "ether".
Natural selection is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quantifiable causes."

That you still don't get this is mind boggling. You may blame wiki for your misunderstanding.

So what is the problem then?

That small little difference between natural selection and artificial selection that you decide not to give an answer. Do elaborate.
And that small difference between agency and natural selection. Surely you get it don't you?

You are a faith head I know I exist. I know I am aware. And I interact with others around me. That is all the evidence I (and most humans) need. I really don't see you problem and why you are hampering on and on and on and on about this. Do you think that I somehow think their are no "mind"? Who are you addressing this to and why?

The part where you don't have any scientific evidence, just anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence suggests eating tiger-eye balls helps for certain medical ailments. You ask for scientific evidence. Allow us the same scientific evidence that you or any other person has a mind.
You can’t explain minds scientifically, therefore you must have a mind because you think you do is not a scientific answer. At least try (scientifically) to show you or anyone else has a mind . or are you too just a faith head for believing you have a mind... no scientific evidence.

 

[mercurial]

Just get a fckng room and have a pillow fight you two, why don't you?

 

[Phronesis]

Have some green tea. Anecdotal evidence suggests it helps for hemorrhoids (if present) and other irritations.

 

[mercurial]

Have some green tea. Anecdotal evidence suggests it helps for hemorrhoids (if present) and other irritations.

Like you?

 

[Phronesis]

Why yes, anecdotal evidence suggests it might .