| home about the bible bible books evidence |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
Vestigial OrgansIt has to said that more tripe has been written about the so-called 'vestigial organs', as an attempted proof of evolution, than about practically any other subject. In 1895 Wierdersheim claimed to have found many organs in the human body for which there was no use, and that therefore these organs were vestigial. He argued that they must have had a use at some point, but as their use was now indeterminate it was a justified assumption that they were now redundant, or 'vestigial'. Some of these organs are found in other organisms, often in an enlarged form, where their use is clear. Nevertheless, to claim that an organ is vestigial, simply because its use has not been determined, seems to me to be very suspect science. H.G.Wells said "Weidersheim, the celebrated German anatomist, enumerated in the body of man no less than 180 organs which are vestigial, wholly or almost useless to us, although useful to other animals, each one a stumbling block to the believer in special creation but an ally to the Evolutionist." (Wells 1931) Unfortunately Wells got his quote wrong, because Weidersheim only claimed 86 vestigial organs, in point of strict fact (Weidersheim 1895). But even so the whole things smells. How can one claim that an organ has no use when one is merely ignorant of any uses? Another one who, predictably enough, pitched in with the same sort of argument was Darwin. "Rudimentary (vestigial) organs will speak infallibly with respect to the nature of long lost structures". (Darwin 1956) What all three missed was that even if there were any vestigial organs they would be powerful evidence for degeneration and retrogression and not of evolutionary progress. The problem for evolutionists is to prove that living organisms acquire new organs, not that they lose old ones. The truth is that the lack of vestigial organs does indeed speak infallibly with respect to the nature of long lost structures, simply that structures probably have never been lost or gained. However, all three men badly missed the point, as many do today. The simple fact is that vestigial structures are now known not to exist. Let's take a few of the more notorious examples. The Coccyx The coccyx is supposed to be a vestigial tail turned inwards, and therefore useless in man. It is, of course, found more developed in some lower animals, and larger versions are the basis of tails. It is rather naive, however, to argue that because man does not possess a tail that the coccyx is useless. It is bent forwards in order to provide extra support for the pelvic viscera. It provides a development site (an organiser site) for the muscles (particularly the gluteus maximus) which control elimination, and which also allow man to sit without inconvenience (Scadding 1981). That does not mean that it has to be present for the person to survive, any more than to live one must have perfect vision, or two eyes, or, for that matter, even one. The point is that the presence of the coccyx makes that person more effective than someone without it, just as having two eyes is better than having one, or none, and having 20/20 vision better than having a glaucoma. I once met a person who claimed that her mother had no coccyx. She (the daughter) made much of this fact, citing it as proof that this organ was vestigial. Unfortunately, on this basis, one could claim that kneecaps are vestigial, or hair, or toenails, because one can survive without any of these. However, anyone who has lost any of these will be pretty quick to tell you how inconvenient it is to be without them. The Pineal gland It has been shown that the pineal gland is a biological clock, which regulates the activity of the sex glands amongst other things. It is the only gland that appears to synthesise melatonin (Wurtman and Axelrod 1965). Melatonin is a crucial substance which regulates the development of sexual characteristics and triggers growth cycles. Biological clocks themselves are not just fashion accessories: they are a vital part of the physiological processes of all living things. Parkinson's disease is connected, in some way, with the loss of our biological clock. Ear Muscles The muscles of the outer ear do not serve the usual purpose of muscle tissue, namely that of ear movement; nevertheless they may be useful in increasing the blood supply to the organ in cold climates, thereby diminishing the danger of freezing. Again, if we do not know what these things do, it is merely displaying ignorance to claim that they do nothing, or that their function is diminishing. They may not have the same function in man that they have in other animals, but that is a far cry from their having no function. The Appendix The favourite 'vestigial organ' still quoted as such in arguments about Evolution, and particularly in school textbooks, is the appendix. This is a finger-like projection from the small intestine at the point of connection with the large intestine. It occasionally becomes infected, and the results of such infection can be very serious. Because of this fact doctors used to remove the appendix at the slightest sign of trouble. The appendix is usually mistaken by most people (including some Biologists, who ought to know better) for the caecum. The caecum is the structure in rodents which contains a bacterial brew to digest the cellulose in the animal's diet. The appendix is actually a separate organ at the end of the caecum (and this is true of the mammalian appendix - the caecum in other mammals is just very short). In Darwin's day no-one had any idea what the appendix did, and many still do not realise just how important this small organ is in mammals, and it has to be said that this ignorance is largely due to a disinformation campaign by Evolutionists. But we now know what it does. The appendix is a sensor for infection, placed in the very position where it will quickly pick up any problems in the digestive system. If infection occurs it is most likely to occur at the end of the small intestine, and that is precisely the position of the appendix. Not only does it alert the body's immune system (the general protection system) to danger at this point, but it can also begin the defence work itself. Indeed so crucial is it that people who have had their appendix removed suffer poorer health later in life, and it was this fact that alerted doctors to the importance of that small organ. Now doctors, if they possibly can, leave the appendix alone. As long ago as 1947 a Prof W.Strauss, writing in the Quarterly Review of Biology, stated that "There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure." (Strauss 1947) In other words he, as an informed Scientist and Evolutionist, was quite happy to state that the appendix, far from being a useless, shrinking piece of tissue, was a very important part of the body. Perhaps we ought to allow an eminent evolutionist to have the last word on this particular subject. Professor E.S.Goodrich, in The Evolution of Living Organisms, said that "He would be a rash man indeed who would now assert that any part of the human body was useless." (Goodrich 1912) In other words for him there were no such things as vestigial organs. That was almost 100 years ago! And this was from an evolutionist of high standing in those days. Nascent organs Now although that should settle the issue with respect to vestigial organs, there is a related issue, namely that of nascent organs. The argument is compelling. Organs, particularly complex ones, cannot just 'appear', out of nowhere, so to speak. Evolutionary processes, if they exist, produce things infinitesimally slowly. Structures as complex as kidneys, hearts, lungs, etc., must be gradually built up. This means, logically, that each nascent organ should be visible long before it becomes useful. Indeed, our bodies, and those of other organisms, ought to be plugged with nascent organs, all in different stages of development, all struggling towards perfection, at which point they can be used by that organism. The same argument can be used of the cell. A typical cell contains many different organelles, all doing useful and interesting jobs, but there should be many more 'embryo' organelles, all being prepared by the cell for the day on which they are brought out into the world to do their unique bit. Do you honestly believe that? I don't, and I don't think anyone else does either. In any case what we would like to see, or what we believe, is irrelevant in this case, because nascent organs don't exist, and no organism has ever been shown to possess them. We have no evidence of nascent organs. The logical conclusion is that there never were any, and that therefore evolution is a myth. It is interesting to consider one of the pleas, or plaints, of the more enlightened evolutionists. In essence this is
One is tempted to say 'How very unsporting of evolution'. Just when things were getting really interesting it has all ground to a halt because all of a sudden things just cannot get any better. Again, I do find that argument rather far-fetched. References: |
