• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

How do Creationists explain vestigal organs?

KimberlyAA

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2012
742
51
30
Caribbean
✟1,392.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
First, it is in principle not possible to prove that an organ is useless, because there is always the possiblity that a use may be discovered in the future. This has happened with over a hundred alleged useless vestigial organs which are now known to be essential.

Second, even if the alleged vestigial organ were no longer needed, it would prove devolution not evolution. The creation model allows for deterioration of a perfect creation. However the particles-to-people evolution model needs to find examples of nascent organs, i.e. those which are increasing in complexity.

The tail bone, or coccyx, was indeed long considered vestigial and used as evidence against design. But for some time now it’s been well known that the coccyx serves as an important anchor point for the muscles that hold the anus in place. Anyone who has injured their coccyx would hardly agree that it is not important, with painful walking and especially sitting!

While virtually all of the larger muscles of the body have obvious (as well as some not so obvious) mechanical functions, smaller muscles are not necessarily useless. Two of the smallest muscles in the body, the stapedius and the tensor tympani, serve to dampen the movements of the auditory ossicles and the tympanic membrane (respectively) preventing loud sounds from overloading these delicate structures of the middle ear. In general, most small, short muscles of the body produce fine adjustments in the movement of larger muscles.

One of the problems with the whole concept of vestigial or functionless muscles is the well-known fact that unused muscles quickly degenerate. People ranging from astronauts exposed to a prolonged weightless environment, to those confined to long bed rest, lose a significant amount of muscle mass in only a few months. In short, muscle mass is a matter of ‘use it or lose it’. It is unlikely that any muscle that was virtually unused for the lifetime of an individual (to say nothing of generations of individuals over millions of years) would remain as healthy muscle tissue. It seems overwhelmingly likely that any muscle in the body that actually exists in the present, serves some function.

A biologist suggested that one function of ear muscles could be to help remove wax from the ears. When a person is chewing, or smiling, etc. the ear muscles move the ears. This gradually moves the wax outwards, cleaning the ears. But there could be other functions also.

Modern whales have a pair of bones embedded in their tissues, each of which strengthens the pelvic wall and acts as an organ anchor. These strips of bone have a known function, differ in males and females, and are not even attached to the vertebral column.

Many modern animals and plants are found in dinosaur rock layers. There are fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today including: arthropods (insects, crustaceans etc.), shellfish, echinoderms (starfish, crinoids, brittle stars, etc.), corals, sponges, and segmented worms (earthworms, marine worms).

The vertebrates—animals with backbones such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals—show this same pattern.

Cartilaginous fish (sharks and rays), boney fish (such as sturgeon, paddlefish, salmon, herring, flounder and bowfin) and jawless fish (hagfish and lamprey) have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same as modern forms.

Modern-looking frogs and salamanders have been found in dinosaur dig sites.

All of today’s reptile groups have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same or similar to modern forms: Snakes (boa constrictor), lizards (ground lizards and gliding lizards), turtles (box turtles, soft-shelled turtles), and crocodilians (alligators, crocodiles and gavials).

Contrary to popular belief, modern types of birds have been found, including: parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc.

At the dinosaur dig sites, scientists have found many unusual extinct mammal forms such as the multituberculates but they have also found fossilized mammals that look like squirrels, possums, Tasmanian devils, hedgehogs, shrews, beavers, primates, and duck-billed platypus.

Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers; almost as many as the number of dinosaur species. These include nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons.

Most examples of the acquisition of resistance are not due to mutations, but in nearly all cases are a result of complex, built-in genetic and molecular biological defence systems. Those few examples that are due to mutations are in all cases so far due to loss mutations and do not result in a gain of genetic information.

Concerning your last question, what does inherited physical traits have to do with evolution?
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Vestigial means having a rudimentary function compared to the same homologous structure in other species. In other species, the coccyx acts as the support for the tail. It does not have that function in humans. It is vestigial.

Then its an imaginary definition assuming a connection first
rather than supporting a connection theory second.
When humans do have tails, the coccyx does not support it.
The evidence weighs that there is no relationship between the
two species. Add that biologists no longer support the outdated
vestigial theory.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A biologist suggested that one function of ear muscles could be to help remove wax from the ears. When a person is chewing, or smiling, etc. the ear muscles move the ears. This gradually moves the wax outwards, cleaning the ears. But there could be other functions also.

I've had that happen. It can be embarrassing to have earwax roll out ones ear.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Second, even if the alleged vestigial organ were no longer needed, it would prove devolution not evolution.
There is no such thing as "devolution." The forces of the environment do not plan a "final product" that a species is adapting into. There is no fixed direction of "progress." Any change that enables a species to 1) find more food, 2) shelter from harm, 3) attract a better mate, or 4) raise more offspring is selected for. Whether it be a new organ, a re-purposed organ, or a withered organ, it is still positively selected for.

Otherwise whales would be a bad thing, an example of devolution.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
48
Burnaby
Visit site
✟36,546.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
Nothing we can find on the inter-web thingy?

History of devolution
Medieval Latin devolution-, devolutio, from Latin devolvere
First Known Use: 1545 A.D.

Devolution (biology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Within the context of the discussion, in regards to evolution, there is no devolution. Loss of function, return to a simpler state, etc.; those are the sorts of things that people falsely call "devolution". But it's still just regular old evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Then its an imaginary definition assuming a connection first

Homologous structures are not imaginary.

When humans do have tails, the coccyx does not support it.

The homologous structure in other species does support a tail. The function that the human coccyx does have is a rudimentary function which makes it vestigial.

The evidence weighs that there is no relationship between the
two species.

What evidence is this? Humans and tailed primates share orthologous ERV's which is clear evidence for shared ancestry.

Add that biologists no longer support the outdated
vestigial theory.

Yes, they do. How many whoppers are you going to tell in one thread?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
First, it is in principle not possible to prove that an organ is useless,


But it is possible to demonstrate that an organ does not have the same function as that seen in other species. For example, the human coccyx does not support a tail as it does in other species.

because there is always the possiblity that a use may be discovered in the future. This has happened with over a hundred alleged useless vestigial organs which are now known to be essential.

Vestigial does not mean without function.


, even if the alleged vestigial organ were no longer needed, it would prove devolution not evolution.

There is no such thing as devolution.


The tail bone, or coccyx, was indeed long considered vestigial and used as evidence against design. But for some time now it’s been well known that the coccyx serves as an important anchor point for the muscles that hold the anus in place. Anyone who has injured their coccyx would hardly agree that it is not important, with painful walking and especially sitting!

Again, vestigial does not mean without function. Serving as an anchoring point for anal muscles is a rudimentary function. It is still vestigial.

While virtually all of the larger muscles of the body have obvious (as well as some not so obvious) mechanical functions, smaller muscles are not necessarily useless. Two of the smallest muscles in the body, the stapedius and the tensor tympani, serve to dampen the movements of the auditory ossicles and the tympanic membrane (respectively) preventing loud sounds from overloading these delicate structures of the middle ear. In general, most small, short muscles of the body produce fine adjustments in the movement of larger muscles.

These are rudimentary functions. This is equivalent to using a typewriter as a paperweight.


One of the problems with the whole concept of vestigial or functionless muscles is the well-known fact that unused muscles quickly degenerate. People ranging from astronauts exposed to a prolonged weightless environment, to those confined to long bed rest, lose a significant amount of muscle mass in only a few months. In short, muscle mass is a matter of ‘use it or lose it’. It is unlikely that any muscle that was virtually unused for the lifetime of an individual (to say nothing of generations of individuals over millions of years) would remain as healthy muscle tissue. It seems overwhelmingly likely that any muscle in the body that actually exists in the present, serves some function.

Vestigial does not mean without function.


Modern whales have a pair of bones embedded in their tissues, each of which strengthens the pelvic wall and acts as an organ anchor.

However, the whale pelvis does not support a pelvic girdle that is used to walk on land making the whale pelvis vestigial. I am going to repeat this again . . . vestigial does not mean without function.

Many modern animals and plants are found in dinosaur rock layers.

What we find is extinct members of groups that are not modern species.



Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs.

None of which are modern species.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Homologous structures are not imaginary.

Then you don't know the meaning of imaginary, because that's exactly what they are, imagined.

The homologous structure in other species does support a tail. The function that the human coccyx does have is a rudimentary function which makes it vestigial.

Only if assuming there is any connection.


What evidence is this? Humans and tailed primates share orthologous ERV's which is clear evidence for shared ancestry.

Evidence is only evidence, not a conclusion.

Add that biologists no longer support the outdated vestigial theory.

Easy enough to rebuke if you'd like to make a point. But that way it's worded.....I mean obviously they wouldn't support a outdated version of a theory.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Within the context of the discussion, in regards to evolution, there is no devolution. Loss of function, return to a simpler state, etc.; those are the sorts of things that people falsely call "devolution". But it's still just regular old evolution.

You mean the use of a word people have defined is wrong because it doesn't sit well with you?

If you agree that life has never been simple and that cellular life is less complicated now that in the past, then you'd have a point.

But if you subscribe to the yarn that life began in a simple form and has grown more complex and information filled over time, then your frame of reference gets to have a word that describes the opposite direction.

Or did life just POOF onto the scene all complex and working well as a system?
I'm not sure where your coming from.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Man, Sky, you know NOTHING about evolution, do you...?

What would you like to know?
What I don't know I can find out for you.


I think you meant "put my faith in evolution" which the answer is no.
Understand the theory of evolution? Pretty well.

Is that a scholarly question? Is this a test?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Then you don't know the meaning of imaginary, because that's exactly what they are, imagined.

So the chimp femur and human femur are not homologous? Please explain this.

Only if assuming there is any connection.

We don't have to assume that there is a connection to determine that the human coccyx is vestigial.

Evidence is only evidence, not a conclusion.

The conclusion is shared ancestry and it is based on the genetic evidence such as orthologous ERV's. The evidence demonstrates that humans share a common ancestor with tailed primates. The evidence indicates that our ancestors had tails.

You claimed that the evidence indicated otherwise. What evidence were you talking about?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
But if you subscribe to the yarn that life began in a simple form and has grown more complex and information filled over time, then your frame of reference gets to have a word that describes the opposite direction.

Evolution is change over time. It doesn't matter if this change results in an increase or decrease in complexity. Both are change, and are therefore evolution.

To use an analogy, is there such a thing as dedrving, the opposite of driving? For example, let's say that I start in LA and end up in NY. Would dedriving be any time I drove from East to West along the route? That doesn't make sense since I am still driving. There is nothing in the definition of driving that says I have to drive West to East. The same for evolution. There is nothing in the definition that states that complexity must increase.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So the chimp femur and human femur are not homologous? Please explain this.

I don't even know who your quoting. Why should I explain it?



We don't have to assume that there is a connection to determine that the human coccyx is vestigial.

Hello. Because that's assumed.



The conclusion is shared ancestry and it is based on the genetic evidence such as orthologous ERV's. The evidence demonstrates that humans share a common ancestor with tailed primates. The evidence indicates that our ancestors had tails.

That's just evidence. It demonstrates what you want to believe.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Evolution is change over time. It doesn't matter if this change results in an increase or decrease in complexity. Both are change, and are therefore evolution.

To use an analogy, is there such a thing as dedrving, the opposite of driving? For example, let's say that I start in LA and end up in NY. Would dedriving be any time I drove from East to West along the route? That doesn't make sense since I am still driving. There is nothing in the definition of driving that says I have to drive West to East. The same for evolution. There is nothing in the definition that states that complexity must increase.

If you say that life was more complex when it started than now, then we agree.
You don't have to see any trends if you choose not to.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
I don't even know who your quoting. Why should I explain it?

You are claiming that homology is imaginary. I am asking whether or not the chimp femur is homologous to the human femur. Is it or not?

Hello. Because that's assumed.

What is assumed?

That's just evidence. It demonstrates what you want to believe.

No, it demonstrates shared ancestry between humans and other primates. That is what evidence does, it points to one conclusion over others.

So what your argument really boils down to is denial of the evidence. How surprising.:doh:
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
If you say that life was more complex when it started than now, then we agree.

However, it does not require the entire evolutionary pathway to always move towards increased complexity just as driving from LA to NY does not require you to always be pointed in a West to East direction. Do you agree or disagree?
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Valuable to fetuses. A good breathing exercise for a human in liquid.
They help control the heart rate. It has nothing to do with amphibians in the least.
You might as well guess the devil spirits are trying to get in the babies mouth before they are born.
If one avoids the talkorigins type of website trash, the real answers just pop up in seconds.

What Causes Fetal Hiccups? | LIVESTRONG.COM

Is there something wrong with my source?
You don't seem to like my answer.
 
Upvote 0