Vestigial Organs

[Senator Cheese]

A genuine question to all Creationists: what do you make of vestigial organs?

Specifically, I mean:

- Anatomic vestigials like wisdom teeth, etc.
- Vestigial disorders (e.g. vestigial tails)
- Vestigial behavior (e.g. goose bumps)

Thanks in advance!

 

[AV1611VET]

A genuine question to all Creationists: what do you make of vestigial organs?

Specifically, I mean:

- Anatomic vestigials like wisdom teeth, etc.
- Vestigial disorders (e.g. vestigial tails)
- Vestigial behavior (e.g. goose bumps)

Thanks in advance!

I somehow don't think the mirror in my bathroom is related to the mirror in my car.

 

[Senator Cheese]

I somehow don't think the mirror in my bathroom is related to the mirror in my car.

I am not familiar with many theories of Creationism, although I admit to having listened to some of Hovind's DVDs - here he states, that God created man in his image, and therefore he was perfect.

While disease is accounted for in his theory, given the "devolution" he proposes due to the lack of an "ice mantle" that had blocked out cosmic rays but was destroyed during the flood, I don't see how this theory would explain vestigial examples like the ones shown in my initial post.

So, could you explain how that fits into this theory?
Is it just "coincidence" that some abnormalities, anatomic variants and behavior exists that is identical to that found in animals?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, could you explain how that fits into this theory?
Is it just "coincidence" that some abnormalities, anatomic variants and behavior exists that is identical to that found in animals?

The quick, technical answer I usually give to this type of question is: ontological reduction.

Ontological reduction says God used, what you might humorously call, Snap-on parts to create the universe.

In other words and for example, the same oxygen found in water is found in a lump of coal.

The eye of a gorilla is basically the same as the eye of a human, and so on.

By extension then, an organ that serves in a monkey to swish his tail around, can also be found -- slightly modified -- in humans to serve some function other than prehensile activity.

I hope this made sense.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The quick, technical answer I usually give to this type of question is: ontological reduction.

Ontological reduction says God used, what you might humorously call, Snap-on parts to create the universe.

In other words and for example, the same oxygen found in water is found in a lump of coal.

The eye of a gorilla is basically the same as the eye of a human, and so on.

By extension then, an organ that serves in a monkey to swish his tail around, can also be found -- slightly modified -- in humans to serve some function other than prehensile activity.

I hope this made sense.

That won't work when you know the definition of a vestigial structure is one that has lost all or most of its function. Consider the appendix, which for the most part is a waste of precious space in the human body and is more likely to kill you through infection or rupturing than it is to do a person any good. In other apes, however, this organ helps in the digestion of raw meat safely. There is no realistic reason why a deity would give an animal such as humans an organ that is essentially a liability without any benefit, which is beneficial for other creatures, but evolution models can easily explain why we see such structures.

 

[PsychoSarah]

A genuine question to all Creationists: what do you make of vestigial organs?

Specifically, I mean:

- Anatomic vestigials like wisdom teeth, etc.
- Vestigial disorders (e.g. vestigial tails)
- Vestigial behavior (e.g. goose bumps)

Thanks in advance!

Btw, wisdom teeth aren't vestigial, they still function as teeth just fine. It just so happens that with tooth paste and dental care people are less likely to lose enough teeth for them to fit when they grow in, but in undeveloped countries which don't have such care available, those teeth sure help I bet.

 

[AV1611VET]

That won't work when you know the definition of a vestigial structure is one that has lost all or most of its function. Consider the appendix, which for the most part is a waste of precious space in the human body and is more likely to kill you through infection or rupturing than it is to do a person any good. In other apes, however, this organ helps in the digestion of raw meat safely. There is no realistic reason why a deity would give an animal such as humans an organ that is essentially a liability without any benefit, which is beneficial for other creatures, but evolution models can easily explain why we see such structures.

"Vestigial" is a misnomer, and is a mistake forged in the furnace of the philosophy of evolution.

A "vestigial organ" in a human being is not something that came from a common ancestor; it was placed in mankind from a common designer.

And as far as the appendix goes, it may not serve a function in this dispensation, but who is to say it will not play a part in the next?

Who knows? the appendix may have played a major part in mankind during the dispensation of Innocence,
but from Conscious → Grace,* it has become a lethal enemy?

* That is, that period of time whereby death reigns.

 

[PsychoSarah]

"Vestigial" is a misnomer, and is a mistake forged in the furnace of the philosophy of evolution.

A "vestigial organ" in a human being is not something that came from a common ancestor; it was placed in mankind from a common designer.

And as far as the appendix goes, it may not serve a function in this dispensation, but who is to say it will not play a part in the next?

Who knows? the appendix may have played a major part in mankind during the dispensation of Innocence,
but from Conscious → Grace,* it has become a lethal enemy?

* That is, that period of time whereby death reigns.

I said that evolution explains it more logically than creationism does, not that they don't have explanations for them. I also didn't actually say the evolution explanation for them, but I am glad that you knew of it AV, though I don't know how much detail about it that you are aware of.

 

[AV1611VET]

I said that evolution explains it more logically than creationism does,

True ... but creationism explains it more theo-logically than evolution does.

There's logical -- then there's theological.

 

[PsychoSarah]

True ... but creationism explains it more theo-logically than evolution does.

There's logical -- then there's theological.

-_- I don't even know where you would go with that.

 

[AV1611VET]

-_- I don't even know where you would go with that.

It's simple:

Science can take a hike.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's simple:

Science can take a hike.

I die a little inside every time you think that statement has any meaning in your favor.

 

[AV1611VET]

I die a little inside every time you think that statement has any meaning in your favor.

You wouldn't if you had a tornado bearing down on you and Mother Nature is about to puree you into a concoction of CHNO, and suddenly Someone steps in and orders her to "stand down."

 

[PsychoSarah]

You wouldn't if you had a tornado bearing down on you and Mother Nature is about to puree you into a concoction of CHNO, and suddenly Someone steps in and orders her to "stand down."

Uh oh, don't let Yahweh (YHWH) know you believe in Mother Nature, it might get jealous and make your neighbor take up arms against you (Exodus, right after telling people murder is wrong, has them kill each other for worshiping a golden calf before Moses got the chance to tell them that they couldn't do that X/).

 

[AV1611VET]

Uh oh, don't let Yahweh (YHWH) know you believe in Mother Nature, it might get jealous and make your neighbor take up arms against you (Exodus, right after telling people murder is wrong, has them kill each other for worshiping a golden calf before Moses got the chance to tell them that they couldn't do that X/).

Cute.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I die a little inside every time you think that statement has any meaning in your favor.

Just remember every time AV says that something "can take a hike". He is admitting that he is wrong and has no valid answer for your claim.

When he says that I take it as a sign of victory on my part. Or on the part of whoever is arguing against him. So good one Sarah. You got AV to admit defeat.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Just remember every time AV says that something "can take a hike". He is admitting that he is wrong and has no valid answer for your claim.

When he says that I take it as a sign of victory on my part. Or on the part of whoever is arguing against him. So good one Sarah. You got AV to admit defeat.

It isn't the first time he has said that to me, and I don't view it as a victory, because I don't exist to win debates, I exist to lose them.

 

[AV1611VET]

It isn't the first time he has said that to me, and I don't view it as a victory, because I don't exist to win debates, I exist to lose them.

Don't tell him this, but it's my user title.

I'm just walking my talk.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't tell him this, but it's my user title.

I'm just walking my talk.

Yup, AV is constantly admitting that he is wrong from his user title alone.

By repeating it he is doubly admitting that he is wrong.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Don't tell him this, but it's my user title.

I'm just walking my talk.

-_- that it is your user title doesn't exactly make me feel any better about it, in fact, it makes it worse. Being proud of ignorance is just something that makes me feel absolutely melancholy. Because sad isn't a fancy enough word.