vestigial organs
Posted on: May 5, 2007 - 10:32am
Offline
vestigial organs
Stephen Caesar wrote:
One of the alleged pillars of evolutionary evidence is the presence of so-called vestigial organs — body parts that are now useless, but which scientists theorize must have been fully functional in the distant past, when we were animals and needed them. Two such organs, the appendix and the thymus, are frequently used by evolutionists as proof that humans possess useless organs that were once used by our evolutionary ancestors.
As with other “proofs” of evolution, this one rests on pure assumption. The verifiable scientific facts refute evolutionary speculation regarding both organs in question. The first of these, the appendix, is now known to be a helpful organ, not a useless holdover. Studies of the rabbit appendix show that it contains large amounts of lymphoid tissue. Julie Pomerantz, wildlife veterinarian and program officer for the Wildlife Trust’s North American Conservation Medicine Initiative, explains the importance of this:
“Similar aggregates of lymphoid tissue occur in other areas of the gastrointestinal tract and are known as gut-associated lymphoid tissues….[T]hese tissues are involved in the body’s ability to recognize foreign antigens (molecules to which the immune system can respond) in ingested material” (Pomerantz 2001: 96).
She concludes with a statement that exposes the emptiness of evolutionary speculation on this issue:
“Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system. The appendix may be particularly important early in life because it achieves its highest state of development shortly after birth and then regresses with age, eventually coming to resemble such other regions of gut-associated lymphoid tissue as the Peyer’s patches in the small intestine” (Pomerantz 2001: 96).
The fact that this “vestigial” organ is most active in infancy, and then fades in importance as the child grows, is relevant to the second example, the thymus. This organ was also dismissed by evolutionists as useless, but it is highly necessary in infancy. I. L. Cohen, a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, remarks:
“[M]edical research ultimately realized that the thymus gland has a function — an extremely important one. It was not the leftover from some hazy evolutionary process that took place over ‘millions of years ago.’ New born babies have a large thymus gland, in perfect functioning order. As the child grows, the gland degenerates, becoming almost non-existent in the fully grown adult. But this gland plays an important role in the growth of the human body.
“The thymus produces large doses of antibodies for the protection of the newly born baby, so as to protect it against the various germs present in its new surroundings. We must realize that the child who spent nine months in the mother’s womb was protected by her immune system. All of a sudden the baby leaves that sterile ambiance and is thrust into a new world, teeming with germs and bacteria. It needs a constant, reliable flow of antibodies to defend itself and survive. The thymus gland constitutes that defense mechanism until the body can adjust and the other organs and glands can develop and take over the job of biochemical protection. When the other body mechanisms grow enough to shoulder the responsibility of protecting the body against germs, the thymus gland starts to shrink and phases itself out of existence. This is a long way from the reasons submitted by evolutionists! It did not prove the theory of evolution — it simply underscored our ignorance of our state of ignorance” (Cohen 1984: 195-196).
An creationist came to me with that article, but I don't know very much about biology. Could someone help me refute this?
Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant
- Login to post comments
I didnt read the whole thing but noticed right away this...
"body parts that are now useless" That's not what vestigial means. It means something that was usefull for something before and has left it's remnants for another limited use. Like whale legs that were once used for walking and have virtually disappered and what is left is a sexual function.
If I'm not mistaken. the appendix was used to help digestion when we were herbivores.
Check tallkorigins.org.
Anacondas have a clawed toe used to tickle females, making them receptive to sex. I would think that MOST of what we call vestigial organs retained some funtion, or they would have disappeared. suppose some would be more vestigial than others. Would male nipples be concidered vestigial? Can anyone think of an organ that remains and is obviously and truely useless? Just wondering.
A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce
I stopped reading after the article started to quote a "WILDLIFE VETERINARIAN". They are quoting a vet on human biology? They couldn't get a physiologist or doctor to lie to them.
Biochemist & Law Student
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson
Yep on the appendix at the poster above mentioned. It contains bacteria whcih were once used to break down cellulose, pectin and other hard to digest polysaccharides. This organ behavior is presently seen in birds - particularly large birds such as emus and ostriches.
Biochemist & Law Student
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson
I want to start out this rebuttal with the following quote:
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."-- Charles Darwin
Well as always the creationists try to find holes in evolutionary theory in order to refute evolutionary theory. But this isn't even a hole. The fact that they found lymphoid tissue in rabbit appendices is in fact old news. 1965 I believe. You mean to tell me they're just now starting to read scientific literature?
;">J Immunol. 1965 Aug;95(2):306-13. So what? It has lymphoid tissue. Big deal lymphoid tissue is found throughout the intestinal tract, bone marrow all over your body. Just because the appendix has lympoid tissue does not mean that was it's sole purpose. Fact of the matter is this...correlation does not equal proof. Many adults get their appendix removed and live just fine.
This article this guy has sent you is shortsighted and proves nothing. The thymus functions in immunity especially during embryonic development. There is no big news there. It does not disprove evolution. However, ironically this may give some evidence towards the concept of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.
Ask your friend why there is evidence for certain lizards to possess a complement immune system protein thought to be responsible for killing the spirochete that causes lymes disease? Why don't humans have this protein, if we were made perfect in the image of god? Why does disease affect us so? I find it ironic how creatinonists are using the Kent Hovind explanation of immunity in the appendix while at the same time are completely ignorant of the immune system.
Also, it's ironic how the article fails to mention other vestigial organs...say the coccyx---- or the tail bone. Obviously a shortened version of a tail... or...the article fails to mention about vestigial legs in snakes--especially in boids (more primitive snakes) where there are remnants of a pelvic bone...or in whales... read this thread: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life/366
Let me add this: trying to disprove evolution by these pointless, meaningless correlations is exactly the kind of ignorance creationists show about science. I can give you a thousand explanations for the proof of evolution. The more important one is DNA evidence. There is forensic evidence that shows evolution, even in your own genes. We have DNA evidence to show how species adapt. We can pinpoint deletions, mutatatons of DNA code to show where genes have changed in species corresponding to selective forces. We have fossil genes in our own genome which tell us our story and how we got to where we are.
One example outlined in the book below is about icefishes (family Channichthyidae, suborder Notothenioidei) of Bouvet Island. These fish are the only vertebrates that lack red blood cells. How could such a creature live without redblood cells and more importantly, how did this creature get rid of it's red blood cells?
"All vertebrates in the world have red blood cells for carrying oxygen to the vital organs. You or I could not live without erythrocytes. Red blood cells contain large amounts of the hemoglobin molecule, which binds oxygen as blood cells circulate through the lungs or gills, and then releases it as red cells circulate through the rest of the body. The hemoglobin molecule is made up of a protein called globin and a small molecule called heme. The red color of blood is due to the heme that is buried in the hemoglobin molecule and actually binds the oxygen. We would, and do, die without red cells (anemias are conditions of low red cell numbers). Even close relatives of the icefish, such as Antarctic rock cod and New Zealand black cod, are red-blooded."
However, these fish live and thrive without red blood cells? So let's examine this.... upon looking at the DNA of these fish...we find two genes missing for heme and globin gene. One of these genes is fossilized in the genome, in other words it is no longer there in it's functional form, however remnants remain. The other is completely gone. This is proof that at one time these fish did possess blood and have adapted (via natural selection and mutations) to live with out it.
Well....read this, it is a full explanation and pointless for me to paraphrase it: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-151100562.html
This example among many others give irrefutable proof of evolution. I highly recommend reading this book: The Making of the Fittest by Sean Carroll. http://seanbcarroll.com/books/The_Making_of_the_Fittest/
There is irrefutable evidence DNA evidence that shows evolution. I could go into detail about some of the facets of this but I'll let you do some research, read for yourself and if you have questions ask me. If we use DNA forensic evidence to put criminals behind bars...why do we not believe the same evidence when it comes to evolution? It's simple...but the creationists ignore the vast amount of evidence for evolution but try, as this article shows, to focus on meaningless probabilities. Ridiculous.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Thanks for all the replies guys
I really appreciate your effort!
I was quite sure that the article was complete gibberish... but try telling that a creationist without overwhelmingly sound arguments (when they even fail to see obvious evidence). Soooo, thanks a lot for giving me the ammunition I need. I really should study up on biology a bit.
Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant
There's also a couple of logical/rhetorical responses to the creationist "no vestigial organs" argument. Some don't require any biology.
1. The fact that scientists have incorrectly identified some structures as "vestigial" in the past is not evidence for intelligent design. This flaw becomes obvious when you restate it: "Some scientists were wrong about the human appendix, therefore all life was designed by God."
2. Even if there were no vestigial structures, it still isn't a "disproof" of anything. Natural selection provides an explanation for vestigial organs, but doesn't require that they exist in order to be consistent.
3. Creationists sometimes try to define "vestigial" in such a way that all the known examples won't fit it (same thing happens with "transitional"
. If they do that then the most likely reason why their "vestigial" structures don't exist is because of the semantic trick that lets them categorize vestigial structures as having a function (or as not existing).
The biggest weakness of this type of argument overall, though, is that it's a "God in the gaps" argument. By proving that there's a gap or error in scientific knowledge, the creationists imply--without any actual evidence--that the only other possible explanation is intelligent design. It's a fallacy.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert