|
Book by: Thomas F. Heinze · ©2005 · 96 pgs.
|
|
|
Evolutionists argue that organs exist which have no function, but were useful in less evolved animals. They call them rudimental or vestigial organs. In the search for proof of evolution, past generations of scientists found in humans around one hundred eighty organs with no known function. Some of these are more highly developed in lower animals.
Charles Darwin |
These organs were once greatly used as evidence for evolution. However, with the progress of science, it was discovered that many of them were glands that produced very necessary hormones. Others were found to function in the embryonic stage, while some functioned only as a reserve when other organs were destroyed. Some functioned only in periods of emergency. Today, very few human organs are still claimed to be vestigial, and many scientists now believe all are functional. This seems strange to me because most mutations are harmful, and I would expect it to be easy for them to destroy organs. To form a new organ would seem very difficult. It would require random changes to write code for new proteins to form muscle, bone, nerves, blood vessels, all coordinated and working together. It would seem that a mutation which destroyed the functionality of any one of these parts of an organ could make the organ lose its function. I, like the evolutionists, would expect there to be many vestigial organs, and am surprised that, with the increase in knowledge, those considered vestigial have been so reduced. |
Evolutionists who write to me about this claim there are still many vestigial organs. But they generally change the argument from organs in humans to those in some animal whose organs are as little known now as human organs were when this argument was first used.
Downhill Evolution
Since new organs cannot be shown to have been developed by evolution, the argument from vestigial organs is another attempt to use downhill evidence to prove uphill evolution. The loss of genetic information is not proof that evolution can generate new information to construct new organs. It is as if someone demonstrated that a kid with a hammer can ruin the hood of your new car, and used that as evidence that your car was built by a kid with a hammer. Evolutionists use downhill examples to convince us of uphill evolution because they don't have uphill examples.
The Appendix
The vestigial organ which has been most commonly used as a "proof of evolution" is the appendix.
In some "less evolved" animals the appendix is larger than that of man. It is stated that man evolved from hypothetical ancestors with larger, functioning appendixes, keeping his appendix but losing its functions. There are, however, animals considered less evolved that have smaller appendixes than man, and many animals have no appendixes at all.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, at the time when this argument was still very popular,
"Animals that have the same organ in a fully developed and functional condition are believed to be close to the ancestry of the animals having the vestigial organ." (1)
This idea would put man closer in ancestry to the marsupials and rabbits in which the appendix is well developed than to many monkeys which do not have them. When discussing vestigial organs, a typical modern school book says:
"The human appendix, a small finger-like projection from the intestine, also has no known function." (2)This statement is not true. It has been known for a number of years that man's appendix has a function. Like his tonsils, it contains lymphatic tissue which captures and fights infection. If it had no function, why would it not have been eliminated? Instead, it has a good blood supply, another evidence that it's function is valuable. (3)
Scalp and Ear Muscles
The muscles that move the scalp and ears are often cited as vestigial in humans. Horses use them to shoo off flies. In humans they supposedly have lost their function, and become vestigial. Mine are not vestigial. I can easily move my scalp and ears and often twitch one or the other to chase off flies. Evolutionist writers who use this argument are seriously handicapped. They have to lift a hand from the keyboard for every fly that approaches, so I will probably eliminate them in the struggle for the survival of the fittest.
Where Did New Organs Come From?
Whether vestigial organs are many or few, they are another use of downhill examples to support uphill evolution. It is easy to see how random copying errors could ruin good organs. The real problem is: how could such mutations produce functional new organs? It is not only difficult in theory, but the fossil record is not much help. In addition, if the millions of organs present in living things were constantly developing in the past, why don't we see new organs developing today? People could probably benefit from radar, or sonar like the bats. We could communicate from farther away with radio waves or microwaves, and how about some really new organs based on ideas we have never heard of? The truth is that incomplete structures that don't function yet would be eliminated. They would not go on to become organs.
Random mutations can easily destroy functional organs, but how could they possibly create new genetic code that directs the construction and coordination of functional interconnecting parts?
If the appendix, and the muscles of the ear and scalp really had lost all function, they would be good evidence for downhill evolution. Genetic information would have been lost. The textbooks, however, don't cite these examples to convince students that mutations cause downhill evolution, but to help them believe in uphill evolution. Remember, bacteria cannot develop into biochemists by losing genetic information no matter how much they lose.
Be alert! Examine every "evidence" for evolution you are shown to see if it demonstrates a loss or gain in information. It's an eye opener! If evidence for the evolution of new organs exists, the textbooks would use it, instead of wasting time and space on organs they claim have lost their function?
New Animals and Endangered Species
The lack of evidence for uphill evolution is as true for new groups of animals as it is for new organs. The environmental movement is a direct result of the fact that evolution is not producing new types of animals and plants to replace the ones that die out. Environmentalists have a good reason to try to save the endangered species. When they become extinct, they are gone forever. If the theory of evolution were valid, who would care what became extinct? For each category of plants or animals that died out, several "superior" ones would spring up to take its place. In the real world, we are left with one less.
Chapter 5 · "Vestigial Organs, Evolution's Leftovers?"
<http://www.creationism.org/books/HeinzeVanishing/HeinzeVanishChap05_en.htm>
Main: Introduction www.creationism.org
