Vestigial Organs? It's There for a Reason!

A while back, I wrote about LiveScience's, “Top 7 Theories (that is “Guesses”) on the Origin of Life.” One thing I didn't say about LiveScience, which is probably so obvious it doesn't need pointing out, is that the folks there are rapidly pro-evolution. They've posted several lists that not only trumpet evolution but also a few that ridicule creation. One of their pro-evolution lists is the Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs). You can read the list if you'd like. I'm going to reference it a couple of times but I'm not going to critique each example they offer. Instead, I'd like to discuss the idea of vestigial organs in general.

Identifying and promoting so called “vestigial” organs is a favorite practice of evolutionists. It's sometimes seen as a sort of “silver bullet” proof of their theory because they feel evolution explains these structures so well. From the intro to the LiveScience article we read, “From common descent, it is predicted that organisms should retain these vestigial organs as structural remnants of lost functions. It is only because of macro-evolutionary theory, or evolution that takes place over very long periods of time, that these vestiges appear.” Really? It's only because of macro-evolution? I beg to differ.

Let me say that vestigial organs do fit well within the evolutionary model. However, a successful prediction is not necessarily evidence for (and certainly not proof of) any theory. Let me give you an example: I believe that, if I ate an entire pizza, that I would be full. I am full. Therefore, I ate an entire pizza! Certainly, I could have eaten an entire pizza but then again, I could also be full for another reason. Likewise, even if evolution gives a plausible explanation for the existence of “vestigial” organs, it's not necessarily “proof” of the theory. There could be another cause for these organs. Indeed there is. I believe creation explains these same structures equally well.

An organ is usually considered to be vestigial if it cannot be determined to have a function. This begs the question of how we can determine that an organ has no function. One way suggested by evolutionists is if the organ can be removed without any deleterious effect to its host. This was suggested in the LiveScience article when discussing the appendix: “Any secondary function that the appendix might perform certainly is not missed in those who had it removed.” However, this is not a rigorous test. I could remove the little finger of my left hand and continue to live a long, happy, healthy, and productive life. No one would argue that my little finger has no function so the simple fact that I can prosper without it is not evidence that it has no function.

Since we see that removing an organ doesn't establish its “functionlessness,” something like the appendix cannot be said to be “useless” on the flimsy grounds that it can be removed with seemingly little consequence. I would, however, direct your attention to a Scientific American which says, “For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults.” The benefits of the appendix are too numerous to include in this post so you can read the article for yourself. But we see that, according to Scientific American, the appendix actually serves an “important role.” One might even ask why it continues to be called vestigial.

Discovering function for the appendix is no surprise to a creationist. After all, it is a product of design. Dozens of other organs once thought to be “useless” have also been identified as functioning. This has happened so frequently that I'm suspicious of any claim that says a certain structure serves no purpose. Such a claim faces the logical absurdity of proving a negative. It is quite possible, even likely, that the purpose of such organs merely hasn't been identified and needs further research.

Regardless of all that, let's assume for a moment that there is some structure which has somehow been determined to truly have no function. Even that is not conclusive evidence for evolution. As per my pizza-eating example where there are other reasons I might be full, there are also other reasons why an organ might be functionless. According to the creation model, God made Adam with a perfectly designed body. Since the Curse, each generation has suffered more and more genetic mutation so that, over time, a once functioning organ could have completely lost all function. So functionless organs aren't a worry to creationists at all.

Now the test of uselessness is not the most technical criterion used by evolutionists to identify vestigial organs. Many prefer to say that structure is vestigial if it no longer serves its original purpose. Thus a structure like a panda's thumb, even though it has function, can still be called vestigial because it is believed to have once been a bone from the wrist. My complaint with this definition is that, again, it is not very rigorous. In a sense, it could be applied to any structure. After all, according to evolution, wings are simply modified forelimbs. Feathers are simply modified scales. Legs are simply modified fish fins. Remember that one definition of evolution is “descent with modification.” Every structure has been modified from something else so literally any organ could be called vestigial. The final word in labeling a functioning organ as vestigial is the largely arbitrary (and certainly subjective) opinion of how well the structure is adapted to its new use. Wings are considered very successful adaptations of forelimbs; pandas' thumbs are considered poor adaptations of wrist bones (though pandas use them very adeptly). Thus wings are not called vestigial and pandas' thumbs are.

It's more than a minor annoyance that evolutionists are so quick to label an organ as vestigial. Why do they do this? I suggest that it's possible that, since evolution virtually demands there be vestigial organs, evolutionists are prone to pin the label of “vestigial” on any structure whose function is not immediately obvious. Their quack theory has even thwarted medicine, since, for so long a time, many researchers have not even bothered to look for the purpose of organs that have been too quickly identified as useless. I think medicine would greatly benefit if we began with the premise that it's there for a reason!