Darwinism

	Sign In Sign-Up

Darwinism: The Real Vestigial Remain?
by Patrick Frye
<Home>

If you've been around the origins debate for any time I'm sure that you've heard the term vestigial organ thrown around on occasion. Vestigial organs are commonly cited as a central proof of the theory of evolution. A vestigial organ is one that is a historical remnant of a structure that had a function in a distant evolutionary ancestor but today holds little or no valuable purpose. I like to describe it as baggage from an evolutionary trip through time. Common human organs that have been discussed in this context are the appendix, tonsils, and the coccyx (tail bone). In this article I will analyze the construct of vestigial organs, describe how well it's holding up to scientific advancement, and draw parallels to its modern day counterpart - "Junk DNA.".

It may be obvious, but it's first important to state that a key underlying assumption behind claiming that a biological entity is vestigial is that one has the ultimate understanding of all of the potential uses of a given organ or structure. Ascribing vestigiality to an organ presupposes the notion that there are no possible undiscovered uses for that given organ. It's a fairly bold claim and in general is one that is not fairing well against scientific progress.

In 1895 Robert Wiedershiem listed about 100 vestigial organs in his analysis of the human body. Today, after a century or so of increasing scientific knowledge, the list has dwindled to a mere handful. Reconsider the appendix, tonsils, and the tail bone; all previously deemed vestigial. Now we know that the appendix has atleast two purposes: the secretion of a mucous that aids in digestion and the containment of lymphoid tissue that protects the intestines from infection. The tonsils have been found to help the body fight off infections and the coccyx serves as an anchor to muscles in our pelvic diaphragm that support many of the organs in our abdominal cavity. In summary, what once was considered useless has been found to be useful.

Now unlike many of my fellow creationists, I will not argue that there are no vestigial organs in existence. The genetic code of living organisms is clearly subject to random mutations and natural selection and therefore is capable of the occasional production of vestigial organs. The textbook example is blind cave fish. The eyes of these fish are indeed vestigial but examples like this are not of the common theme that many evolutionists would want to make you believe exists. In addition, this example doesn't really help evolution where evolution needs it. Few argue that random mutations are incapable of degrading the functionality of a given organism. We unfortunately face it often in birth defects. But the key point of contention regarding evolution is whether or not evolution alone can create the operational and quite complex eye of the fish that could later be degraded in ability by that same mechanism. This ultimately shows that although vestigial organs could be evidence for the theory of evolution, they are not absolute proof of the correctness of the complete and full theory of evolution. (ie. common descent)

Irrespective of this, due to scientific progress the notion of vestigial organs is fading away into the backdrop of this great origins debate. It is becoming less and less the choice weapon of evolutionists. Interestingly enough however, there's a replacement and it's name is "Junk DNA." This stems from the fact that only a small portion of a species DNA actually codes for proteins during biological development. For example, the latest estimate in humans is that only 3% of our DNA actually codes for proteins. Through the evolutionary looking glass this is a perfect example of the random and useless build-up of DNA from the non-deterministic process of Darwinism. In fact one of my good friends used this argument against me a few years ago and I did not have a whole lot to say in response. However, just like in the case of many vestigial organs as science has advanced we have discovered that there are indeed uses for this non-coding DNA. We can find an example from a scientific study of non-coding DNA in the single-celled photosynthetic Crytomonads that has shown that the non-coding DNA helped the nuclei maintain its large structure (Eukaryotic non-coding DNA is functional: evidence from the differential scaling of cryptomonal genomes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 266:2053-2059). In addition there have been many other scientific studies demonstrating that "Junk" DNA is not "Junk" (See references below).

From a technical point of view this information contained within this article is really old news but I want to use it to make a key point regarding the power of ideas. The theory of evolution is a powerful paradigm in which to interpret data just as is the theory of special creation. It has the ability to lure its followers into a reverse "God of the Gaps" causing them to draw conclusions based upon scientific ignorance. And worse yet, sometimes the consequences of following an incorrect or unverified theory can be extraordinarily damaging. The theory of evolution falls into a class of scientific theories that have a profound impact on how we view ourselves and how we live our lives. From a medical perspective, consider the number of tonsil and appendix extractions that were performed due to how those organs were viewed from an evolutionary perspective. It goes without saying that it's certainly true that sometimes these organs (especially the appendix) can cause us problems and it is better off that they be removed but the same is largely true for just about any other body part if it becomes infected badly enough.

The theory of evolution troubles me on another accord as well. The logical extension to theories like vestigial organs and "Junk" DNA is what I call the theory of "Junk" humanity. This is the theory that states that there's nothing special about you and me as people. This is the theory that leads millions of people into depression each year. This is the theory that causes thousands each year to consider suicide. This is the theory that allows people to use abortion as birth control. This is the theory that in the end erodes the value of human life.

Now contrast this theory of "Junk" humanity with the theory of God's humanity. The theory of God's humanity states that you are a unique and extraordinary creation of the God of the universe. This theory says that God loved you so much that he entered time and space to die spread eagle on a cross for you. It's the theory that is not just taught in the Bible, but written into the sky and into the complex and intricate development of the human baby.

I implore you to weigh the two theories and their consequences and consider the evidence for each. Could the sort of specified complexity found in life be the result of random natural causes? Could the extremely fine-tuned physical characteristics of the universe be the result of chance? Today we don't have the ability to answer these questions definitively but even if the evidence for each theory is let's say even, what do you gain by living a life without true purpose. Think about it.