Why not?
We’re talking about a god who does whatever he wants. He puts tax payments in the mouths of fishes. He kills people for misleading the pastor about donations. He brags about how unpredictable he is. He calls himself “love” after directing his “chosen people” to commit crimes against humanity. And much more notably, he’s all-powerful and answers to no one. So, your attempts to understand why he did something as arcane as make animals in certain ways…are futile.
Okay, explain why some humans are born with ‘prehensile tails’, this isn’t just a weird deformity, this is an actual, working tail, is there any reason why these would exist, if not for descent from primates?
Simple. God likes prehensile tails. You’re really missing the point. God probably likes that, too.
You’re trolling right?
I guess you haven’t read what I wrote. Oh well. Bye.
I like to point out the fact that vestigial organs are consistent with the phylogeny of the larger group. Whales belong to the mammal clade, and they have vestigial mammal limbs which the theory of evolution predicts were present in their ancestors. What we don’t see are vestigial organs that contradict the proposed evolutionary history of a species, such as vestigial feathers in a mammal species or vestigial nipples in a bird species. The evidence we derive from vestigial organs is not their relative lack of function but the consistency of these features with the phylogeny predicted by the theory of evolution.
Before I believed in evolution, I would simply say that all vestigial characteristics (features and ‘junk genes’) were actually not vestigial at all and eventually science would uncover a function for all of them, as it seemed to have been doing. For example, a 2007 paper has apparently demonstrated a modern function and use for the appendix, besides other minor functions like holding tendons. When it came to the idea of junk DNA, I looked admirably to the project of ENCODE which said that 80% of genes had been shown to have a function, with 100% visible in the future. There has been much rejection of ENCODE’S results because of how they defined ‘function’ I think in their experiment. Nevertheless, I saw almost every day more papers getting published on function in some part of the genes not known before, so I was pretty happy about how things were going.
This all slowly came crashing down with my discovery of the vitellogenin gene which plays a major role for the egg yolk of the eggs birds lay. Apparently, by studying the position of this gene in birds, scientists were perfectly able to predict its locus in modern day humans, where it no longer plays any role in the formation of eggs in us (since we don’t lay eggs) and is therefore functionless. Ironically, all this was introduced to me via an article by the Institute of Creation Research providing information that ‘debunked’ the claim that vitellogenin was junk DNA, which at the time I read it convinced me.
Until in a debate on evolution with someone I was having, where someone brought it up and I responded by pointing to the ICR article, someone pointed me to this series by Biologos by @DennisVenema responding to ICR’s claims. I read all 5 posts, and it became undeniable to me: ICR was absolutely wrong. And thus was the first step of my transition to EC.
EDIT: A funny story: before I believed in evolution, I explained the vestigial ‘legs’ in snakes by saying that this actually proves the Genesis creation account, since Genesis says that the snake was punished for deceiving adam by flopping on its belly, which I took to mean God removed the snakes of the leg and therefore the vestigial features of snakes were clear proof of Genesis.
I think the typical creationist argument goes something along the lines of denying that vestigial organs are a real thing. (Then you don’t have to explain them, right?) They always put the “vestigial” in quotes and the thinking goes something like: “Vestigial” organs are only vestigial organs if you view the world through the atheist evolutionist paradigm, which is the wrong way to view the world. If you have a biblical worldview, you understand that every creature is fearfully and wonderfully made, and those “vestigial” organs are simply body parts we don’t yet understand the purpose of. They confuse vestigial with useless. So anytime they can attach a function to vestigial organ, they feel they have shown that vestigial organs don’t really exist.
See for example: https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/vestigial-organs/
I’ve heard this before, two problems:
Very correct.
There are STILL vestigial organs? Huh…that’s news to me.
Vestigial organs are yet another misunderstood topic in the world of ID/YEC/OEC. At no time has vestigial been defined as having no function al all.
“An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other… [A]n organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object.”–Charles Darwin
The appendix is vestigial even if it has rudimentary function like attaching to tendons or being a rudimentary system for housing gut flora. It lacks its primary purpose of digesting cellulose as a large structure found in other species, and that is why it is considered to be vestigial. The size of the caecum (the full organ of which we only have the appendix) in other species is quite massive compared to the human organ.
Unless you can show that the human appendix is involved in digesting cellulose, then yes, it is still vestigial.
Hindlimb buds in embryonic whales is my favourite example. I’ve yet to see a decent explanation for those from any antievolutionary source.
Yeah, that’s a Final Four contender. Bird teeth is another strong entry.
But I still don’t understand why “God likes it that way” is not a “decent explanation.”
My two favorite are the embryonic human post-anal tail and the extensor coccygis muscle found on the human tailbone. The human extensor coccygis spans two fused bones in the human tailbone, and its function in other species is to lift the tail. In humans it doesn’t even articulate a joint since it spans two fused bones.
To be honest, I have not a clue what that means, but it doesn’t matter, because that does not necessarily mean for (1) that organ is not needed, just because we haven’t discovered a use for it yet, and (2) that it is an evolutionary throw back. So basically what you are asking evolutionary “deniers” such as I, is, “Is there any coherent creationist explanation for YOUR BELIEF IN vestigial organs?”
I gave you a coherent response, which you will not accept, because you believe wholeheartedly in vestigial organs, but your belief does not negate the fact I gave you a coherent response.
Hi WP - modern day cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises) develop hindlimbs while they are embryos using the same developmental program that all mammals use.
Later in embryonic development, a second developmental program, unique to cetaceans, overrides the first program and stops the development of the hindlimbs only. The hindlimbs stop developing and regress into the body wall.
Why does this happen?
It is a fact that the human vermiform appendix lacks the function found in other species, namely as part of a large caecum that digests cellulose. If you removed the fully developed caecum from other species they would die in short order. Not so with humans. Whatever function the appendix does serve in humans it is rudimentary function compared to other species which makes the vestigial nature of the human appendix a fact.
In addition, the vestigial organs we do see match the proposed evolutionary history of that lineage. We don’t see vestigial nipples in birds or vestigial feathers in mammals. We see the vestigial features we would expect to see if evolution is true. It is the phylogenetic signal that YEC/OEC can not explain, and I would expect that you can’t explain it either.
Where did you show that the human vermiform appendix is involved in digesting cellulose?
I think these comments may be a bit on the semantic quibbling side, so apologies in advance.
The question is whether a creationist can give a “coherent explanation” for vestigial structures. The answer is “clearly yes.” This is because coherence isn’t about whether you like the answer or whether the answer relies on belief in the kind of god you believe in. It’s not about Occam’s razor or “theology” or elegance. ‘Coherent’ means literally ‘hanging together’ and the definition in our current context refers to basic logical soundness.
So, if I ask someone how bees fly, and they say “God makes them fly,” their answer may be vacuous or even false (it’s both in this case) but it is also coherent once I make reasonable inferences about the person’s assumptions (in this case, that a god exists and that it is able to make things fly).
I think this is relevant to the discussion of vestigial organs, and you can see why by looking at the kinds of arguments that are made in response to creationist “reasoning.” All of the responses attempt to establish the effectiveness of the evolutionary explanation, but none actually attempts to show that a creationist “explanation” is problematic logically or rationally. The only objection the evolution-defender can raise is that the creationist “explanation” has unwanted implications for the character of the god.
The creationist (a YEC in this case), by virtue of their belief in the poofing of the world into existence by an omnipotent deity, has explanatory carte blanche when it comes to any natural phenomenon. They may sense that it is strategically unwise to play that card too often, but when they do, they are unlikely to be making an argument that is by itself incoherent.
In other words, once you postulate an omnipotent deity, you can only discuss what she/he/it is like–whether she/he it is prone to doing X/Y/Z. You cannot rule anything out without editing the meaning of ‘omnipotent.’ To label the omnipotence card as not ‘coherent’ is, IMO, to use a rhetorical trick that has little or no substance.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.