Vestigial Organs
Discover Magazine
Juggles With Bad-science
“… our bodies are littered with parts we don’t need."
These words are found not in an old Scopes Trial transcript, but the
June 2004 Discover Magazine publication entitled, “Useless Body
Parts”, by Jocelyn Selim. Selim is a brilliant contributor to the
scientific community, as she has shown time and time again, however,
I feel she has leapt over the deep end with her recent submission in
Discover Magazine. In 1925 the Scopes Trial took flight with a list
of over 150 so-called “vestigial” structures found in the human
body. Fortunately, science has made many great leaps since 1925, now
we are sure of the many functions that we were previously ignorant
of. Today, this list has dissipated to practically nothing.
Jocelyn Selim has made it her duty to resurrect the idea that humans
are sloppily designed, which isn’t true. The Bible says we are
fearfully and wonderfully made. The idea of vestigial structures is
actually a promotion of bad science. If a muscle is labeled as
‘vestigial’, this will conclude secular studies on the function of
that muscle, thus promoting bad science. Fortunately, Christians
know that God created us by his infinitely brilliant ability, and we
know that if God creates something, it’s for a purpose. If God
created man with a little toe, then there’s a purpose for a little
toe, regardless if we understand it or not. It is, in all honesty,
impossible to demonstrate the non-functionality of any structure in
the human body. This is to say, proving a negative; much like me
asking any atheist to “prove to me God doesn’t exist.” It cannot be
done.
Another thing we must take into consideration is that we are dealing
with the fallen human state. When God created man, we know that he
was created “very good.” Unfortunately, compared to the first
created man, we stand as the equivalent of a junkyard and a car
factory. Imagine if you will a pickup truck, with a damaged bumper.
Would it be logical to write Ford Motors and ask why the truck was
built with a damaged bumper? Absolutely not! Similarly, we cannot
attribute a fallen creation as the initial product of a Flawless
Creator. Consider wingless beetles on windy islands. Due to the loss
of information, or anatomical extremities, these organisms are
better off for the time being.
In opening this article, the author comments on Darwin’s Book,
“Descent of Man”. The author moves on to explain that Darwin had
“roughly a dozen” traits that he thought were useless. The
aforementioned traits include such things as the coccyx, the
appendix, and also wisdom teeth in humans. Darwin is quoted in
claiming that because something is rendered useless, it is no longer
subject to natural selection. This doesn’t comply with common sense.
Lets equate this with the supposed evolution of whales.
It’s said that
Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus evolved into modern day whales via
evolution and natural selection. On face value this idea has many
serious problems, but for the sake of this topic I will refrain from
going on a tangent for now. Whales are said to have lost their
posterior extremities due to the lack of use in their new aquatic
environment. Many nonfunctional extremities can be a severe
hindrance on survival, thus, to be helpful, natural selection would
need to select against these structures.
If these legs were indeed useless or nearly useless, they would not
be subject to natural selection, according to Darwin. However, their
nonexistence is explained away as being due to their lack of
usefulness. Certainly this is in opposition of what Darwin stated in
Descent of Man.
One must ask the question, “How do you know they were useless?” To
which the evolutionist will most likely respond with, “Because they
are no longer present.” However, if you change the question to be,
“Why are they no longer present?” The evolutionist may reply with,
“Because they were not useful.” The tautological nature of this
argument is scientifically unacceptable.
The publication, “Useless Body Parts”, has given us a handful of
supposed anatomical failures to consider; including many
oft-repeated examples that we will address, as well as many that
serve well-known functions. Lets go through and touch on some of the
points.
Wisdom Teeth
“Early humans had to chew a lot of plants to get enough calories to
survive, making another row of molars helpful. Only about 5 percent
of the population has a healthy set of these third molars.”
There are many factors that need to be considered when discussing
the topic of wisdom teeth. Just as the author says, some people
actually have no problem whatsoever with their wisdom teeth. This
fact would seem to indicate that the problem is due to something
other than evolutionary extractions. In the book ‘“Vestigial Organs”
Are Fully Functional’, Drs. Bergman and Howe cite the following
quote,
“It is generally held that diet and the amount of breast-nursing a
child has during infancy have a lot to do with the development of
the jaw and teeth. Only some people have impacted wisdom teeth.
There are many of us who have good functioning wisdom teeth.”
Allford (1978)
It is commonly known that poor diet and health can cause slower bone
growth in children, which could partly be the cause of dentition
problems. The substance being consumed is also an important factor.
As the author stated, our diets have changed somewhat, which has led
to more dentition problems. We have slowly geared away from the
nuts, seeds, and fruits etc. that our ancestors (From Adam down)
ate, into a slow moving line at papa’s pizza for a slice and a coke!
Another thing to take into consideration is that man was
considerably larger in pre-flood times. The issue of dentition could
also be explained via the fall of man, thus our degenerate physical
makeup could not contain certain physical traits.
Many have claimed that the lack of space for wisdom teeth is due to
a shrinking jawbone, via evolution. This has been thoroughly
discredited by many scientists including Harris in 1965 who studied
ancient mans jaw as well as mummified Egyptian jaws said to date
back 6,000 years, even up to 80,000 years according to evolutionary
thinking.
The idea of a shrinking jaw offers no reasonable explanation, and
also finds its roots within discredited Lamarckian evolution - the
idea that physical traits are acquired, whereas it is genetics
instead. It is also interesting that very few animals have compacted
teeth due to evolutionary drop-downs. Many animals are said to have
gotten smaller through the years, however today they are virtually
untouched regarding problem teeth. This seems to indicate that it’s
mainly an issue with Humans, and mainly caused by our new soft
diets.
Subclavius Muscle
“This small muscle stretching under the shoulder from the first rib
to the collarbone would be useful if humans still walked on all
fours. Some people have one, some have none, and a few have two.”
A quick breeze through General Practice records would show that the
Subclavius Muscle does indeed serve a purpose, and should not be
included in a list of “useless body parts”. Notice what the
following – found on General Practice Notebook (GPN) – says
regarding this muscle,
“Its action is to stabilise the clavicle during movements of the
pectoral girdle. It acts to depress the lateral end of the clavicle
and pull it slightly anteriorly. Its presence may provide protection
to the subclavian vein - which lies deeply - when the clavicle is
fractured. Loss of subclavius function rarely produces clinical
features.” GPN (2004)
I would also like to comment on another statement found in the
preceding explanation put forth by the Discover article author. The
statement that this muscle would be useful if humans still walked on
all fours, comes with a built-in assumption that humans did indeed
walk on all fours at one point or another. This is equivalent to me
saying, “My friend’s tall height would still be useful if humans
climbed trees for bananas like our ancestors.” By that logic, he
could merely reach up and grab a banana, minimizing the need for
excessive exercise. Such a statement is pointless and scientifically
unsound.
Male Nipples
“Lactiferous ducts form well before testosterone causes sex
differentiation in a fetus. Men have mammary tissue that can be
stimulated to produce milk.”
Nipples on males were one of Darwin’s evidences for descent with
modification, however it wasn’t too commonly spoken of for a while
until recently. Now, it seems that everywhere I go, I hear, “Why do
males have nipples?” Along with many other “evidences” put forth by
the author, this does not affect creation theory, but instead, is
actually predicted. Contrary to common belief, a baby growing in its
mother’s womb does not start out as a female; however, it does start
out very similar to males and females, in that it is sexually
dimorphic.
Nipples on males are one example, amongst many, of design economy
and efficient embryological development. Another example would be
the development of both the müllerian duct system (female) and the
wolffian duct system (male). This is due to both sexes having the
same genetic information for these structures. The differences are
only a product of designed chemical signals later on in development.
Nipples may pose a problem for evolutionists. They are easily
explained within the creation model, but how so in the evolution
model? The evolutionist has a few options to select from, but all
are very unsupported. Suppose the male used to suckle the young, and
this explains the lactiferous ducts. But, why would this have
changed? How could this have changed? Perhaps the male is evolving
the ability to suckle young, and the nipples are merely nascent
structures that will be beneficial in the future. Well, if they
serve no purpose, as the evolutionist says, then they will not be
subject to natural selection (as previously stated in Discover
magazine) and will not be effected, thus, a discontinuance of
evolution.
There’s also the idea that we (males) attained our nipples as a
derivation of common ancestor; via the phylogenic tree of life -
from reptiles to mammals and so forth. However, if this is the case,
then our nipples are still evolving into something that we can use,
as stated in the previous possibility. This option as well offers no
clue as to the evolutionary origins of male nipples, and no evidence
of the future ability to suckle young. Concluding this argument,
nipples are not evidence for evolution, nor are they evidence
against special creation.
Appendix
“This narrow, muscular tube attached to the large intestine served
as a special area to digest cellulose when the human diet consisted
more of plant matter than animal protein. It also produces some
white blood cells. Annually, more than 300,000 Americans have an
appendectomy.”
I feel I need to address one issue that we have seen and will
continue to see in these explanations. Notice how the author speaks
with such certainty; as if evolution is a well-known fact and that
we know absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are littered
with useless body parts. This is the nature of modern arguments, but
shouldn’t be. Many evolutionists define “vestigial structures” as
remnants left over from common descent. Then, they attempt to use
these “vestigial structures” as evidence for common descent. This
argument is as fallacious as the argument from homology; it’s merely
circular reasoning masquerading as science.
The knowledge of a functioning appendix has been present even since
1976,
“The appendix is not generally credited with significant function;
however, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic
mechanism.”
Henry L. Bockus, M.D., Gastroenterology, 2:1134–1148 (chapter ‘The
Appendix’ by Gordon McHardy), W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia,
Pennslyvania, 1976.
Kent Ham and Dr. Carl Wieland had this to say,
“The appendix, in conjunction with other parts of the body which
also contain cells called B-lymphocytes, manufactures several types
of antibodies:
IgA immunoglobulins, involved in surface or mucosal immunity. These
are vital in maintaining the protective barrier between the bowel
and the bloodstream.
IgM and IgG immunoglobulins, which fight invaders via the
bloodstream.
The appendix is in fact part of the G.A.L.T. (Gut Associated
Lymphoid Tissue) system. The lymphoid follicles develop in the
appendix at around two weeks after birth, which is the time when the
large bowel begins to be colonized with the necessary bacteria. It
is likely that its major function peaks in this neonatal period.”
Creation Magazine Volume 20, Issue 1
Published December 1997
It has been well known for decades now that the appendix is indeed a
functional structure, which also has a rich blood supply; something
we wouldn’t expect to see in a useless vestige. As the previous
“evidences”, this should not be labeled “useless”, nor should it be
used as evidence for evolution. Hopefully Discover Magazine will
understand this, as other secular science journals (such as
Scientific American) are already admitting its function.
Plantaris Muscle
“Often mistaken for a nerve by freshman medical students, the muscle
was useful to other primates for grasping with their feet. It has
disappeared altogether in 9 percent of the population.”
As with the Subclavius, a cursory browsing of modern medical
material would give the clear function of the Plantaris muscle. It
is true that this muscle serves a minor function, but there is a
function nonetheless. It is known to flex the knee joint as well as
plantarflex the ankle joint. The function is so minor that the long
tendon is often harvested and used elsewhere. This doesn’t negate
the fact that it was created in the first place. Simply because you
can live without something doesn’t mean you do not need it. As with
the appendix, you can live without both of your eyes, ears, lips,
arms, legs and so forth; but that doesn’t mean you don’t need them.
With the plantaris muscle we see a structure that’s function is
minimal. But this still doesn’t negate the fact that it was
intelligently designed. Today, we have many luxury cars,
motorcycles, and even roller-skates that have many things added in
to make them even more enjoyable, or effortlessly controlled. Many
small and minimal things add nothing to the main usability of the
structure itself. One could say, we’re luxuriously made!
Darwin’s Point
“A small folded point of skin toward the top of each ear is
occasionally found in modern humans. It may be a remnant of a larger
shape that helped focus distant sounds.”
Many of you are thinking, “what’s Darwin’s point?” Just as the
author says, there’s a small fold of skin at the top of certain
people’s ears that creates a point, or a bud. This is thought to be
a relic of our ancestral lineage through lower life forms up to our
current state. Other such examples of this underdeveloped structure
are dog-ears, rabbit ears, and many others, due to their ability to
freely move their ears in many directions. Contrary to what evidence
should demonstrate, even “lower evolved” creatures often times do
not have this trait. The bud is merely an example of the immense
variation that rests within the potential of human characteristics.
Many evolutionists consider the possibility that we had much larger
ears in the past, however this would not be necessary due to our
free mobility of the head. It is also known that the shape of the
outer ear is designed precisely to gather sound greatly. If humans
had larger ears like dogs, ear damage would be much more common and
even more serious than it currently is. Dewar, in 1957 also noted
that many breeds of domestic dogs do not even show a remnant of this
trait.
It’s almost humorous to see what evolutionists will scrounge up to
place on a pedestal as evidence for their religious paradigm.
Palmaris Muscle
“This long, narrow muscle runs from the elbow to the wrist and is
missing in 11 percent of modern humans. It may once have been
important for hanging and climbing. Surgeons harvest it for
reconstructive surgery.”
Like the Subclavius and the Plantaris, the function of this muscle
is minimal, yet certainly present when the muscle is present. Also,
as with previous examples of minimally functioning muscles, a quick
cursory browse through probably any anatomy book, or medical
dictionary will inform you of its purpose. The following explanation
was found on the GPN,
“The action of palmaris longus is to flex the wrist and tense the
palmar aponeurosis.” GPN (2004)
Of course the palmaris longus muscle enables us to flex our wrist,
thus giving us a stronger grip. And thanks to its connection with
the palmar aponeurosis, which accentuates the ridges on your palm,
we have more friction in our grip on objects.
Erector Pili
“Bundles of smooth muscle fibers allow animals to puff up their fur
for insulation or to intimidate others. Humans retain this ability
(goose bumps are the indicator) but have obviously lost most of the
fur.”
I couldn’t imagine using my goose bumps as a mechanism to intimidate
anybody, but so be it! It is actually well known that the event of
goose bumps actually stimulates movement of the body, thus creating
friction, which in return creates heat. When a person is cold the
body warns them by delivering a slight shaking. If the person
doesn’t fix the heat loss problem quickly, a heavier degree of
shaking will take place to create more heat. So you see, goose bumps
actually serve two important functions already, sort of like an
automatic thermostat.
Body Hair
“Brows help keep sweat from the eyes, and male facial hair may play
a role in sexual selection, but apparently most of the hair left on
the human body serves no function.”
Human body hair, which covers almost the entire body, has a
functional advantage over other mammal hair in that it has a high
degree of touch perception, which occurs when a hair is moved or
bent. Due to the nerves at the base of the hair, we know when a hair
is being moved via our nervous system. R. Harris, in 1982 supplied
examples of why this would be beneficial. Examples included the
ability to tell if a small insect is crawling across your skin,
which would be a great benefit especially if the insect is
potentially dangerous.
Other human hair plays important roles as well. Such as the hair on
top of your head that covers the spot where about 40% of heat
dissipates. This is a great retainer to keep needed heat within the
body. If you don’t fully understand, shave your head sometime and
run around in the snow. Fine body hair also plays an important role
by extending the boundary layer. The boundary layer is a small and
still layer just above any surface. This is demonstrated when
cumulative dust on top of a car doesn’t blow off completely when the
car is traveling.
Not only is body hair useful for containing heat, it’s also useful
for cooling the body. When you perspire, or sweat, the hairs grasp
the sweat and keep it near you. This will keep your body cooled.
Notice also that man has more body hair then women, usually. This is
because man, being larger, sweats more and thus requires more
cooling -- even more evidence of our wonderfully designed vessels.
Conclusion
The nature of this article clearly demonstrates the nature of
“evidence” the ardent naturalist is willing to invoke in support of
their religious paradigm. Anything from body hair to goose bumps,
small muscles to small jaws, it’s all too frivolous. It’s also
amazing how flexible this theory is in its evidential relationships.
Just about anything on the human body can be misconstrued to
demonstrate a relationship to any creature in the world.
Evolutionary theory is a dying religion, supported only by tax
dollars. As we have seen this in the article published by Discover
magazine, the evidences used to support this idea are silly and
unconvincing.