Changes

This is not a scientific argument, but a [[theology|theological]] argument.<ref>Doyle, 2008</ref>

This is not a scientific argument, but a [[theology|theological]] argument.<ref>Doyle, 2008</ref>

Also, the list of supposedly vestigial organs in humans has gone from 180 in 1890 to none in 1999<ref name="JB2000" />, as functions have been found for such organs.

Also, the list of supposedly vestigial organs in humans has gone from 180 in 1890 to none in 1999,<ref name="JB2000" /> as functions have been found for such organs.

*"Vestigial structures are entirely consistent with [[intelligent design]], suggesting structures that were initially designed but then lost their function through accident or disuse. Nevertheless, vestigial structures also provide evidence for a limited form of evolution. From both a design-theoretic and an evolutionary perspective, a vestigial structure is one that started out functional but then lost its function. Yet, in the case of [[evolution]], vestigiality explains only the loss of function and not its origination. Vestigiality at best documents a degenerative form of evolution in which preexisting functional structures change and lose their function." -- ''[[The Design of Life]]''

*"Vestigial structures are entirely consistent with [[intelligent design]], suggesting structures that were initially designed but then lost their function through accident or disuse. Nevertheless, vestigial structures also provide evidence for a limited form of evolution. From both a design-theoretic and an evolutionary perspective, a vestigial structure is one that started out functional but then lost its function. Yet, in the case of [[evolution]], vestigiality explains only the loss of function and not its origination. Vestigiality at best documents a degenerative form of evolution in which preexisting functional structures change and lose their function." -- ''[[The Design of Life]]''

However, this argument ignores the counter argument of [[the fall]], where it is understood that current conditions are not the way God originally designed, and that vestigial structures are, if anything, evidence for ''devolution'', not evolution.<ref>Batten and Sarfati</ref>

However, this argument ignores the counter argument of [[the fall]], where it is understood that current conditions are not the way God originally designed, and that vestigial structures are, if anything, evidence for ''devolution'', not evolution.<ref>Batten and Sarfati</ref>

Furthermore, the fact that science has not determined the function of a particular structure does not mean that the structure has no function.  Indeed, as stated earlier evolutionists have in the past proposed 180 human organs as being vestigial, but we now know that the vast majority of those organs have since been found to have definite functions,<ref name="JB2000" /> including the [[tonsils]], [[thymus]], and the [[pineal gland]]. The tonsils were found to help fight infection, and the thymus and pineal gland were both found to secrete important hormones.<ref>Darwinism Refuted.com</ref>. In addition, a number of suggestions and claims have been made about the role of the human appendix.<ref>Glover, 1998; Ham and Wieland, 1997; Wilkinson, 2004; Anon., 2007; Wieland and Doyle, 2008, Associated Press, 2007.</ref>

Furthermore, the fact that science has not determined the function of a particular structure does not mean that the structure has no function.  Indeed, as stated earlier evolutionists have in the past proposed 180 human organs as being vestigial, but we now know that the vast majority of those organs have since been found to have definite functions,<ref name="JB2000" /> including the [[tonsils]], [[thymus]], and the [[pineal gland]]. The tonsils were found to help fight infection, and the thymus and pineal gland were both found to secrete important hormones.<ref>Darwinism Refuted.com</ref> In addition, a number of suggestions and claims have been made about the role of the human appendix.<ref>Glover, 1998; Ham and Wieland, 1997; Wilkinson, 2004; Anon., 2007; Wieland and Doyle, 2008, Associated Press, 2007.</ref>

The recent trend among evolutionists is to claim that supposedly vestigial organs, while serving purposes, actually have different functions than what they originally did in our alleged evolutionary ancestors. For example, they point to the human appendix and claim that while it has been proven to serve a purpose now, its original purpose in our ancestors was to help digest plant material. Of course, such arguments are pure conjecture that will never have any sort of evidence to back them up.

The recent trend among evolutionists is to claim that supposedly vestigial organs, while serving purposes, actually have different functions than what they originally did in our alleged evolutionary ancestors. For example, they point to the human appendix and claim that while it has been proven to serve a purpose now, its original purpose in our ancestors was to help digest plant material. Of course, such arguments are pure conjecture that will never have any sort of evidence to back them up.

== Sources ==

== Sources ==

* Anon., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3649 Snakes with legs? A preliminary reply], 20th March 2000.

* Anon., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3649 Snakes with legs? A preliminary reply], 20 March 2000.

* Anon., [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21153898/ Scientists may have found appendix’s purpose], MSNBC, 5th October, 2007.

* Anon., [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21153898/ Scientists may have found appendix’s purpose], MSNBC, 5 October 2007.

* Associated Press, [http://edition.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview Purpose of appendix believed found], 2007.

* Associated Press, [http://edition.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview Purpose of appendix believed found], 2007.

* Batten, Don, and Sarfati, John, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3863/ ‘Vestigial’ Organs: What do they prove?] (Creation Ministries International).

* Batten, Don, and Sarfati, John, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3863/ ‘Vestigial’ Organs: What do they prove?] (Creation Ministries International).

* Bergman, Jerry, "Do any vestigial organs exist in humans?", ''Journal of Creation'' 14(2):95–98, August 2000.  [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1663 HTML], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_2/j14_2_95-98.pdf PDF].

* Bergman, Jerry, "Do any vestigial organs exist in humans?", ''Journal of Creation'' 14(2):95–98, August 2000.  [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1663 HTML], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_2/j14_2_95-98.pdf PDF].

* Darwinism Refuted.com, [http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html The Myth of Vestigial Organs].

* Darwinism Refuted.com, [http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html The Myth of Vestigial Organs].

* Doyle, Shaun, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5811 Vestigial arguments: remnants of evolution], 11th June 2008 (Creation Ministries International)

* Doyle, Shaun, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5811 Vestigial arguments: remnants of evolution], 11 June 2008 (Creation Ministries International)

* Glover, Warwick, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1759 The human vermiform appendix] ''Journal of Creation'' 3(1):31–38, April 1988.

* Glover, Warwick, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1759 The human vermiform appendix] ''Journal of Creation'' 3(1):31–38, April 1988.

* Ham, Ken, and Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/709 Your appendix ... it’s there for a reason], ''Creation'' 20(1):41–42, December 1997.

* Ham, Ken, and Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/709 Your appendix ... it’s there for a reason], ''Creation'' 20(1):41–42, December 1997.

* New Scientist [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9020.html Oldest snake fossil shows a bit of leg], 19th April, 2006

* New Scientist [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9020.html Oldest snake fossil shows a bit of leg], 19 April 2006

* Wilkinson, Richard, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/559 Cutting out a useless vestigial argument], ''Creation'' 26(3):51, June 2004.

* Wilkinson, Richard, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/559 Cutting out a useless vestigial argument], ''Creation'' 26(3):51, June 2004.

* Wieland, Carl, and Doyle, Shaun, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5756 More musings on our ‘useless’ appendix], May 2008 (Creation Ministries International).

* Wieland, Carl, and Doyle, Shaun, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5756 More musings on our ‘useless’ appendix], May 2008 (Creation Ministries International).

{{reflist|2}}

{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==

==External links==

*[http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/tailbone.html Do Humans really have a Vestigial Tailbone? If not then what is it?]

*[http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/tailbone.html Do Humans really have a Vestigial Tailbone? If not then what is it?]

[[category:biology]]

[[Category:Biology]]

[[Category:Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]

[[Category:Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]