nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + − The list of vestigial organs in humans has gone from 180 in 1890 to none in 1999<ref name="JB2000" />, and some have important functions. Jerry Bergman wrote:<ref name="JB2000" /> − {{cquote|Few examples of vestigial organs in humans are now offered, and the ones that are have been shown by more recent research to be completely functional (and in many cases critically so, see Bergman and Howe)... + + + + + + + + + + − + − + − + − +
Expand introduction and break rest of first section into separate sections (not happy with the result, though), change quote boxes
'''Vestigial structures''' are structures/organs that are said to not have a function based on the [[theory of evolution]].<ref name="JB2000">Bergman, 2000</ref>
'''Vestigial structures''' are structures or organs that have been claimed by evolutionists as [[theory of evolution|evolutionary]] "leftovers", that are no longer functional, and this has been used as evidence for evolution, as [[God]] would not have created useless structures and organs.<ref name="JB2000">Bergman, 2000</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.
== Functional "vestigial" organs ==
Some of the organs previously thought to be vestigial have important functions. Jerry Bergman wrote:<ref name="JB2000" />
{{QuoteBox|Few examples of vestigial organs in humans are now offered, and the ones that are have been shown by more recent research to be completely functional (and in many cases critically so, see Bergman and Howe)...
<br />
One popular book on the human body which discussed vestigial organs stated that next to [[circumcision]]
One popular book on the human body which discussed vestigial organs stated that next to [[circumcision]]
<blockquote>‘… [[tonsillectomy]] is the most frequently performed piece of surgery. Doctors once thought [[tonsils]] were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract ''after'' tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for [[surgery]]...’</blockquote>}}
<blockquote>‘… [[tonsillectomy]] is the most frequently performed piece of surgery. Doctors once thought [[tonsils]] were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract ''after'' tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for [[surgery]]...’</blockquote>}}
== Loss of function does not prove evolution ==
Evolutionist claim that [[snake]]s have vestigial features.<ref>Zimmer, 1997</ref>
Evolutionist claim that [[snake]]s have vestigial features.<ref>Zimmer, 1997</ref>
According to the science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'':
According to the science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'':
{{cquote|Scientists have found fossils of a legged snake with “hips” – a specimen that could be the most primitive snake ever unearthed. The find suggests early snakes were not creatures of the sea and has reignited the debate over how snakes evolved.
{{QuoteBox|<p>Scientists have found fossils of a legged snake with “hips” – a specimen that could be the most primitive snake ever unearthed. The find suggests early snakes were not creatures of the sea and has reignited the debate over how snakes evolved.
</p><p>
Sebastián Apesteguía at the Argentine Museum of Natural History and his team found the snake fossil in a terrestrial deposit in the Río Negro province of north Patagonia, Argentina, in 2003. Unlike a handful of legged fossils found in marine deposits and identified as snakes over the past decade, the new fossil, named Najash rionegrina, has a well-defined sacrum supporting a pelvis and functional hind legs outside of its ribcage.<ref>New Scientist, 2006</ref>}}
Sebastián Apesteguía at the Argentine Museum of Natural History and his team found the snake fossil in a terrestrial deposit in the Río Negro province of north Patagonia, Argentina, in 2003. Unlike a handful of legged fossils found in marine deposits and identified as snakes over the past decade, the new fossil, named Najash rionegrina, has a well-defined sacrum supporting a pelvis and functional hind legs outside of its ribcage.<ref>New Scientist, 2006</ref></p>}}
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] dispute that snakes with legs are evidence for the theory of evolution:
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] dispute that snakes with legs are evidence for the theory of evolution:
{{cquote|Even assuming it could be established that the ancestor of snakes today had legs, creationists have no problem in principle with loss of features through natural processes. Development of leglessness is not evidence for molecules-to-man evolution, which requires addition of new genetic information. Loss of legs could be achieved through degeneration of the DNA information sequences that specify leg development.<ref>Anon, 2000</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|Even assuming it could be established that the ancestor of snakes today had legs, creationists have no problem in principle with loss of features through natural processes. Development of leglessness is not evidence for molecules-to-man evolution, which requires addition of ''new'' genetic information. Loss of legs could be achieved through degeneration of the DNA information sequences that specify leg development.<ref>Anon, 2000 (emphasis in original)</ref>}}
== Different views ==
== Different views ==