Is That Girl Wagging Her Tail At Me Again?
A couple of years back I was walking through the zoo, actually the aquarium area to be specific and I came across what I thought was the most peculiar thing. And to get perspective on this just remember that this is after I have read about prehistoric animals for a while and even churned out a project or two about them in school. So I had a general idea of how absolutely weird some animals looked in our history. I mean just look at some of the life during the Cambrian, which was the first period of earth’s history to have anything other than cellular life. Looking at any fossils or even an artists drawing shows this alien landscape with little animals walking around on what looks like half a dozen sets of crossed stitching needles or a segmented animal with who-knows how many eyes and a feeler coming out of its “mouth.” Well we are dealing with invertebrates and I never have been much of an expert or taken an interest in them but I mean for anyone it’s just weird to see. Oh and don’t worry most of these animals were gone by the end of the Cambrian anyway during a considerable but little-known extinction. But what I saw at the museum wasn’t that kind of weird. It was the kind of weird where your reaction is “That just can’t be right, it makes no sense.” What I saw was only a cave fish, doesn’t exactly grab your attention at first well until I noticed that the fish are completely blind since there is no light at all under the water inside a cave so any sense of sight is useless. Ok makes sense, well until I looked at them more closely. There was something there. It wasn’t exactly an eye but there was something that looked to me like an eye. But it was covered with skin so obviously the fish couldn’t see with it. Then came a very curious, possibly obvious thought…If cave fish have no light in their habitat and are blind then why do they have eyes or something that looks a lot like it that are completely useless?
Well apparently there are salamanders that live in caves that have the same thing. They have eyes but also eyelids that have grown over and fused shut. What made this even more confusing was that salamanders actually have a complete retina and lens, and yet cannot use them since that eyelid is fused. Also with the fish, they don’t have fully developed eye parts but they have a lens with degenerated retinas and optic nerves. Or let’s go to more common animals. Ostriches have quite large wings but are useless when it comes to flying. Certain types of snakes, especially pythons have a pelvis under their skin which is weird considering that a pelvis is only there if you have legs. Then there are dandelions. Obviously dandelions have flowers and pollen but they reproduce by themselves, they don’t need to attract insects or be pollinated. And then there are a couple with people that I think most people can agree we can definitely use without, the appendix, wisdom teeth, and the tailbone.
All the examples I stated are called vestiges. To be technical they are some sort of structure that either has been reduced or undeveloped compared to the same structure in other organisms. These features are part of evolutionary theory because the features are the remnants of what a recent ancestor had. For instance, the ancestors of cave fish and cave salamanders had eyes and have just been reduced, snakes have evolved from lizards that did have legs so some snakes still have remnants of what is left, dandelions came from flowers that did reproduce, and the tailbone……..well we evolved from primates that did at one point have tails. But these features may have no purpose anymore but many perform other functions, like the ostrich. Their wings are not used for flying but do have uses for balance while running and for mating rituals. So as with any part of evolutionary theory I discuss, there must be a way to potentially disprove it that these vestigial organs are not part of evolutionary theory and/or disprove it. Well all you would have to do is find a vestige that is representative of an animal that comes later then the animal that has it. For example you will never find vestigial wings (like that of some types of beetles) on a reptile or primates. Reptiles evolved much earlier than birds and are obviously much too distantly related to insects. Primates are also much too distantly related to birds to have any vestigial wings. So if you were to ever find one with vestigial wings then that would be solid proof against evolution. Or for more proofs against evolution, if found, you could also include arthropods (type of invertebrate) with backbones, primates with gizzards (found only in birds), nipples (only for mammals) on amphibian, birds, reptiles, or on pretty much any other animal. I’m sure that anyone could come up with countless possibilities that would make no sense to evolutionary theory if they were found. Any of these are possible proofs against evolution.
The one vestigial organ that has brought up the most controversy, from what I’ve seen, is the appendix. Many creation arguments I’ve heard use this as their example for why vestiges aren’t possible and therefore another reason why evolution is false. In a nutshell it is argued that the appendix has a function and so can’t be labeled a vestigial organ. Well first let me say that when it comes to whether or not it has a function...no one has the slightest clue. I mean sure you’ll see arguments here and there about either yes it has this function or no it doesn’t have any, but there is nothing that anyone can actually agree upon. But for the sake of argument let’s assume that there is one like one that sounds like a convincing argument is that it helps with the immune system. Ok, sure why not. But then there’s the part where I think anyone knows that if you take the appendix out that it really doesn’t impair you at all. And that is what a vestigial organ actually is…an organ that used to have some function and has been reduced to something that performs an action that’s either useless or can be easily replaced by other parts of the body if it were removed. And the appendix is the perfect example of this…I mean it definitely doesn’t do anything so useful that we must have it and actually it causes a lot of pain, disease, and even death. If this were an organ that was actively designed well I think it’s the worst mistake anyone has come up with.
The argument about the appendix brings up a problem I have with the far majority of creation arguments in general. Well the first thing I noticed is that they are full of quotes of articles and books. Well usually there’s nothing wrong with that until you start looking at the references. Most of them, if not all, are quite old. One site used references from 1982, 1947, 1912 but while that was the most drastic the far majority of them were no younger than 20 years old. Another problem I came across, that wasn’t as common, is that some of the basis for these arguments is made by doctors. That is fine if you want to know about the appendix but they are not evolutionary biologists and most likely don’t know enough about evolution to come to a conclusion about it. The last problem I get is one that could easily fool anyone despite how much you know about the issue. It fooled me quite a bit too until I came across this one article on talkorigins.org. What I am referring to is a statement reference made by many creation sites from SR Scadding in 1981 that essentially says that vestigial organs do not provide any evidence for evolution at all. Well the whole statement itself might make for a good argument against evolution… if you don’t read what Scadding really did write. Only one page before that statement is one where he states that he does believe that vestigial organs in fact do provide proof for evolution but only because they are homologous (similar in size, function, etc. to something else), although now there are clearly more reasons than that. But this brings up a huge issue with creation arguments. I cannot say that all misuse quotes like this and I have seen some original, credible references and arguments. But many of the arguments do have this problem and I have seen more then just Scadding’s quote. In my opinion, and I hope yours too, that whenever someone misquotes like this that either they are very careless or can’t find an actual reason to make an argument and thus loses a lot of credibility. It is my hope with this entry that for anyone of interest in this issue will be aware of such misleading arguments as these and point you in the direction of what the truth is, not just in this issue but in any that you take an interest in.
P.S. I apologize for the amount of time between this entry and the last and I also apologize ahead of the time for the time it may take me to write my next. But I will begin with what I believe to be the most controversial arguments concerning evolution. Because of that I must take extraordinary care in my research and in my arguments for my next entries.
Comments