Evolutionists are changing the definition of vestigial
From EvoWiki
Contents |
Claim
In an attempt to salvage the argument from vestigiality, evolutionists have revised the definition of vestigial so that it no longer requires functionlessness.
Source
- Bergman, Jerry, 2000. Do any vestigial organs exist in humans? Technical Journal 14(2):9598. [1]
- Camp, Ashby, 2001. A Critique of Douglas Theobalds 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: ANATOMICAL VESTIGIAL STRUCTURES. [2]
- Sarfati, Jonathan, 2002. AiG misunderstands evolution? Negative Feedback. [3]
Responses
- The term comes from the Latin "vestigium", meaning "trace". So, it was meant from the beginning to signify things that are left over by some process. If uselessness was intended to be part of the meaning back then, that at least can't be seen from the word and was not intended as the main feature.
- It was clear already in The Origin of Species that vestigial organs don't have to be useless. Darwin discusses rudimentary organs and "vestiges" (what we today call vestigial organs). He writes: "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." and "Any change in function, which can be effected by insensibly small steps, is within the power of natural selection; so that an organ rendered, during changed habits of life, useless or injurious for one purpose, might easily be modified and used for another purpose. Or an organ might be retained for one alone of its former functions." (Chapter 13 in 1st edition, 14 in the 6th. Italics added.)
- The structure and function of vestigial organs is not vital to the validity of evolution.
- Compare with: "In an attempt to salvage the argument from Kent Hovind, creationists have revised the definition of evolution so that it no longer requires science."
- add more responses
Fallacies contained in this claim
- Exclusion (definitions predating creationist responses to vestigiality are ignored)
External Links
- Theobald, Douglas, 2003. The vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix A modern reappraisal. [4]
- Theobald, Douglas, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Anatomical Vestiges. [5]
- Cartwright, Reed A. and Theobald, Douglas, 2003. Citing Scadding (1981) and Misunderstanding Vestigiality Another Example of Poor Creationist Scholarship. [6]
Related claims
- Vestigial organs may have functions
- The tail bone is not vestigial since there are nine muscles that attach to it
- Whales' pelvis bones serve as anchor points for muscles
- Without the pelvis whales cannot reproduce
- The human appendix is functional, not vestigial
