Talk:Vestigial organs may have functions

From EvoWiki

If vestigial organs have functions, then how can they be evidence against ID? Isn't the point of the entire suboptimal argument the idea that an intelligent designer wouldn't make useless organs? If the worst they are is redundant, then it makes perfect sense that an ID would put them in.

No. See Talk:A_programmer's view. The Bayes probability reasoning there applies to vestigial organs too. --tk (t) 11:39, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)

The point seems to have been missed completely by this anonymous contributor. Under evolution we expect vestigial structures, and furthermore, as a subset of homology they must appear in a certain pattern across life. These are predictions of evolution and have been fulfilled. Hence, they are evidence of evolution without any reference to intelligent design. IDists sometimes claim that evolution is only accepted because of an a priori rejection of ID. Vestiges disprove that by being independent evidence for evolution. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 17:43, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)