Vestigial organs are just evidence of decay, not evolution
From EvoWiki
Contents |
Claim
Vestigial organs (if any really exist) are not evidence of evolution. They just show decay consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Source
- Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Master Books, Arkansas, p. 75-76.
- Sarfati, Jonathan, 2002. Useless horse body parts? No way!. Technical Journal 24(3):24–25. [1]
- Camp, Ashby, 2001. A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution�?: ANATOMICAL VESTIGIAL STRUCTURES. [2]
Responses
- The Second Law of Thermodynamics has absolutely nothing to say about genetic deterioration or organ atrophy in organisms.
- Creationists who make this claim are painfully ignorant that there is a tremendous difference between decay, which is the chemical breakdown of (often organic) complex compounds into simpler compounds, and the evolution of vestigial organs, which is the change of an organ's function.
- Decay in a living animal is evidence of a necrotizing disease like gangrene, leprosy, or "flesh-eating bacteria," not entropy doing its job.
- The mere existence of vestigial organs might not be strong evidence for common descent, but because vestigial organs are a subset of homologues, common descent suggests that they should form a specific pattern. Unsurprisingly, this pattern is observed to actually exist. Hence, vestigial organs do provide evidence for large scale evolution. Creationists are generally forced to explain the pattern of vestiges in an ad hoc manner. As the number of vestiges that fits the evolutionary pattern increases, these ad hoc explanations become weaker, and common descent becomes stronger.
- Darwin knew all about deterioration of vestigial organs. If an organ is no longer useful, then the organisms with the smallest examples have to give it less oxygen, nutrients, etc. These "savings" can be diverted to more useful areas, increasing the organism's fitness and hence chance of reproductive success.
- add more responses
Fallacies contained in this claim
- Exclusion (the fact that vestigial organs are not signs of "decay" is ignored)
- Just So Story (made up to fit the quote)
- add more fallacies
External Links
- Theobald, Douglas, 1999. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Anatomical Vestiges by Douglas Theobald [3]
Related claims
- The tail bone is not vestigial since there are nine muscles that attach to it
- Whales' pelvis bones serve as anchor points for muscles
- Complex organs couldn't have evolved
- Vestigial organs may have functions
- Spinal treatments based on evolutionary theory fail
