Vestigial Organs (Vestiges of Evolutionary Arguments)

nature walking animal strong
Photo by Gratisography on Pexels.com

For over a century evolutionists have argued that vestigial organs are proof of evolution. Using classic circular logic, they say an organ is vestigial because they believe we have “evolved’ past it and then they use the organ as “proof” of evolution. Of course many of their most touted example have since been found to be functional, but don’t expect to find formal retractions in the textbooks any time soon.

Take as an example, the human male nipple and breast. It is still listed on evolutionary websites as evidence of evolution. But in reality it is merely an example of sexual dimorphism. (In many species the male is readily identifiable as different from the female.) Do evolutionists actually believe that males are a separate species, or that males thousand of years ago used to nurse their young? No, certainly not. So even by their own definitions male nipples cannot be vestigial.  This is yet more evidence of the shallow thinking of evolutionists in this area.

Vestigial structures are NOT leftovers. They do NOT prove evolution. In fact over 150 structures in humans were once thought to be vestigial. Most are now known to be functional. It should be an embarrassment to evolutionists. The only thing vestigial structures have proven so far is the anatomical, physiological and embryological ignorance of evolutionary proponents.

At one time the tonsils, thymus, and appendix (and in some circles still…) were declared to be vestigial. Any modern day surgeon will tell you that they are not going to rush to take out these organs, as modern thinking has “evolved” (pardon the pun) into an understanding that only an emergency warrants removal. In fact, many are now recommending a trial of antibiotics rather than immediate appendectomy even for appendicitis!

Another important example of a so-called vestigial organ is the tailbone.  For probably a hundred years evolutionists claimed that the tailbone is a vestigial remnant, left over from the time when we were monkeys with tails.  However, I would challenge ANY evolutionist to voluntarily give up their tailbone.  It is a critical component of the pelvis.  Without it, our ability to lift heavy objects and control our bowels and bladder are impaired.  Without it, our pelvic floor would be greatly weakened.  In fact, it is critical in our sex life, due to the attachment of the pubococcygeus muscle.  Once again, the tailbone is not a vestige of a tail.  It is a critical part of our “modern” human anatomy!

One more thing evolutionary scientists cannot explain is why so many features that should have aided in our “survival of the fittest” have been lost during the evolutionary process. Thick skulls, brow ridges, the ability to digest cellulose, just to name a few. If evolution favors survival of the fittest, why have humans “evolved” with such frailties as thinner skulls and inability to digest cellulose, when our more robust predecessors had such obvious survival advantages. Why are we now subject to brain damage and starvation? Is this not evidence for survival of the weakest?

All the evidence from genome-sequencing projects shows that virtually all of an organism’s DNA is transcribed into RNA.  That means that even though most of that RNA is not translated into proteins, it performs essential regulatory functions. Science journals continue to publish articles describing more and more such functions. The evidence has been accumulating since scientists finished sequencing the human genome that “pseudogenes” and other so-called “junk DNA” sequences are not useless after all.(1) 

Finally, let me say in the way of a compliment, Darwin was no dummy. Even he knew he had a problem with vestigial organs. He wondered why, once an organ was useless it would continue to atrophy. What would make it do so? What process would cause the shrinkage? Anatomic changes require genetic changes over successive generations, and that means alterations in DNA. What possible explanation is there for genetic modifications that serve absolutely no function, like further shrinking an already atrophied organ? Darwin had no clue, and still today there is no explanation.

 

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

 

1. A few of the many scientific articles published since 2003 that document the function of so-called “junk” DNA are:

  • E.S Balakirev & F.J. Ayala, “Pseudogenes: are they ‘junk’ or functional DNA?” Annual Review of Genetics 37 (2003): 123-151.
  • A. Hüttenhofer, P. Schattner & N. Polacek, “Non-coding RNAs: hope or hype?” Trends in Genetics 21 (2005): 289-297.
  • J.S. Mattick & I.V. Makunin, “Non-coding RNA,” Human Molecular Genetics 15 (2006): R17-R29.
  • R.K. Slotkin & R. Martienssen, “Transposable elements and the epigenetic regulation of the genome,” Nature Reviews Genetics 8 (2007): 272-285.
  • P. Carninci, J. Yasuda & Y Hayashizaki, “Multifaceted mammalian transcriptome,” Current Opinion in Cell Biology 20 (2008): 274-80.
  • C.D. Malone & G.J. Hannon, “Small RNAs as Guardians of the Genome,” Cell 136 (2009): 656–668.
  • C.P. Ponting, P.L. Oliver & W. Reik, “Evolution and Functions of Long Noncoding RNAs,” Cell 136 (2009): 629–641.

Psalm 139:13  For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.

What is Natural Selection?

 

Fact. Natural Selection (NS) exists.

Fact.  NS does not, has not, and will never cause evolution.

In reality it has nothing to do with Evolution.  Natural selection is conservative (of genetic material) not creative. Natural selection can only increase or decrease the number of certain cats, dogs, moths, or bacteria in a larger population. It cannot alter, evolve, or morph them into different creatures. Scientifically studying natural selection will not lead to a conclusion of Darwinism or evolution being true. It is merely an observation which can be thought of as equally as supportive of a created world or an evolved world.

For decades, evolutionists and liberal educators have used the peppered moth as “proof” of evolution. Sewall Wright called it “a conspicuous evolutionary process”. But while the peppered moth does provide evidence of natural selection, it in no way supports evolution.

Creation and Evolution advocates can agree, the light colored phenotype (of the moth) may confer a survival advantage where light colors blend in, and the dark phenotype may be beneficial in a darker or more polluted environment. However, that is where the agreement (and the science) ends and the conjecture begins. The dark and light alleles may just as easily have been created or evolved, and neither side can scientifically prove (to the satisfaction of unbiased observers) that their side must be correct. But every scientist should readily agree that when the light phenotype becomes more prominent, NO NEW GENETIC MATERIAL is produced or created.

Isaiah 45:7 states, “The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.”

It should be noted that whatever you believe about evolution and the tree moth, the dark and light alleles have never changed or evolved. No new moth has been created, and no new color has been documented. Both colors have been present through all of the recorded history of the tree moth. Thus Natural Selection is NOT Evolution. Evolution requires a gradual change in the genetic material over time. Natural selection is simply a mechanism by which members of a population best suited to the environment may survive and pass on their genetic material. These are vastly different concepts.

Or as written by Biochemist John Marcus, “The key fact to note here is that natural selection simply cannot act unless there are functional, self-replicating molecules present to act on.”(1) NS does not create life, or create molecules, or create DNA.  NS simply allows one already created creature to thrive over another created creature. There is much more we will discuss about NS.  But for know just know this.

NS is real.  Evolution is not.

 

Job 12:7-9 “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?
(1) John P. Marcus, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, 2017.

Evolution: Just the facts

Evolution is not plausible.  I am a practicing physician and I depend on science daily in the practice of medicine. Why would I not “believe science” and why would I trust instead in a “fairy tale” story from the Bible? Because facts matter.  Truth matters. And the facts are decidedly NOT on the side of evolution.

Evolution (by definition) requires increases in the complexity of the genetic code. Evolution as an explanation for life on earth as we know it would have required trillions of trillions of trillions of increases in the complexity of the genetic code. The massive information content of DNA could never have happened (evolved) by chance. As an example, a pinhead-sized amount of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4 gig hard drive. In fact “we would need only about 4 grams (about a teaspoon) of DNA to hold everything from Plato through the complete works of Shakespeare to Beyonce’s latest album (not to mention every brunch photo ever posted on Instagram”. (1)

Yet as of this writing there has not been one single example of any mutation at any time, in any living thing, that has increased or added to the complexity of the DNA. Not One! I have of course read many vague imprecise, pseudo-scientific articles on websites that claim the contrary. However their examples are usually at the macro level (living systems or organisms) and not at the molecular or genetic level, and their arguments are always “presumed”, not proven. We live in a society in which you can send off  a packet in the mail to find out about your genes (23 and me), yet all the scientists in the world cannot find ANY genetic proof of evolution!

On the factual side, a study by Axe and Ann Gauger showed that one of the very simplest “evolutionary” changes, the conversion of one enzyme to a closely related enzyme, would require seven simultaneous genetic changes.(2) This is so improbable that statisticians calculate the probability at less that one chance in a trillion trillion. Such an unlikely event has probably (statistically) not happened even once in the history of the earth. Yet for even the simplest example of evolution to be possible it would have of necessity happened countless times!  Or as explained by Dr John Baumgardner (Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics) the mere formation of a relatively short sequence of 200 amino acids to form a simple protein is 20 to the 100th power.  He explains that “this is a hundred billion times the upper bound we computed for the total number of molecules ever to exist  in the history of the cosmos.” (3)

Or for another example, the simplest free living organism is Mycoplasma genitalium.  It has 470 genes with 580,070 nucleotide base pairs. (4) The average protein molecule coded for by these genes contains about 347 amino acids.  The probability of forming just ONE such protein by random assembly is 1/10 to the 451st power.  The total number of atoms in the known universe is estimated to be 10 to the 80th power.  This is beyond improbable. It is statistically impossible.

Sites like TalkOrigins.org or NewScientist.com will obfuscate, and try to confuse the reader by changing the subject or the terms of the conversation. They will give examples like Trisomy (which involves transferring genetic material that already exists) or use code words like “increased genetic variation”or “creating diversity”, which have no relation to the question of an increasingly complex genome (they may result from, but cannot be the cause of such variation). The bottom line is that after over a hundred years of lab scientists radiating the poor, rapidly reproducing fruit fly, all we have is normal, dead, or deformed fruit flies. And after studying hundreds of thousands of generations of bacteria, not one evolutionary scientist has shown the addition of new genomic material

Even Wikipedia admits that Biologists “used to believe” that evolution was progressive.(7) The claim of progressive evolution is scientifically absurd now in the age of genomics.  Genomics has shown, in fact, proven, that the supposed evolutionary Tree of Life cannot be real. It exists only on paper.  Scientists have rearranged it, diversified it, changed it, and even cut and pasted it to no avail.  The Tree of Life is dead.  Belief in evolution should have died with it.

  1. qz.com/345640/scientists-say-all-the-worlds-data-can-fit-on-a-dna-hard-drive-the-size-of-a-teaspoon/
  2. Casey Luskin, 2012, Can Random Mutations Create New complex Features? Evolution News and Science Today
  3. creation.com/john-r-baumgardner-geophysics-in-six-days
  4. http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/data/genomes/270-5235-397.pdf
  5. Casey Luskin, 2012, Can Random Mutations Create New complex Features? Evolution News and Science Today
  6. Dr. Gary Parker, Mutations, Yes; Evolution, No 3/28/2016
  7. Wikipedia, Evolution of Biological Complexity.
  8. Nüsslein-Volhard, C. and E. Wieschaus. 1980. Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila. Nature. 287 (5785): 795-801.
  9. Barrick, J. E. et al. 2009. Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. Nature. 461 (7268): 1243- 1247
  10. Jacob Aron, 11 February 2015 Glassed in DNA makes the ultimate time capsule, New Scientist

Isaiah 66:2  “For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being,” declares the LORD “But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.”