The standard definition of ‘vestigial’ is an organ that once was useful
in an animal’s evolutionary past, but that now is useless or very close to
useless. The list of vestigial organs in humans has shrunk from 180 in 1890 to 0
in 1999. Evidently to salvage this once-critical support for evolution, a new revisionistic
definition of a vestigial structure is now sometimes used. This definition involves
the idea that a vestigial organ is any part of an organism that has diminished in
size during its evolution because the function it served decreased in importance
or became totally unnecessary. This definition is problematic because it is vague
and would allow almost every structure in humans to be labelled as vestigial.
Classical definition of vestigial
The question, ‘Do any vestigial organs exist in humans?’ (or any other
life form for that matter), first requires a definition of ‘vestigial’.
The most common definition of a vestigial organ throughout the last century was
similar to the following: ‘Living creatures, including man, are virtual museums
of structures that have no useful function but which represent the remains of organs
that once had some use (emphasis mine).’1The authoritative reference
The Evolution of Life2 defines a vestigial organ as one ‘which
has lost its function in the course of evolution, and is usually much reduced in
size’.
The standard anatomy authorities usually define a vestigial organ as referring to
a once-useful organ that now is useless or very close to useless. Dorland’s
Dictionary defines the term vestigial as ‘a vestige, trace or relic’,
and defines the term as ‘the remnant of a structure which functioned in a
previous stage of a species [evolution]’.3Churchill’s Dictionary
defines vestigial as an organ that has ‘no obvious function’, and notes
that the word vestigial derives from the Latin vestigium, ‘meaning
footprint, imprint, track, trace’.4 A standard dictionary of biology
defines the word vestigial as follows:
Once claimed by evolutionists as a vestigial organ, the appendix has many known functions.
‘An organ that is functionless and generally reduced in size but bears some
resemblance to the corresponding fully functioning organs found in related organisms.
Examples include the wings of flightless birds, the limb girdles of snakes, the
appendix and the ear muscles of humans, and the scale leaves of parasitic flowering
plants. The presence of vestigial organs is thought to indicate that the ancestors
of the organism possessed fully functioning organs … .’5
Asimov1 provides two examples of a vestigial organ: (1) the tiny bones
posterior to the sacrum called the coccyx (which Asimov claims were ‘once
meant for a tail’); and (2) the small muscles around the ears (which Asimov
claims are ‘unworkable muscles once meant to move the ears’). As we
will see, these conclusions are not based on empirical evidence but instead on evolutionary
assumptions.
The above definitions of vestigial organs all focus on organs that once had an important
function in an animal’s evolutionary past, but have virtually no function
in the animal today. The following example is typical of how the vestigial organ
argument was used in textbooks in the past as a ‘proof’ of evolution:
‘Useless Organs Prove Evolution. Science has piled up still further
evidence for its case. It has found a number of useless organs among many animals.
They have no apparent function and must therefore be a vestige of a once useful
part of the body. A long time back these vestigial organs must have been important;
now they are just reminders of our common ancestry. One example is the vermiform
appendix which not only is utterly useless in human beings but which often causes
great distress [emphasis in original].’6
This definition still is commonly used. One of the most popular modern life science
textbook writers defined ‘vestigial’ as follows:
‘Evolution is not a perfect process. As environmental changes select against
certain structures, others are retained, sometimes persisting even if they are not
used. A structure that seems to have no function in one species, yet is homologous
to a functional organ in another species, is termed vestigial. Darwin compared vestigial
organs to silent letters in a word—they are not pronounced, but they offer
clues to the word’s origin.’7
In the past, evolutionists claimed that there were approximately 180 vestigial organs
in humans, including the appendix, the tonsils, the pineal gland and the thymus.
Now we know that:
The appendix is part of the immune system, strategically located at the entrance
of the almost sterile ileum from the colon with its normally high bacterial content.
The tonsils have a similar function in the entrance to the pharynx.8
The pineal gland secretes malatonin which is a hormone that regulates the circadian
rhythm and has other functions.
The thymus is part of the immune system, related to T-cells. HIV attacks T-cells,
rendering them ineffective and for this reason is always eventually fatal.
The number of organs that once were believed to be functional in the evolutionary
past of humans but are non-functional today has been steadily reduced as the fields
of anatomy and physiology have progressed. Few examples of vestigial organs in humans
are now offered, and the ones that are have been shown by more recent research to
be completely functional (and in many cases critically so, see Bergman and Howe).9
The idea of vestigial organs in humans also is discussed in popular books on science
and medicine, whose authors frequently admit that the common examples no longer
are considered as valid. One popular book on the human body which discussed vestigial
organs stated that next to circumcision
‘… tonsillectomy is the most frequently performed piece of surgery.
Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took
them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence
that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil
removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils
is hardly an indication for surgery [emphasis in original].’10
The revisionists’ definition
The claim by creationists that there are no vestigial organs in humans usually refers
to the most common definition that has been employed for the past century, not the
problematic, newer definition now being used by evolutionists in an attempt to salvage
the idea—i.e. organs that have ‘reduced function’ compared to
their putative use in some vague, undefined past. According to the revisionists’
definition, a vestigial structure is:
‘Any part of an organism that has diminished in size during its evolution
because the function it served decreased in importance or became totally unnecessary.
Examples are the human appendix and the wings of the ostrich.’11
Another source defines a vestigial structure as ‘any organ that during the
course of evolution has become reduced in function and usually in size’.12
This revisionistic definition of ‘reduced in size and function’ is unwarranted
for several reasons. For example, how much reduction is required before the label
‘vestigial’ becomes appropriate? Is 30% a large enough reduction, or
will a 1% reduction suffice? In addition, there are so many examples of ‘reduced
size’ (and sometimes function) that the label ‘vestigial’ becomes
meaningless.
For example, an analysis of the skull morphology of our supposed evolutionary ancestors
would lead to the conclusion that our jaw is vestigial, as compared to that of our
alleged ancestors, since it is alleged by evolutionists to be comparatively smaller
in humans today (and also has a reduced function, at least relative to its strength
and ability to masticate food). In fact, as a result of our smaller jaw, some of
our teeth (e.g. wisdom teeth) are claimed to be vestigial.13
This definition of vestigial also would necessitate the conclusion that because
the external nasal orifices (the nostrils) are smaller in modern humans (compared
to hypothetical ape-like ancestors), they, too, should be labelled as vestigial.
Many people have problems breathing partly because their nostril passages are too
small, as is obvious from the widespread use of nose bridge expander units and nasal
sprays. This also is illustrated by the frequency of rhinoplasty surgery, especially
surgery to repair a deviated septum. No evolutionists have claimed that our jaws
or nostrils are vestigial, yet according to the revisionists’ definition they
clearly would be vestigial structures.
Furthermore, since the human jaw, eyes, eyebrows, brow ridges, front limbs, nose,
ears, eyes and even mouth could be labelled vestigial, the term obviously becomes
meaningless when defined in this fashion. The textbook illustrations of our alleged
ancestors consistently show them with thick skulls and large protruding brow ridges
that serve to protect their eyes. Our skull and brow ridges therefore would be vestigial.
Why natural selection would cause these structures to diminish in size in modern
humans is never discussed (especially since selection would appear to do the opposite).
Evolutionists even use the lack of brow ridges in humans as an example of poor design.
For example, Colby concluded that the ‘human skull is too thin to provide
adequate protection to the gigantic brain and the absence of brow ridges leaves
the eyes poorly protected’.14
A list of some of the 180 structures that were considered vestigial in the early
1900’s. It is now almost unanimously agreed that most of these structures
have at least one function.
Furthermore, on the average, muscle mass, organ function and strength have decreased
in modern humans, no doubt through lack of use due to living in modern society.
By the revisionists’ definition, aging alone produces vestigial organs in
virtually every human.
If the definition of a vestigial organ is one that is less developed in a modern
animal (compared to an ancestor) due to loss mutations, adaptation, etc., all
organs in modern humans that were more developed in our alleged ancestors would
be vestigial. This means that if macroevolution were true, and if humans evolved
from lower animals, one could argue that virtually every structure in modern humans
is vestigial because vestigial organs are defined as those that are somewhat less
useful today then they were in the past. A rare exception would be the human brain—and
even the brain could be claimed to be vestigial in size if we accepted
Neandertals as our ancestors.15 Neandertals, on the average, had a brain
larger than modern humans—about 1,500 cc compared to 1,300 cc for people today.
Probably the best example of this definition of vestigial structures is the ability
of some bacteria to digest the most common organic compound on earth, cellulose.
Cellulose is the chief component of plants (grass, leaves, wood and tree bark are
primarily cellulose; see Black16). The only reason that many animals
(including cows, horses, sheep and termites) can use grass and wood for food is
because they have a symbiotic relationship with certain bacteria that are able to
digest cellulose.
Yet evolutionists postulate that higher organisms lost the ability to digest cellulose.
Thus, most modern animals have a vestigial cellulose metabolism system. If humans
possessed this ability, starvation and most malnutrition would be a thing of the
past. Starvation and malnutrition have been major problems throughout history, and
even today an estimated 60 percent of the world’s population is malnourished.
Evolution, it would seem, should select for the ability to metabolize cellulose,
and certainly would select against those life-forms that lost this ability.
The revisionists’ definition of vestigial also requires that the evolutionary
history of an animal is known, when, in fact, the history of most, if not all, life
often is admittedly largely speculation. Furthermore, the judgment of vestigial
is based on evaluations of modern examples of apes, rabbits, other animals
and humans. These judgments cannot be based on our actual evolutionary ancestors
for several reasons. Although many fossil bone fragments have been found, no well-preserved
mammals (or mammal organs) that are estimated to be 1,000,000, or even 50,000, years
old exist. Consequently usually only modern examples can be used for comparison.
Note Asimov’s example:
‘In certain plant-eating animals, the caecum is a large storage place where
food may remain to be broken down by bacteria so that the animal itself may more
easily digest and absorb it. The appendix in man and the apes (it occurs in almost
no other animal) is what remains of that large caecum. It indicates that the fairly
near ancestors of man and the apes were plant-eaters. The appendix is thus the useless
remainder of a once useful organ; it is a vestige, from the Latin ‘vestigium’
(footprint). Just as a footprint is a sign that a man once passed that way, so a
vestige is a sign that a useful organ once passed that way.’17
The example often given to support this conclusion, the modern human appendix, is
judged vestigial when compared to an animal that has a larger appendix (such as
the modern rabbit). What should be compared, though, is not modern humans and modern
rabbits but modern humans and our actual ancestors—something that
can only be estimated by examining extant fossil remains of our putative ancestors
(most of which are badly distorted bone fragments). Much can be learned about an
animal from bone fragments, but little can be ascertained about organs, organ tissues,
cell structures and most other key biological aspects of life because no examples
exist in the fossil record. The only criterion for making judgments about organ
evolution is an examination of modern animals (like the rabbit). The vestigial organ
argument becomes a classic case of circular reasoning when it infers reduced organ
size because of accepted phylogenies and then uses this alleged reduction to prove
the phylogenies.
Yet another revisionist’s definition suggests that any ‘organ or structure
that lacks function related to the animal’s survival’ should be labelled
as vestigial. Actually, all organisms have large numbers of structures that fit
this definition. To creationists, this fact argues for a designer, because such
structures cannot be explained by natural selection for the simple reason that they
confer no known survival advantage. Examples are everywhere, and in humans include
the ability to create music, song and dance. Even in the plant world there are many
examples of structures that cannot be explained by natural selection. Some modern
flowering plants (such as dandelions) are self-pollinating and consequently have
no need for flowers. According to the ‘lacking function for survival’
definition, they would be vestigial.
Conclusion
Creationists use these and similar examples to argue that much of God’s creation
was designed for human enjoyment and for God’s own enjoyment, as He declared
it ‘good’ several times before man was created. A field of dandelions
is a thing of beauty that is famous the world over (and thus a favourite of photographers
everywhere). Evolutionists never have explained how and why so many structures could
exist in humans (like the complex structures that enable music, song and dance)
that confirm no survival advantage yet delight millions. Only creation can explain
this observation. The clear conclusion is that the concept of evolutionary vestigial
organs is useless, or largely speculative, and certainly is not good science.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Dr Wayne Frair, Dr Bert Thompson,
John Woodmorappe, MA, and Prof. Rena Trautman for their critical review
of an earlier draft of this paper.
References
Asimov, I., Words of Science, Signet Reference Books, New York, p. 30,
1959.
Gamlin, L. and Vines, G., The Evolution of Life, Oxford University Press,
New York, 1987.
Dorland, W., Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, W.B. Saunders,
Philadelphia, p. 1834, 1988.
Churchill, L., Churchill’s Medical Dictionary, Churchill Livingstone,
Inc., New York, p. 2083, 1989.
Tootill, E., The Facts on File Dictionary of Biology, Facts on File, New
York, p. 318, 1988.
Perkel, A. and Needleman, M.H., Biology for All, Barnes and Noble, New
York, p. 129, 1950.
Lewis, R., Life, 3rd ed., WCB/McGraw Hill, New York, p. 395, 1998.
Glover, J., The human vermiform appendix—A General
Surgeon’s reflections, TJ3:31–38,
1988. The function of the appendix seems to be more crucial in early childhood,
in ‘educating’ the body’s immune system. This is similar to the
thymus: its usefulness also peaks in early childhood and is more clearly understood.
The appendix is atrophied in adults, having served its function of ‘educating’
the immune system.
Bergman, J. and Howe, G., Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional, CRS Books,
Terre Haute, IN, 1990.
Ratcliff, J.D., Your Body and How it Works, Delacorte, New York, p. 137,
1975.
Martin, E., Dictionary of Biology, Warner, New York, p. 250, 1986.
Hale, W.G. and Margham, J.P., The Harper Collins Dictionary of Biology,
Harper Perennial, New York, p. 555, 1991.
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.
Feedback Guidelines
Be constructive & courteous. Don't attack individuals, denominations, or other organizations.
Stay on-topic. We're not here to debate matters like eschatology, baptism, or Bible translation.
Links to external sites and articles will be removed from your submission.
Privacy & Content Ownership
Comments become the property of Creation Ministries International upon submission and may be edited for brevity and clarity.
CMI may choose not to publish your comment depending on how well it fits the guidelines outlined above.
By submitting your comment you are agreeing to receive email updates from Creation Ministries International. You may unsubscribe at any time.
CMI records your real name, email address, and country as a sign of good faith. Privacy Policy
If your comment is published, your name will be displayed as ""
Cancel
Accept & Continue
Close
You are leaving CREATION.com
We have supplied this link to an article on an external website in good faith. But we cannot assume responsibility for, nor be taken as endorsing in any way, any other content or links on any such site. Even the article we are directing you to could, in principle, change without notice on sites we do not control.
Readers’ comments
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.