Friday, April 2, 2010

The Ten Myths of Evolution Refuted, Part 7

Ah, Answers in Genesis. Every time I load the page it just makes my whole day. Not because they are intelligent and engage in rational, reasonable discussion, but because they're just fucking hilarious.

The next myth, according to AiG, is that vestigial organs prove evolution. It just gets weirder and weirder.

This was something that I discussed yesterday in part 6. Vestigial organs are one of the many predictions that are made by evolution. Because the processes that govern evolution cannot simply redesign an organism, they have to make do with modifying (albeit, slowly) what is already there. Vestigial organs are perfect examples of this. They are organs that, due to mutation and selection, have lost their ability to function but still develop. They are examples of the evolutionary processes slowly getting rid of the organ (or sometimes re-purposing it). This is a prediction made by evolutionary theory, and confirmed by nearly every branch of biology. This is why evolution is such a powerful idea: it makes predictions that WORK.

So, AiG claims that the loss of organ function means only that the organ simply no longer functions. Well DUH! Of course, that is exactly the prediction that is being made. We don't base it on presumptions, we base it on objective reality. AiG wouldn't know anything about that, I mean, they literally said that they wonder how much evolutionary thought has retarded science by claiming things are no longer needed.

Your appendix is vestigial (functions have been proposed, but not conclusively proven). It no longer has a function in the human body, because the DNA that allowed it to function has mutated away. We know that from DNA evidence, yes, but we also know that because it has no effect on both the lymphatic system or gastrointestinal tract when it is removed. This is not retarding science, it's advancing it!

I guess there really isn't a legitimate claim here. AiG closes the article by saying that vestigial organs are examples of a world in decay (as the bible claims), but of course, they offer no evidence of any kind. To me, it seems like a contradiction. If the earth is decaying, why are only the organs don't seemingly serve an immediate function the ones doing the decaying. Why isn't my eyesight getting worse, or why isn't my back bending forward, or why isn't my brain function decreasing. The answer is, quite plainly, that the claim is an assumption based on no reasonable evidence.

No comments:

Post a Comment