Is “vestigial organ” a term that should be retired?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 7, 2014

Convergent evolution, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Get a look at this item from The Scientist :

For decades, researchers and marine fisheries managers have considered the adipose fin—a small protuberance between the dorsal and tail fins—a vestigial organ, a relic of a bygone evolutionary era. But a study published today (March 5) in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B shows that bony versions of these structures have evolved independently and from more than one ancestor, suggesting that the adipose fin could play a subtle, yet vital, as-yet unidentified role in fish.

Then there’s “Elephant’s extra “toe”: Another “vestigial organ” bites the dust – in this case, literally

and

Your appendix: The king of vestigial organs has a job again

Is the term retained so people can attract attention to a new article by pointing out that such and so was thought to be vestigial but really isn’t? Or is the term itself a vestige of Darwinism? Perhaps it is itself the only example of the idea?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hatchery salmon have their adipose fin clipped off(under sedation), to distinguish them from wild salmon, who are protected. If the fin is not vestigial, maybe this isn’t such a good idea:

Comments

Jaceli123: Thanks for the clarification. I fully agree that ID is compatible with vestigial organs, as I mentioned to James @50. I also agree with you that there is precious little evidence that natural processes can produce new function. My point was more limited. Namely, that while there are a small number of true vestigial structures, (i) the idea of pervasive vestigial structures is largely based on made up stories coupled with a lack of understanding of the engineering principles involved, (ii) most structures that, over the years, have been claimed as vestigial have, with more knowledge, turned out not to be in any meaningful sense, and (iii) even the existence of true vestigial structures is not evidence for a broader evolutionary storyline -- particularly when the definition of vestigial sometimes put forward is essentially circular. Anyway, sounds like we are in agreement on most of this. I think what jumped out to some of us about the human nail example, is that it falls in the category of a made up story. There are probably some better examples, like the blind cave fish or something, that are closer to a true vestigial structure. But I agree with your broader point that common descent and natural selection could result in a loss or diminishment of function over time.Eric Anderson_{March 10, 2014
March
03
Mar
10
10
2014
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

Jaceli123:
So human nails are useful but show less use because of common descent and natural selection.
Question begging 101. And it is true that ID does not argue against universal common descent. But that concept (UCD) still needs a way to be tested.Joe_{March 10, 2014
March
03
Mar
10
10
2014
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Jaceli123, There seems to be some here who think that anyone who disagrees with them must be a Darwinist.James Stanhope_{March 10, 2014
March
03
Mar
10
10
2014
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Alright look let me repeat myself. IM NOT A DARWINIST. ID is compatible with universal common descent. So this means that if there is vestigial organs it shows how natural selection is a terrible mechanism like James Shapiro said. Lets make that clear I don't think natural processes can produce new function just variate. Ok so yes I know you use nails so do I but i'm saying that vestigial organs show a degrading system from common descent until a conscious mind inserts information into the system. So human nails are useful but show less use because of common descent and natural selection. I hope I made myself clear. BTW sorry for the long responses, driving stoping and unpacking is a hassle so Im kind of busy but am driving all day so ill be free for a discussion.Jaceli123_{March 10, 2014
March
03
Mar
10
10
2014
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

Jaceli123 @58:
No nails are not useless but have been reduced in function overtime.
Why would we think that? Has anyone ever found empirical evidence that humans once had more reptilian nails or more functional nails? Do we have any idea what kinds of changes would be required in the organism to change the one into the other? Ironically, I had never really thought about nails and whether they might have function, but since reading this exchange earlier today I have been noticing how often I use my nails for something functional, and it is quite often -- certainly with my hands. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that nails constitute a "reduced function" vestige of some progenitor species. It is of course possible -- in a purely hypothetical sort of way -- that human nails devolved from some reptilian counterpart. But, until then, it is just a story. Pure, unadulterated, unsubstantiated, just-so story.Eric Anderson_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT}

Jaceli123 @58 continued . . .
No nails are not useless but have been reduced in function
Do you think you would rather have reptilian nails---would they provide more functionality for you?
I listed that Amphibuas legs can come into the category of a vestigial body part. Heres a picture of these legs and from observation you should determine that theses legs are reduced to little to no function!
How would I know from visual inspection that the appendages on Scelotes bidigittatus aren't actually Highly Functional sense organs, able to detect minute chemicals from decaying organisms that it can more easily locate for scavenging? If I assumed that these structures are vestigial, I'd be less likely to investigate them to find out what advantage that they convey! And that's why the ID paradigm promotes scientific progress while Darwinism inhibits scientific progress. Did you want to bring up fruit bats or kangaroos next? ;-) -QQuerius_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

James, In #45, I pointed out that there are two definitions of "vestigial." The classic definition fits the word "vestige." The more modern definition fits all biologic structures that are believed to have developed from another structure. For example, it's now generally believed by Darwinists that the flagellar rotor from Yersinia pestis evolved into a Type III secretion system in some bacteria. The motility of the bacteria with this novelty was compromised in favor of acquiring a structure for injecting toxins into eukaryotic cells. Thus by the second definition, Type III secretion systems are vestigial, due to the loss of the original function, motility. One can argue that vestigiality only applies to an overall loss of function, which would be hard to assess, since for some organisms motility confers greater viability than toxicity, but for others the reverse is true. My point is that the term, vestigial, has lost it's utility in the modern Darwinist pantheon outside of a sentimental attachment. Maybe you can find a new definition to keep the discredited term on life support. ;-) -QQuerius_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

ID and others AMEN to vestigial bits. This yEC loves them. they tell a truth about biological change. its reasonable and true evidence for change. yet not evidence for evolution. in fact if evolution was true THEN biology should be crawling with vestigial bits upon vestigial bits! Instead they are few and far between to such a poverty as to demand a conclusion evolutionary change has never happened. marine mammals did cHANGE from landlovers and marsupial fetus teeth show indeed they were first placentals. thats why they look identical to placental types. yes cave fish came from non cave fish. Etc The equation is being missed by you guys. The few are a sample for the poverty of evolution evidence by vestigial bits. The sample for evolution , if true, should be vestigial bits in everyone and a great deal. nary a rib but a unexplained bump should be the tale.Robert Byers_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

Joe, Why is the idea of vestigial structures in compatible with your version of evolution?
It isn't. As I said I am all for vestigial rear flippers in cetaceans. Finger nails on humans? No. So it all depends on the structure and the context. As I calling something vestigial just begs the question. From a design PoV something modified and used for some other function wouldn't be vestigial.Joe_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

Queries I agree with Eric. No nails are not useless but have been reduced in function overtime. Thats my responded. Now let's discuss something other than nails. As I listed in one of my first comments or post 13. I listed that Amphibuas legs can come into the category of a vestigial body part. Heres a picture of these legs and from observation you should determine that theses legs are reduced to little to no function! Picture: http://www.ispot.org.za/node/156725Jaceli123_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

Joe, Why is the idea of vestigial structures in compatible with your version of evolution? If evolution is a result or consequence of design (and I won't argue that point) why should there not be vestigial structures?James Stanhope_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Querius, as long as you keep insisting on a "classic" definition of vestigial that's inaccurate, your arguments will always be correct.James Stanhope_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

The question, "are any organs really vestigial?" could be asked. For many years various organs of the human body were called “vestigial” by evolutionists, that is, the last vestiges of organs that supposedly once had a use, but were no longer needed because of the claimed advance up the evolutionary ladder. Of interest in this regard is the small gland that is shaped like a pinecone and hence called the “pineal” gland. Though it is located near the center of the brain, it is not part of the brain. “Until very recently” it was thought that “the pineal in man served no biologic purpose and was merely a vestige,” reported the journal Hospital Practice. Now the pineal has been shown “to possess a unique ability to produce melatonin.” This is a substance that affects the brain, the reproductive system, as well as the pituitary, adrenal and thyroid glands. Scientists believe that in man the pineal gland “exerts a control over the body, specifically by regulating the body clock.” (Science Digest, September 1972) The pineal does this evidently by secreting various chemicals. Thus it is believed that the pineal gland may chemically supervise many of the involuntary activities of the human body, such as helping to make body temperatures increase during the daytime and decrease at night. Another gland long thought to be useless is the thymus. In an article entitled “The ‘Useless’ Gland That Guards Our Health,” Reader’s Digest stated: “For at least 2000 years, doctors have puzzled over the function of a pinkish-grey bit of tissue lying just below the neck and behind the breastbone—the thymus gland. . . . Modern physicians came to regard it, like the appendix, as a useless, vestigial organ which had lost its original purpose, if indeed it ever had one. “In the last few years, however, the dogged detective work of a small band of Americans, Britons, Australians and Swedes have cracked the thymus enigma. These men have proved that, far from being useless, the thymus is really the master gland that regulates the intricate immunity system which protects us against infectious diseases. . . .“But is the thymus the only organ regulating our immunity system? Recent experiments have led researchers to believe that the appendix, tonsils and adenoids [once these too were tagged as vestigial] may also figure in the antibody responses.”Barb_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

James Stanhope:
Joe: I’ve seen where you have, several times, insisted that ID has no problem with evolution, so who are you referring to as “evolutionists”?
The people who think that alleged vestigial parts is evidence for common ancestry. ;) Evolutionists are people who accept blind watchmaker evolution, ie that blind and mindless processes such as natural selection (which includes random/ happenstance mutations) and drift can account for the diversity of life starting from some simple replicators. And that our existence is just because of many improbable coincidences. IOW evolutionists are people heavily vested is Special High Intensity Training. You have to be to pawn that nonsense off as science and get away with it for years.Joe_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Eric noted that
Incidentally, the claim of pervasive amounts of junk DNA falls in this category. It is essentially a claim of vestigial structure, founded upon, in some cases, a lack of understanding and in other cases, on a philosophical assertion that we should “expect” a lot of junk.
Exactly. Dr. Ohno in his paper on "junk" DNA, speculated that this DNA was the remnants of "fossil" genes. That this is being falsified by modern science seems to evoke no concern to the Darwinist true believers who spring to Dr. Ohno's defense. -QQuerius_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

One commenter offers this definition of vestigial:
a bodily part or organ that is small and degenerate or imperfectly developed in comparison to one more fully developed in an earlier stage of the individual, in a past generation, or in closely related forms.
That is perilously close to being circular. In many cases of alleged vestigial structures, the proponent of purposeless evolution is using them to claim evidence for the truth of unguided, purposeless evolution (indeed, let's just acknowledge it, this is the primary interest in vestigial structures at all). Yet, the very definition of vestigial assumes that the vestigial structure came from some "earlier stage" or from some "closely related form." In that sense, one cannot logically claim that something is vestigial because it is related to some other form or some earlier stage and then say that the existence of the vestigial structure demonstrates evolution (i.e., demonstrates that there was some earlier stage or some earlier form).* The idea of human finger nails being a left over from reptilian ancestors, for example, being nothing more than unmitigated, unsubstantiated, pure storytelling. ----- * This is a good parallel case to the concept of "homology", which so often functions as nothing more than a circular restatement of the original claim, assuming as the precedent the very conclusion that needs to be reached.Eric Anderson_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

James, I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. - Your simply saying that Wiedersheim's claims are still valid doesn't make them so. - All the subsequent discoveries about organs that were formerly labeled vestigial at the time have been demonstrated to be functional, thus falsifying his claims based on the classic definition of vestigial (having no function, a vestige of the evolutionary process). - Asserting that the label "vestigial" is a complex concept and that there are gray areas doesn't elicit any confidence in its scientific utility. It's simply a vestige of the rotting planking of the drifting 19th century ship, Darwinism. As in Monty Python's dead parrot skit, the parrot is not resting, pining, or stunned. It's dead, and science should move on ahead. -QQuerius_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

James Stanhope:
I do know however that the rejection of vestigial structures as being vestigial seems to be a common them amongst YEC commentators. I don’t know why a structure can’t be both vestigial (in the evolution sense) and designed.
I can't speak for YEC commentators, but you are quite right that ID does not have any problem with vestigial structures. Designed things break down all the time and there are some decent examples of things that are likely structures that have fallen out of use over time. Not a problem from an ID perspective. The general issue with the claim of vestigial structure, however, arises from the following confluence: (i) vestigial structures are regularly trumpeted loudly and broadly as some kind of definitive proof against design, which is nonsense, (ii) the history of arguing for purposeless evolution (and against design) by pointing to vestigial structures has an extremely poor track record -- one by one over the decades most things have fallen off the list and many things that were previously thought to be vestigial are now known to have function; as a result, at some level the claim of vestigial structures often functions as a claim from ignorance;* (iii) even if something appears not to have current function, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have some other purpose (e.g., things that are needed early on in the organism's development, scaffolding leftovers from construction, etc.). So, no, ID doesn't have any problem with vestigial structures. But the real bona fide vestigial structures are far fewer, far less clear, and far less compelling than most proponents of purposeless evolution would have us believe. ----- * Incidentally, the claim of pervasive amounts of junk DNA falls in this category. It is essentially a claim of vestigial structure, founded upon, in some cases, a lack of understanding and in other cases, on a philosophical assertion that we should "expect" a lot of junk.Eric Anderson_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

James Stanhope, I have explained why your position is absurd in my own words. Because you don't like the fact that I carefully referenced the fact that Darwinists have no empirical evidence after I stated my case to you is of no importance to me. I don't write to please your personal tastes! The fact that I made clear to you, for all to see, and will gladly repeat for any onlookers (if there be any), is that the 'vestigial structure argument' you are using, such as 'how man lost his tail', is not science but is merely a imaginative 'just so story'. In fact empirical science, when properly utilized, is the 'bottom line' that is SUPPOSE to put an end to such imaginative speculations. That you would defend such imaginative 'story telling' as to telling you anything useful scientifically is what is absurd. As far as empirical science is SUPPOSE to be practiced, I could care less what you imagine could or could not have happened, and only care what you can demonstrate to be true. Darwinian evolution is far from such an empirical demonstration:
"Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD. Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - Doug Axe PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/
bornagain77_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

Mr. 77, I'm not going to have a conversation with a wall of cut-and-paste. Again, if you can explain in your own words why you feel the idea of vestigial structures is absurd, I can try to answer. Otherwise there's no point.James Stanhope_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

James Stanhope, I have a very specific question I want answered scientifically. I want to know if it is possible to produce humans by purely material, i.e. Darwinian, processes. Making up a 'just so story' about how you think 'man lost his tail' is about as unscientific as can be. I could care less what your imagination and subjective opinion can tell you what could have happened. Yet such absurd story telling is all we ever hear from Darwinists. We are never EVER presented with any actual empirical evidence that would indicate that Darwinism is even remotely feasible. Perhaps you feel that making a story up as to how man lost his tail is scientific, but I find your gullibility to believe in such tripe absurd.
EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES Excerpt: “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations” (James Shapiro, molecular biologist, National Review, Sept. 16, 1996). ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo. Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man. Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability. Biologist Michael Behe observes: “Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,, http://www.wayoflife.org/database/evolutionary_just_so_stories.html Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit Darwinian Evolution is a Pseudo-Science - Part II https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit
bornagain77_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Mr. 77: If you can explain why you think that the idea of vestigial structures is "absurd" in your own words, I might be able to answer you. Joe: I've seen where you have, several times, insisted that ID has no problem with evolution, so who are you referring to as "evolutionists"? Querius: The information from Wiedersheim in #41 above is still valid wrt the definition "vestigial" in biology. The fact that some might be confused isn't surprising, as it's not an entirely simple concept, and there might grey areas.James Stanhope_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

James and Jaceli123, Notice from each other's posts that there are two distinct Darwinist (or neo-Darwinist) definitions for vestigial: A. Having no function, a vestige of the evolutionary process. B. Having a different biological function by process of evolutionary adaptation. The change from definition A to definition B is the result of numerous embarrassments and falsifications including mislabeling organs such as ductless glands, etc. as "vestigial." However, the "new" definition of vestigial is tautological since Darwinism asserts that all structures have had some previous, not necessarily identical function. This provides Darwinism with additional "flexibility" to create support for any evolutionary pathway. Very handy, though scientifically useless. Yes, the human femur by definition B has indeed lost some functionality present in ancestral organisms and is thus, strictly speaking, vestigial. Jaceli123---I noticed that you still haven't answered my question of whether you still think human nails are "vestigial" in light of my argument to the contrary. From a Darwinist perspective, would I be more likely to survive if my nails were reptilian? <---warning: trick question. ;-) -QQuerius_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

To call something vestigial just begs the question. Just because evolutionists can behave like apes and reptiles doesn't mean humans, apes and reptiles share a common ancestor. :razz:Joe_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

Then why are you defending the absurd Darwinian proposition that the tailbone is vestigial? Much like the word vestigial itself, it seems your position is extremely plastic when it suits your purposes. ,, Just sayin,,,bornagain77_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Mr. 77, I do not think that I came from an ape. I have documentary evidence that my mother, a member of the species Homo sapiens, gave birth to me. :>)James Stanhope_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Querius, the 180 structures cited in the Scopes trial were not individually identified. There was just a statement made to that effect, so it's not possible to evaluate the claim. The German anatomist Robert Wiedersheim published a book in the 1890s in which he specifically identified 86 human vestigial structures. It was apparently this list that was later expanded to 180, but by whom and to what end isn't clear. Wiedersheim, by the way, defined vestigial structures as "wholly or in part functionless" and that they have "lost their original physiological significance." I think those ideas are considered accurate today, so you can see why I said that your reference to the femur is irrelevant.James Stanhope_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Queries, human nails are not vestigial in a sense because we could live with out them quit frankly. I understand nails have some kind of function but thats not what vestigial means. Definition: a bodily part or organ that is small and degenerate or imperfectly developed in comparison to one more fully developed in an earlier stage of the individual, in a past generation, or in closely related forms. Source: http://i.word.com/idictionary/vestige See I meant that nails show less use because of our reptilian ancestors who used nails to reach onto surfaces. So yes I know it has some function but it has been reduced in a function because of past evolutionary generations.Jaceli123_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

James Stanhope:
The coccyx is a vestigial tail bone.
That is your opinion. And it is only an opinion.Joe_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

James,
Querius, The Scopes trial was 90 (or so) years ago. Believe it or not, science has advanced in the last 90 years.
Exactly. And what was considered "vestigial" then is not considered "vestigial" now. But "vestigial was and is (by your own posts) falsely deemed evidence for Darwinism, by argument out of ignorance---we don't know its function, so it must not have one. How can you *know* that any biological structure absolutely does not have any function (remembering repressed genes)?
The coccyx is a vestigial tail bone. It serves a present purpose of anchoring muscles, a purpose it may have served all along. You seem to think that all biological structures are allowed only a single function.
No, my point is that biological structures that have a purpose (or more than one) are not "vestigial" simply because some presumed ancestor has a homologous structure perhaps used for a different purpose.
Femurs are irrelevant.
Not at all! Femurs are part of a locomotion and manipulation structure in apes, a reproduction structure in whales, and a locomotion structure in humans. Are femurs vestigial in humans because they no longer support manipulation, or reproduction? What exactly was the original use of the femur---it was a fin for swimming, right? Thus, femurs are "vestigial" in land animals by one common definition. Jaceli123, I still haven't received a response from you regarding whether human nails are vestigial! Instead, I get one on boobies, and if I answer boobies, I'll get one on fruit bats, followed by kangaroos, amoebas, and then slime molds. So, one more time. Are human nails vestigial? -QQuerius_{March 9, 2014
March
03
Mar
9
09
2014
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply