Here, in “VESTIGIAL: Learn what it means!” (Pharyngula, Scienceblogs)
The appendix in humans, for instance, is a vestigial organ, despite all the insistence by creationists and less-informed scientists that finding expanded local elements of the immune system means it isn’t. An organ is vestigial if it is reduced in size or utility compared to homologous organs in other animals, and another piece of evidence is if it exhibits a wide range of variation that suggests that those differences have no selective component. That you can artificially reduce the size of an appendix by literally cutting it out, with no effect on the individual (other than that they survive a potentially acute and dangerous inflammation) tells us that these are vestigial. More.
But wouldn’t his definition make all kinds of organs and limbs vestigial in most life forms?
Also:
That you can artificially reduce the size of an appendix by literally cutting it out, with no effect on the individual (other than that they survive a potentially acute and dangerous inflammation) tells us that these are vestigial.
But this makes no sense. A doctor can remove a man’s gangrenous leg without anyone getting the idea that the leg was vestigial.
Readers, isn’t the whole concept of “vestigial” organs as evidence for the evolution of life forms a bad idea?
No sooner is a can of worms opened than the worms form an escort party and lead us to a bigger one.
Follow UD News at Twitter!