Renewable Revolution

An idea destructive to medical science and our health

Editor’s note: Since this 1998 article was written, research has uncovered more functions for such things as the appendix. We recommend that readers also check articles under Vestigial organs Q&A.

By Robert H. Franks

Certain organs of man, as well as of various animals, have long been described as useless ‘leftovers’ (vestiges) of structures which were useful in a former evolutionary stage. However, this evidence is no longer offered with the confidence it once was.

Practically all the so-called ‘vestigial’ organs, especially those in man, have been proved in recent years to have definite uses. They are not vestigial at all.

At one time, evolutionists claimed there were more than 100 such vestigial organs in man. But few are claimed now. Some of these are essential to everyday existence. So what are these so-called ‘vestigial’ organs? Some regarded as vestigial are:

1. The little semi-lunar membrane at the corner of the eye.

Facial expression in the human being far exceeds that in any other vertebrate.
2. The pineal gland in the brain.
3. Ear muscles.
4. Wisdom teeth (molars).
5. Tonsils.
6. The thymus gland in the neck.
7. Nipples in the male.
8. The appendix.
9. The tail-bone (coccyx).

Let’s take these one by one and look at what modern medical science knows about them.


Semi-lunar membrane

The plica semilunaris is a little fold of tissue at the inner corner of the eye. Some evolutionists feel that it is a remnant of the third eyelid of a lower form, such as the third eyelid in birds and reptiles. But in man this tissue has several essential functions. If you did not have the tissue for support at that location, the eyeball would sink. This would cause double vision. The tissue not only supports the eyeball, but the tearduct as well. Without this tissue, tears would drain over the cheeks causing a cosmetic problem.

This area also serves to collect foreign matter. When you wake up in the morning, you will often find some white material in the inner corner of your eye. It collects in this fold, the semilunar fold of the eye. It is not true that this fold has no purpose. It was designed. And it does not represent the cleverly designed third eyelid of the bird which prevents the bird’s eyes from drying out during flight.

Pineal gland

The pineal is a small gland situated on the mid-brain. This little organ, the size of a peanut, is said by evolutionists to be derived from the third eye of primitive reptiles. The organ is covered by the skull, so it is certainly no eye. But it does help regulate our biological clocks. This makes it an essential organ. It secretes a specific hormone,melatonin, which influences the activity of a number of glands probably by a direct action on brain centres.

When the interplay of various factors governing the pineal is finally understood, man may be able to adjust his biological rhythm and become nocturnal like an owl for a period of time, or for long-distance international travel.

Frog pineal cells may be similar to the cone cells of the retina and even be photo-receptors, or so-called ‘third eyes’. But pineal cells in man are certainly not eyes. To postulate that the human pineal is therefore a vestige serving no biologic purpose is erroneous. The vestige theory for the pineal is rapidly being refuted.

Ear muscles

Ear muscles are muscles of facial expression. Facial expression in the human being far exceeds that in any other vertebrate. By no means are facial muscles vestigial. Evolutionary reasoning argues that rabbits have large ears and well-developed ear muscles.

Since humans have smaller ear muscles, these must be vestigial. Does this mean that any human who can wiggle his ears is primitive? Ear muscles allow the ears to be moved to gather sound, and thus are a worthwhile mechanism. It is possible that this was more efficient in our (human) ancestors, and that degenerate mutations have caused a partial loss. But this is certainly no demonstration of upward evolution!

Wisdom teeth

Wisdom teeth are often mentioned as vestigial organs. It is true that when they do not erupt, and then become impacted, they cause problems. Infection and pain can ensue. But ingrown toenails also become impacted and cause infection and pain. And toenails certainly are not vestigial! Molars are grinders and necessary for chewing certain foods. It is no more fair to say that molars are non-essential than it is to say that incisors are non-essential.

Tonsils

Tonsils are glands in the throat which function as part of the lymphatic system. They are part of the defence mechanism of the body to resist bacteria and other disease organisms. The evolutionary argument is that since they can be removed with impunity, they must be useless. Actually, if a person were unfortunate enough to be born without tonsils or any other lymphatic tissue, he would be in bad shape. In the case of the tonsils I try not to remove them before the child is two years old. By then, I don’t worry about removing diseased, infected lymphatic glands because the body has many lymphatic glands. The Creator has built in a fail-safe mechanism so that removal of the tonsils does not render a person incapable of resisting disease. Thousands of lymphatic glands remain.

Thymus

Another member of the lymphatic system of the body is the thymus in the neck (not to be confused with the thyroid). It is very prominent in children. In earlier days, perhaps partly due to the influence of evolutionary thinking, the thymus was treated with X-ray in some children with respiratory distress. Sadly, some of these children later in life became leukemic, so we no longer irradiate the thymus in children with respiratory distress.

Since the thymus shrinks, we might conclude that it is not necessary. But that is not the case. A group of physicians reported in 1968 the case of a baby boy born without a thymus. The physicians were able to trace the child’s diarrhoea and continual running nose to lack of the thymus. The month-old boy did not thrive. When his immune mechanism was challenged, he could not respond, because the thymus is involved in the body’s ability to resist invading organisms and reject foreign tissue.

After thymus tissue was transplanted into the baby, the diarrhoea and running nose abruptly ceased. The child responded to irritating chemicals and rejected a skin graft, showing a healthy immune response. He began to thrive. This work gives additional support to current concepts of the essential early function of the human thymus gland.

Nipples

I am sure no one regards nipples in the female as non-essential. Now if I tell you that the human breast does not know whether it is male or female except by responding to male or female hormone, perhaps you can understand the complexity of the situation. In the male treated with female hormone because of prostate cancer, the breasts and nipples enlarge in response to the female hormone.

Many evolutionists reason that since male humans do not suckle the young, male breasts are vestigial. Would this mean that we are descended from some (unknown) mammal in which the male suckled the young? More informed evolutionists actually agree with the creationist that this is an example of sexual homology and has nothing to do with vestigial structures.

Appendix

The appendix is another organ of the lymphatic system, like the tonsils and the thymus gland. The human organ also regulates intestinal immunity to repel germs attacking through the unsterile foods digested. Intestinal immunity also causes rejection of foreign allergenic materials. The appendix is able to sample the bowel contents and form antibodies. It is in a very beautiful location to do this. Of course, like the tonsils it sometimes falls prey to infection and requires removal. Again, God has built in a fail-safe mechanism so that we can get along without the appendix. There are hundreds of lymphatic glands in the mesentery of the intestine (the mesentery is a fold of abdominal tissue keeping the intestines in place).

The evolutionist compares the rabbit appendix, which is a digestive organ, to the human appendix, then states that since the human appendix does not function like that in the rabbit, then ours is vestigial! That is not good science.

Coccyx

The coccyx is also called the tail-bone. If you were designing the vertebral column, would you have it end in a circle, a square, or a triangle? God chose to end it with a triangular bone called the coccyx. Attached to the coccyx are the pubococcygeal muscles important for child-birth, intercourse and bladder control. Would the evolutionist like to be devoid of this important structure?

Important nerves and blood vessels course nearby. Individuals who injure the tail-bone may develop a painful condition called coccydynia. Removal of the coccyx seems to be a poor operation. I counsel my patients with tail-bone pain to resist removal of the coccyx if ever suggested.

Conclusion

In view of the history of this subject, it would seem wise not to claim any organs at all as vestigial. 

The ignorance of scientists about the specific functions of such structures does not prove they have none. It is more than likely that further study will, as in the past, reveal specific functions for the remaining supposedly useless organs.

“When a Central African convert and a Harley Street specialist both affirm that Christ rose from the dead, there is, no doubt, a very great difference between their thoughts. To one, the simple picture of a dead body getting up is sufficient; the other may think of a whole series of biochemical and even physical processes beginning to work backwards.

The Doctor knows that, in his experience, they never have worked backwards; but the African knows that dead bodies don’t get up and walk. Both are faced with miracle, and both know it. If both think miracle impossible, the only difference is that the Doctor will expound the impossibility in much greater detail, will give an elaborate gloss on the simple statement that dead men don’t walk about. If both believe, all the Doctor says will merely analyze and explicate the words ‘He rose’.

When the author of Genesis says that God made man in His own image, he may have pictured a vaguely corporeal God making man as a child makes a figure out of plasticine.

A modern Christian philosopher may think of a process lasting from the first creation of matter to the final appearance on this planet of an organism fit to receive spiritual as well as biological life.

But both mean essentially the same thing. Both are denying the same thing—the doctrine that matter by some blind power inherent in itself has produced spirituality.”

The term "evolution" has been completely struck from the text books, and has been replaced with euphemisms designed to placate the fundies, like "change over time" and "developmental progression". Did you know that there are 94 synonyms for evolution? And that textbook writers are expected to use them in order to be "more precise"?

FACTS and QUOTES from: The Origin of the Species (sixth Edition published in 1872)

Quote

Darwin spent 13 years revising and correcting what was a literary monument to indecision, uncertainty, and obfuscation.

SNIPPET:

b) Hundreds of equivocations

Far from being a definitive work, the Origin is saturated with conjecture. In the final 1876 printing20 of the 1872 sixth edition, Darwin employed the word “may” 642 times, “if” 493 times, “might” 203 times, “probable” or “probably” 182 times, “tend” or “tendency” 153 times, “suppose(d)” 141 times, “perhaps” 63 times, “no doubt” 58 times, and so on.21 “I believe” occurs 58 times, and “I think” 43 times; down from 97 and 81 times respectively in the 1st edition, because Darwin’s correspondents complained!19

Here’s a sample of Darwin-speak from p. 100 of his 6th Edition:

Quote

“variations in a single species inhabiting an isolated station might be beneficial, and thus the whole mass of individuals might be modified, or two distinct forms might arise.”

(Emphases added.) But equally, they might not … might not … might not. Darwinian conjecture does not constitute scientific evidence.

c) No actual evidence of anything

In Chapter 4 on Natural Selection, under the heading: “Illustrations of the Action of Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest”, Darwin wrote:

Quote

“In order to make it clear how, as I believe, natural selection acts, I must beg permission to give one or two imaginary illustrations.”

22 (His words, emphasis added.) Why “imaginary illustrations”? Well, when you can’t cite a single real-life example of natural selection producing anything new, the only resources left are imaginary ones! 

The first of these is about wolves chasing their prey. Darwin wrote:

Quote

… let us suppose that the fleetest prey, a deer for instance, had from any change in the country increased in numbers, or that other prey had decreased in numbers. … Under such circumstances the swiftest and slimmest wolves would have the best chance of surviving, and so be preserved or selected. … I speak of the slimmest individual wolves, and not of any single strongly-marked variation having been preserved.22

Actually, the facts about wolves are substantially different, as Sir David Attenborough has demonstrated in several of his nature-study TV films. Wolves prefer to hunt in packs rather than singly, and whatever their prey group is, they don’t choose the strongest and fleetest individual to attack but the weakest and slowest, which may be injured or sick or old or a juvenile.

So, not only could Darwin not produce a single real-life example of natural selection producing anything, even this imaginary case was contrary to the facts. The Origin is all speculation, ad hoc assumptions, and special pleading. See:

Muddy waters: clarifying the confusion about natural section

Natural selection ≠ evolution

Refutation of New Scientist’s Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

How information is lost when creatures adapt to their environment


  Exploring the God Question: 2, Life and Evolution, Part 1 (Darwinism)

Agelbert NOTE: In typical goal post moving fashion, I expect someone will claim that, "It was supposition THEN but we have 150 years of PROOF NOW! Yada-yada ya!" 

NOPE! What we HAVE now is a LOT of Evidence that contradicts the hypothesis that produced the Evolution Narrative. But you fine "scientific" minds here can cling to your "theory" all you want! TPTB are BACKING you ALL THE WAY while you bleat and whine about the "attack" on civil liberties from (LOL!) Christianity!

RIGHT! It's Christianity that pushes justification for offing the useless eaters, hysterics about carrying capacity, justification for wars for oil, game theory, survival of the meanest mother F'ing apex predator by any means needed to destroy the competition and, last but not least, experimentation on living beings, be they humans or not, is A-f u c k ing okay for the "good" of science! 
Keep believin', true believers! It's all those whacko Christians that are messing up this planet... Just get rid of ALL of us superstitious whackos and then everything will be just fine in your truly rational, logical. prudent, measured, do the math, f u c k your buddy world.   

Darwin is on MY SIDE of this anti-evolution argument!   

If Darwin was alive today, he would be arguing AGAINST the validity of the Theory of Evolution! 

Observation, hypothesis, proof.

All else is bullshitting around the campfire.

I have been away. I see the old arguments continue.

I humbly suggest that we get back to the fossil record. I am quite willing to show reams of evidence for all concerned on how natural selection is a SUBTRACTIVE process unable to explain INCREASES in complexity.

I am also quite willing to discuss the probability of obtaining the most simple of organisms (About 250 complex proteins in a precise sequence) through random mutations in a 12 to 14 billion year old universe.   

At the end of that logical chain is the giant bone of contention, Intelligent Design. I think it is futile to discuss ID without getting into the evidence, or lack of it, for SET. It's a waste of time and produces shouting matches.  


But let's be clear that there are NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS. The scientific data Darwin expected did not materialize.

Once everybody here accepts that the fact that there are no transitional fossils, we can discuss the implications of that.

Dr. Stephen Meyer wrote a book called "Darwin's Doubt".  Here's a two minute video by him that states (this book is PEER REVIEWED) in two minutes the issue of the lack of transitional fossils and the Cambrian Explosion. I present it so we can PUT TO REST any claim that the fossil record supports SET (Standard Evolutionary Theory).

In fact, the fossil record does not even support Punctuated Equilibrium Evolutionary Theory (PEET) by Gould (Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in 1972. Gould wrote a long paper before his death admitting that there was no evidence for PEET because that hypothesis required even more information and organization than SET. That defeated the whole purpose of PEET - he originally postulated it to explain evolution with LESS information, not more. ).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqQbqpima-c&x-yt-cl=84503534&feature=player_embedded



No transitional Fossils 


In his book, Origin of Species, Darwin himself admitted that at the time of writing, the fossils discovered made it look like a series of acts of creation between each main order of life. Although he urged people to look for links between them, he also admitted that if no such links were discovered, then his theory would be incorrect. It therefore makes no sense what-so-ever, that man should unearth thousands of fossils every year, representing highly ‘developed’ and sophisticated life forms, and yet mysteriously there are no intermediate, half-developed life forms discovered between layers. No matter how much digging around we do, there really is no back door away from this issue. In fact so much of evolution’s credibility depends on this starting issue, nothing in this belief system even begins to carry any weight whilst this anomaly exists.


In the last several decades, the fossils in the Cambrian Explosion have been found to be highly complex. I think Darwin would be willing to question his own theory based on the latest scientific findings. But it doesn't really matter what Darwin would say, does it? What matters is whether the scientific community is willing to weigh the evidence AGAINST SET dispassionately or will they irrationally and unscientifically cling to their pet theory?

Well, the clingers are clinging like crazy. I have some info from a scientist that demonstrates the Darwinist belief system rejects hard scientific evidence even though the test was done 17 times by a credentialed researcher!  But I'll get to that after we all agree that the fossil record does NOT support SET.

"Hey, you know what all these genomes are telling us? They're telling us that all living things descended from a common ancestor, and the reason there are different species, is because they evolved through natural selection."

You see the theory of evolution is so tight, you can run it in reverse. You can look at every part of what today's species have inherited and it still holds true.