Zombie Science: Vestigial Organs Are Back!

The Vestigial Organ Claim: The Belief That Will Not Die—
Evolutionists Attempt to Resurrect It Again!

 

When researching evolution, I often come across vestigial organ claims that have been refuted decades ago. For example, a leading Finnish medical publisher’s textbook included the usual list, including the appendix, the coccyx, the “vestigial” wings of flightless birds, and the wisdom teeth.[1] Many more examples could be cited.

The basic idea of the vestigial claim is that if organism B is determined by evolutionists to have evolved from organism A, and a structure, such as an olfactory sensor used for smell, is more “evolved” in organism B than the one used by organism A, this fits the evolutionary assumption. Therefore, it supports evolution. Conversely, if some organ or structure is less evolved in organism B compared to organism A, it is still believed to have evolved from organism A, but the structure is labeled “vestigial.” Thus, the more complex/developed organ is evidence of evolution and the less complex/developed organ is also evidence of evolution. Consequently, both evolution and devolution are “proofs” for evolution.

After it was discovered that many organs and structures that were at first claimed to be useless did have a use or function, the definition of “vestigial” was changed to allow evolutionists to retain the concept as evidence for evolution. Biologists Senter and Moch write

The term “vestigial” does not imply a complete lack of any function. Although some biologists maintain that it does (e.g., Prothero, 2007; Bergstrom & Dugatkin, 2012), most reject that strict view and follow Darwin (1859) in accepting that a vestigial structure has lost a salient function but may retain some other function.[2]

Biologists Senter and Moch define vestigial structures as “a biological structure that has lost a major ancestral function and is usually drastically reduced in size.”[3] Given this definition they claim that “In the Mammalia, vestigial skeletal structures abound but have not previously been the focus of study, with a few exceptions (e. g., whale pelves). They add: “Well-known examples include the eyes of blind cave fishes and blind cave salamanders, and the diminutive wings of kiwis and emus.”

In contrast to Senter and Moch’s claim, these three examples have all been debunked. The first problem is the loss of eyes in cave fish and salamanders, or the loss of wings creating wingless beetles, are all examples of a loss of information or function. Evolution requires the gain of information and function. Furthermore, the diminutive wings of kiwis and emus serve a critical function, they help maintain the birds’ balance as they precariously walk on two legs. Furthermore, given this definition, hundreds of examples could be contrived. The canine teeth in humans would be labeled vestigial because the same teeth in monkeys are much longer and protruded, as shown in the diagram. One who has lost these canine teeth knows how very important they are.

Another tactic evolutionists use is to retain the vestigial concept to tell stories, such as the following:

The vestigial second and fourth metacarpals and metatarsals of horses no longer function as struts between a digit and the carpus or tarsus but still function as guides for suspensory ligaments and as muscle attachment sites, as well as supports for carpal and tarsal bones…. Likewise, vestigial whale pelves have lost their ancestral locomotor function but still anchor muscles associated with the reproductive system.[4]

The whale claims are not based on evidence but rather on the assumption that whales have evolved from some terrestrial animal that used its pelvis to support walking on land. Next, they infer that they took on a totally different function when the terrestrial animal evolved into a whale. The problem is that copulation would be very problematic without these well-designed copulatory organs. How could it reproduce until it had these structures?  Convinced of the importance of vestigial organs to evolutionists, Senter and Moch have embarked on a massive study to expand the list. They write:

Vestigial structures are common in the postcranial skeletons of extant mammals. The vestigial tails of humans, pelves of whales, and metacarpals and metatarsals of horses are frequently cited examples. Many more examples exist, but most are little-known, and some have not previously been explicitly identified as vestigial. It would be useful to publish an illustrated survey of the vestigial structures in mammal postcrania and to trace the evolutionary trends in vestigiality and loss of postcranial skeletal structures across the Mammalia.[5]

To do this, they examined 578 mammalian skeletal specimens and skins from 293 species which represents 98 (70%) of the 139 extant mammal families listed by Nowak.[6] Their end goal was to respond to me and others by name who have successfully shown that the vestigial organ argument is vacuous. In their words,

Anti-evolution authors often claim that vestigial structures do not exist, and some note that the lists of vestigial structures in biology textbooks have gotten smaller through the decades (Morris, 1974; Bergman & Howe, 1990; Bergman, 2000). They interpret this as a loss of confidence, by mainstream science, in the existence of vestigial structures.[7]

My books on this topic are the only sources that refute in detail this claim in print.[8] Senter and Moch conclude that the vestigial organ argument for evolution is stronger now than at any time in history:

A recent survey of twenty-first-century primary scientific articles revealed the opposite: that the number of biological structures that scientists currently consider to be vestigial is enormous (Senter et al., 2015). In fact, new examples of previously-undescribed vestigial biological structures continue to be documented even in this century (Sekiguchi et al., 2002; Maslakova, Martindale & Norenburg, 2004; Tamatsu et al., 2007; Moch & Senter, 2011; Miralles et al., 2012). Unfortunately, however, the anti-evolution view that scientists have lost confidence in the existence of vestigial structures is reinforced by the shortness of the lists of only one to three examples of vestigial structures in recent biology textbooks (e.g., Starr & Taggart, 2004; Reece et al., 2011), including textbooks for evolution classes (e.g., Ridley, 2004; Kardong, 2008). There is even one textbook on evolution (Volpe & Rosenbaum, 2000) that does not mention vestigial structures at all. As shown here, mammals provide a plethora of examples of vestigial structures.[9]

In conclusion, they claim to have documented that

mammals provide a plethora of examples of vestigial structures. Addition of these to lists of vestigial structures in textbooks and other media could prove helpful in countering the rejection of macroevolution that is prevalent in the United States and many European countries (Mazur, 2005; Miller, Scott & Okamoto, 2006). We therefore recommend that a wider variety of vestigial skeletal structures in mammals be included in such lists to counter young-Earth creationist claims and increase public acceptance of macroevolution. [10]

These examples will keep me busy for months and they need to be carefully evaluated. A few years ago New Scientist magazine opined:

with the benefit of modern scientific knowledge, what are the most convincing examples of vestigial structures in humans? The New Scientist top-five list (see below) runs as follows: the vomeronasal organ, goose bumps, Darwin’s point, the tail bone and wisdom teeth.[11]

All of these claims have now been shown by the peer-reviewed literature to be false. Here are the references for each of these structures: the vomeronasal organ,[12] goose bumps,[13] Darwin’s point,[14] the tail bone (Os coccyx) [15] and wisdom teeth.[16] I taught anatomy and physiology (A&P) at the college level for three decades. Of the 27 A&P textbooks that I used and/or reviewed, none made claims of any organ or structure in humans being vestigial. In addition, not even the term vestigial nor its concept was mentioned. Here is an example of an anatomy journal making short shrift of the vestigial organ claim:

Despite its small size, the coccyx has several important functions. Along with being the insertion site for multiple muscles, ligaments, and tendons, it also serves as one leg of the tripod—along with the ischial tuberosities—that provides weight-bearing support to a person in the seated position.[17]

Summary

A common criticism from fellow creationists is that the vestigial organ argument is no longer used by evolutionists and therefore, they reason, I am wasting my time. They say that I should concentrate on creation models. But, on the contrary,  it is clear that I have my work cut out for me and I need to continue to make progress in this area. The article reviewed for this paper has provided a score of references that need to be reviewed and analyzed. My review of the examples they cite shows that these organs’ functions have not been determined in detail, and therefore evolutionists claim that they must have no use. This has been the history of the past vestigial organ/structure claims, which eventually have proven themselves to be simply arguments from ignorance. For example, because it was historically not known what the functions of the pineal gland, the appendix, and the thymus were, these organs were deemed ‘vestigial’. However, more research has confirmed that they do indeed have functions. Consequently, they have been removed from the vestigial organ list by anatomists.

References

[1] Bansal, Anjali. 2022. Achiever’s Biology: A Textbook for CBSE Class X. New Delhi, India: Allied Publishers. pp. 78-79.

[2] Senter, Phil, and John G. Moch. 2015. A critical survey of vestigial structures in the postcranial skeletons of extant mammals. PeerJ 3:e1439, November 24; DOI 10.7717/peerj.1439.

[3] Senter and Moch, 2015,

[4] Senter and Moch, 2015; italics added.

[5] Senter and Moch, 2015, p. 2.

[6] Nowak, R.M. 1999. Walker’s Mammals of the World. 6th Edition. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.

[7] Senter and Moch, 2015, pp. 39-40.

[8] Bergman, Jerry. 2019. Useless Organs: The Rise and Fall of a Central Claim of Evolution. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Bartlett Publishing;  Bergman, Jerry. 2019. Poor Design. An Invalid Argument Against Intelligent Design. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Bartlett Publishing; Bergman, Jerry. 1990. “Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional; A History and Evaluation of the Vestigial Organ Origins Concept.  (With George Howe, Ph.D., Forward by David Menton, Ph.D. Professor emeritus at Washington University School of Medicine; Preface by V. Wright M.D., F.R.C.P., Professor emeritus University of Leeds).  Terre Haute, Indiana: Creation Research Society Books. They also cited Bergman, Jerry. 2000. Do any vestigial structures exist in humans? Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 14(2):95–98.

[9] Senter and Moch, 2015, pp. 39-40.

[10] Senter and Moch, 2015, pp.  39-40.

[11] Spinney, Laura. 2008. Vestigial organs: Remnants of evolution; https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826562-100-vestigial-organs-remnants-of-evolution/.

[12] Bergman, Jerry. 2018. The Vomeronasal Organ—Vestigial or Functional? Journal of Creation 32(3):124-127.

[13] Bergman, Jerry. 2016, Are Goose Bumps Evolutionary Leftovers? Creation Matters 21(5): 4-5, September-October.

[14] Bergman, Jerry. 2019. Darwin’s Point. Journal of Creation 33(2):5-7.

[15] Lirette. Lesley Smallwood. 2014. Coccydynia: An overview of the anatomy, etiology, and treatment of coccyx pain. Ochshner Journal 14(1):84–87, Spring..

[16] The function of wisdom teeth is to chew food.

[17] Lirette, 2014, p. 84.

---

Dr. Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology for over 40 years at several colleges and universities including Bowling Green State University, Medical College of Ohio where he was a research associate in experimental pathology, and The University of Toledo. He is a graduate of the Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, the University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has over 1,300 publications in 12 languages and 40 books and monographs. His books and textbooks that include chapters that he authored are in over 1,800 college libraries in 27 countries. So far over 80,000 copies of the 60 books and monographs that he has authored or co-authored are in print. For more articles by Dr Bergman, see his Author Profile.