Then what do you believe? I have just given you the Smithsonian response re these so-called vestigial organs, which shows that they are anything BUT vestigial. You ignored this completely.....



You said vestigal organs, not human if I recall. Calm down. I gave a much more indepth response regarding the whale bones and their function due to you ignoring the fact that these are highly important and not vestigal. You failed to comment, even though I gave the source and now you're getting highly irritated about the fact I didn't address all the "vestigal organs"....I'd call this conveniently "annoyed" (side-tracking).

So let's move onto the human vestigal organs then:

Vestigial organs were considered passé because of ignorance, but now we have discovered important biological functions and necessity for every one of them. At an ICR summer institute, Dr. Richard Lumsden stated emphatically that there are no vestigial organs. Creationists would do well to ask, "What was this made for?" when looking at a seemingly useless body part. Since God made the whole body, He had a reason for including every part.

Some Alleged Vestigial Organs in Man

Tonsils Adenoids
Coccyx (tail bone) Nictitating membrane of eye
Thymus Appendix
Little toe Wisdom teeth
Nipples on males Parathyroid
Nodes on ears "Darwin's points" Ear muscles for wiggling
Pineal gland Body hair

Here are some examples:

Coccyx

Evolutionists consider the coccyx or tail bone the remnant of our evolutionary ancestor's tail. The tail bone (coccyx) used to be removed when people injured them, and developed coccydynia (painful coccyx). Dr. Robert Franks says that he told his suffering patients to resist removal of the coccyx, if ever suggested. The tailbone has some important functions, starting with the role it plays in enabling us to sit. Ask someone who has had his tail bone removed what it's like to sit. That should have been an obvious function to the unprejudiced observer. Various muscles attached to the tail bone are important for facilitating bowel and labor movements, supporting internal organs, and keeping the anus closed. Concerning the coccyx, Evan Shute wrote:

"...Take it away and patients complain; indeed the operation for its removal has time and again fallen into disrepute, only to be revived by some naive surgeon who really believes what biologists have told him about this useless 'rudiment.'" [Shute]



Extra verterbrae due to a protein mix-up, is not a 'tail" unless of course they were able to use it like one by balance and possibly swinging from trees. It was a medical problem during development that caused this to occur, I wouldn't get too hopeful and imaginative about it. It has nothing to do with a "tail", just overgrowth of the end point. I think the above proves how important the coccyx is.

Appendix. Dr. Howe:

Our appendix is viewed as degenerate by evolutionists, but from which ancestral stock did it de-evolve? Dr. Howe asks: "If total absence of an appendix were a token of advancement, the old and new world monkeys should be considered more highly evolved than either mankind (or lemurs), a bizarre conclusion." from "Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional" Bergmen and Howe, p. 41]

Biologist Helena Curtis considers the human appendix vestigial and calls it "the trouble-making appendix." [Curtis] That's a bad rap for this valiant little organ. The appendix is certainly not vestigial, it is very useful, although it can become infected and kill you if it ruptures. Almost any organ in your body can kill you if is it sufficiently diseased. How many people die of heart attacks vs. appendicitis? The heart, the physical or the spiritual one, is far more troublesome. If your lungs become infected, you can die, but no one suggests removing the lungs as a preventive measure during surgery for another reason. The theory of evolution has blinded otherwise brilliant minds and people think they can prune vestigial parts with impunity. In some cases, the partial removal of a lung, or the removal of an entire lung is necessary, as in the case of lung cancer or severe, incurable infection. Fortunately, we have another one, and although there are immediate consequences, we can adjust. No one, however, would remove a healthy lung. A surgeon can remove an appendix from someone, and there doesn't seem to be any noticeable effect, but a healthy appendix is beneficial. Healthy appendices were the victims of surgical instruments for the better part of this century simply because the prevailing wisdom was that they were useless bits of flesh left over from a previous evolutionary era and were better out than in.

One study done by Dr. Howard R. Bierman on hundreds of patients with leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, cancer of the colon, and cancer of the ovaries showed that 84% of these patients had their appendix removed, while in a healthy control group only 25% had it removed. [Bergman and Howe, p. 45]

Tonsils

Like the appendix, the tonsils were also the almost indiscriminant targets of scalpels. They are considered more troublesome vestiges that bode ill will for their owner, always becoming infected, making children sick, and causing them to miss school. Are they wimpy, evolutionary vestiges or ardent defenders of the body? In a detailed medical supplement, Drs. Maeda and Mogi wrote that the tonsil functions both in antibody production and cell-mediated immunity. [Maeda] Other contributors to this supplement said that the tonsil is important as a lymphoid organ in the upper respiratory tract. In the introductory remarks to this supplement, Dr. Kataura said that numerous modern immunological studies show that the palatine tonsil is an immunological organ and acts as defense mechanism against the infection of the upper respiratory tract.

Bergman and Howe say that doctors are now reluctant to remove the tonsils or the adenoids. They cite studies, which showed there was no decrease in the number of colds, sore throats, and other respiratory infections between children who had them removed, and those who did not. Other studies they cited indicated that people who have had tonsillectomies may have a significant increase in strep throat and are nearly three times as likely to develop Hodgkin's disease. They say that the tonsils help the immune system to develop.

Source where these were taken - Vestigial Organs By Jon A. Covey, BA, MT(ASCP)
Edited by Anita K. Millen, M.D., M.P.H., M.A.

http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/VestigialOrgans/VestigialOrgans.html You will also find the bibliography sources.



I'll show you more than that:

Below are listed a number of such modern textbooks which have used Haeckel's embryo drawings. The list includes an analysis of each textbook, with documenting graphics:


I. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill, 1999)*

II. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill, 2002)*

III. Textbook III. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998)

IV. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th ed, Wadsworth, 1998)

V. Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (J.M.Lebel, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education for approval in 2003)

VI. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (Wadsworth, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003)

VII. William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life (7th ed, Prentice Hall, 1999)

VIII. Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)

IX. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)

X. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998)

Here are two examples from the above list:

Textbook V. Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (J.M.Lebel, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education for approval in 2003), pg. 100:

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/ucorfsisqr.jpg">

Analysis:
(1) The text displays a graphic derived from Haeckel's original drawings, which fraudulently obscure nearly all of the differences between the various embryo forms.

(2) The caption reads, “All vertebrate embryos closely resemble one another in early development.” (pg. 100) The implication is that this provides evidence for common ancestry.

(3) Haeckel's notion that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is not discussed.

(Note: Only after Discovery Institute and Texans for Better Science Education repeatedly complained to the Texas State Board of Education about this reuse of Haeckel's inaccurate drawings did the publisher eventually agree to remove them from this textbook.)

------------------------

Textbook VI. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (Wadsworth, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003), pg. 315:

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/kzsonqupnl.jpg">

Analysis:

(1) The text displays a graphic derived from Haeckel's original drawings, and fraudulently obscure most of the differences between the various embryo forms.

(2) The text intends for this graphic to be taken as support for evolution, and not merely to provide historical context. The caption reads, "From comparative embryology, some evidence of evolutionary relationship among vertebrates. (a) Adult vertebrates are diverse, yet their embryos are quite similar at early stages." The section is titled "Evidence From Patterns of Development" with the subheading "Developmental Program of Vertebrates." The text reads, "The early embryos of vertebrates strongly resemble one another because they inherited the same ancient plan of development." (pg. 315, emphasis in original)

(3) Haeckel's idea of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is not discussed.

(Note: Only after Discovery Institute and Texans for Better Science Education repeatedly complained to the Texas State Board of Education about this reuse of Haeckel's inaccurate drawings did the publisher eventually agree to remove them from this textbook.)

------------------------



I never called you a knucklehead <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> You can assume anything you like, I'm just pointing out already what is being taught or proposed and how much of this is proving not to be all that evolutionists are making out. One needs to hear this, or they will assume evolution has it all wrapped up. Clearly they do not.



Yes, the Mastiff and toy poodle are of the same species, because they were bred already within the dog family. Even though, through breeding, there is now a huge size difference, which obviously does not allow these two dogs to breed successfully. I think I went into this earlier...

The hens are barnyard birds, not tree top birds. They share the bird characteristic of beaks and wings, but are not closely related enough to successfully interbreed (unlike wolves and dogs). Can robins and starlings successfully produce off-spring together? Would this not be similar to the cat family of lions and tigers? I don't think you can conclude that these animals evolved, simply because they share characteristics.



I can not define something that has not taken place. I don't know how many times I keep repeating previous statements and you're asking me to repeat them AGAIN. Why are you asking questions if evolution is an observed fact? In other words, you yourself are far from convinced it's happened also. One would need to observe a dog become a "non dog" (or some other kind of animal, that can no longer interbreed with dogs, because it's become a completely different kind of animal). I haven't seen this happen! Please stop using size difference as proof for evolution, because two animals were bred to be either very small or very large. Where has evolution taken place? It hasn't. Emphasizing certain traits via purposeful breeding is not an evolutionary process. It is what it is - an observed outcome from breeding for certain traits, exaggerating particular ones moreso than others. It is not "non sensical" to state that macro-evolution has not been seen to take place. It is non sensical to state it is, based on assumptions and no proof.

I accept the bible as literal, unless it makes it clear that it is a story. Jesus used this at times to reflect reality - e.g. "A bad tree cannot produce good fruit". I don't see why you have issues understanding the differences! If there is not a literal creation and there is not a literal two first people, and not a literal original fall into sin (disobedience) etc etc, then you may as well wipe Christ's sacrifice on the cross and say this too was a story and perhaps the ressurrection was too. Because all these things in the bible connect to eachother. If you discount one, you may as well discount the rest. The bible is not a smorgus board, though many people think like to think so.