Sunday, September 2, 2012

Evolutionists' Confessions Stating the Non-existence of Vestigial Organs

The idea of vestigial organs is not a scientific one. According to that claim, the bodies of living things contain organs inherited from their forebearers, but that have gradually lost their functions through lack of use.
This is most definitely not a scientific claim, because it was based on ignorance. Functionless organs are ones whose function has not yet been identified. As always, evolutionists use these organs, whose functions have not yet been established, as vehicles of speculation for their own theories . The best indication of this has been the continued shrinkage of the list of vestigial organs proposed by evolutionists. It has now been established that those organs originally described as vestigial actually possess wide-ranging functions, and this claim has been comprehensively refuted. But nonetheless, evolutionists still hide behind this claim in order not to have to relinquish this important vehicle for speculation and to deceive people lacking a knowledge of the subject.  (For detailed information see, Once Upon a Time There Was Darwinism, Harun Yahya)
Charles Darwin:
There remains, however, this difficulty. After an organ has ceased being used, and has become in consequence much reduced, how can it be still further reduced in size until the merest vestige is left; and how can it be finally quite obliterated? It is scarcely possible that disuse can go on producing any further effect after the organ has once been rendered functionless.401
S. R. Scadding is an evolutionist zoologist at the University of Guelph, Ontario:
Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that "vestigial organs" provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.402

401- Charles Darwin, Origin of Species,
402- S. R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?," Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.

No comments:

Post a Comment