This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
I think they often explain it by pointing out that many vestigial structures serve some purpose. This is of course a misunderstanding of what vestigial means.
It does not mean that it has no use. It means that it has lost most of its original function or functions for a different purpose entirely.
This seems silly if a creator made the organisms but makes quite a lot of sense assuming common ancestry.
It does not mean that it has no use. It means that it has lost most of its original function or functions for a different purpose entirely.
This seems silly if a creator made the organisms but makes quite a lot of sense assuming common ancestry.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Pikachu Yes, the argument misses the point. Evolutionary theory doesn’t say that vestigial characteristics have no function. A trait can be vestigial and functional at the same time. It is vestigial not because it’s functionless, but because [i]it no longer performs the function for which it evolved[/i]. The wings of an ostrich are useful, but that doesn’t mean that they tell us nothing about evolution. Wouldn’t it be odd (and extremely silly) if a 'creator' helped an ostrich balance itself by giving it appendages that just happen to look exactly like reduced wings, and which are constructed in exactly the same way as wings used for flying?