So how do Creationists explain Vestigial structures?

@Bushranger Yes, and they thereby miss the point that evolutionary theory doesn’t say that vestigial characteristics have no function. As I wrote below (somewhere) 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]

@newjaninev2 Regardless of any potential current use, if the organ has not deleterious impact, there is no specific need for the organ not to remain. Evolution is mindless and undirected. It's only some people that need to see intent and direction.

@Bushranger That's an important point. I'm always astonished that some people assume evolution to be teleological... to have direction, purpose, and a goal. Often the assumption is that evolution makes things 'better', but of course there is no better... each genetic replication marches backwards into the future, arrives in an unpredictable environment, and then simply needs to be [i]good enough[/I] to also replicate

@newjaninev2 I think that may be one of the big attractions of creationism, the idea that humans are more intelligent and advanced than all other animals, therefore we are better. Creation tells us that we were created in God's image and given dominion over all the earth and living things on it. Strokes our usually weak egos.

@Bushranger Oh, absolutely1 The anthropocentric hubris exhibited by creationists is quite startling. There seems to be neither awareness nor appreciation of the web of life

@newjaninev2 You should be careful about using big words, it might confuse some people on here.