On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)

G'day Percy. In 1895, evolutionist Robert Wiedersheim made up a list of 180 alleged vestigial or rudimentary organs. Useful functions have been found for nearly all of them.Alarmed at the fact that the vestigial list is itself becoming vestigial some evolutionists, notably Alexy Yablokov, have sought to redefine the term. Without going into fine detail, the end result of Yablokov's musings is that having a current function does not preclude an organ as an evidence of evolution.You can read all about it here:True Vestigial Structures in Whales and Dolphins | National Center for Science EducationThe problem is that "vestigial" organs offer no advantage to the evolutionary side of the debate. Let's consider that a new candidate vestigial organ is brought to our attention. There are three possibilities:1) If it shows no apparent function, then it could be redundant architecture from a previous form. Which would represent a loss of information, a movement from complex to simple, an example of "devolution" if you will, which is entirely consistent with the continuing degeneration from The Fall.2) If it shows no apparent function, it could mean that we haven't found it yet. This is entirely consistent with Weidershiem's list, and it would be most arrogant to dismiss the possibility. If we do dismiss it, then we end up back at 1), so what's the point.3) If it shows a current function, it could be a reassigned or -as you put it- a "reuse" function. Or it could have been designed that way. Remember, that any argument based on similarity of structure is as much an argument for common design as it is for common descent. A good designer doesn't run around reinventing the wheel.So there you have it. Vestigiality is either evidence of loss of information, which gets you nowhere in arguing molecule-to-man evolution, or its an equivocal argument both for common descent and common design.Either way, it's pretty slim pickings for the dedicated evolutionist.

---

"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton

On further reflection, I think Yablokov's purpose is this: if an organ or structure is not present in the entirety of a population, then we can assume it has no vital value, and can therefore be assumed to be truly vestigial. The idea that future research may find a purpose for it is obviated- some members of the population don't have it, and they're doing just fine.The logic of this seems pretty sound, in fact the only counter argument I can think of is that the possessors of the organ or structure are enjoying some sort of survival advantage, and in time the whole population, through natural selection, will possess it. That would be a turn up for the books- a vestigial organ conveying a survival advantage! I have to disagree with you there. If they have a useful function then they are as much a candidate for design as descent, as I pointed out in my previous post. It is only a "fact" that they're diminished in structure and function from their original form if you take evolution as a given, which is begging the question.Anyway, it is now 1.42am in Tasmania, and I must collapse into blissful oblivion.Talk to you later.

---

"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton