Anatomical Vestiges -- Evidence of Common Descent

The link provided is a nicely done site packed with good and interesting information.I know creationist have argued that human appendix's and pelvic structures in whales have some minor and potentially yet unknown uses so therefore it is premature to label them as useless.However the Ostrich wings must present a significant problem for the Creationist.I quote from the reference site:

quote:

---

For example, wings are very complex anatomical structures specifically adapted for powered flight, yet ostriches have flightless wings. The vestigial wings of ostriches may be used for relatively simple functions, such as balance during running and courtship displays”a situation akin to hammering tacks with a computer keyboard. The specific complexity of the ostrich wing indicates a function which it does not perform, and it performs functions incommensurate with its complexity. Ostrich wings are not vestigial because they are useless structures per se, nor are they vestigial simply because they have different functions compared to wings in other birds. Rather, what defines ostrich wings as vestigial is that they are rudimentary wings which are useless as wings.

---

A complex rudimentary structure that has the appearance of being "designed" as a wing but useless as wing and much else.Just what is the Creationist explanation of for Ostrich wings?.

Not "Proof for Evolution" but more evidence on a mound of evidence.Vestigial structures would be expected (predicted?) if life can be explained by a evolutionary framework.Some structures are in disuse but still retained due to historical reasons, some structures are no longer normally present but the genes are still hanging around and are occasionally expressed (atavism) and other structures have been co-opted for different uses other than the original adapted use.I did not quite follow your last sentence Why are vestigial structures evidence against the beliefs that the evolutionist assume? Edited by iceage, : No reason given.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Not at all. Evolutionary theory predicts that features, vestiges or innovations occurred via small steps based on prior structures and did not just appear suddenly out of no where. If only humans had appendixes or Ostriches had wings with no evolutionary history that would be a problem.ID would not predict vestigial structures in any form at all. If fully formed bird style wings were found on flying fish (and no less on a frog) that would present a *serious* problem to evolutionary theory. No amount of hand waving and mumbling about mutations and selective pressure would dismiss the problem. I don't know much about flying fish (frying fish is another story ) but without looking it up I would take a long-odds bet that they are adapted fins and NOT structured like tetrapod limbs.This is the key difference between evolution adapted features and what one would expect or predict by a Intelligent Designer.Think in terms of innovations to the automobile. Automobile feature progression are an outcome of Intelligent Designing. So that when lets say fuel injection became perfected this feature was quickly added to all makes - Fords, Chevys, Toyotas, and even motorbikes, outboard motors, etc.If automobile progression was an evolutionary process you would expect this feature to popup suddenly in say Chevys and be found only in Chevys and not Fords or Toyotas. However if fuel injection was really an advantageous feature you would expect that this features would eventually be "discovered" in Fords but probably implemented in an entirely new and different way being subjected to specific historical constraints of Fords.And this is what we see in the special adaptation of flying creatures! The various mechanisms that allow a creature to fly are widely different and occurred at different evolutionary time frames along different evolutionary paths resulting in different ways to do the same thing.[Note: my acknowledgment to Jar for first highlighting this metaphor]One finally thought. I don't know in what terms of an Intelligent Designer you are thinking of but what do think about the character of this designer in view of the parasitic nature of life? Here is thread I would like to capture you thoughts on this issue. Message 1This is the poison pill to most theistic varieties of Intelligent Design.