Vestigial Organs?

I'm a creationist and I disagree with the creationists who think vestigial organs have a purpose. I think they once had a purpose but lost it. I wish we creationists could all get on the same page but right now it isn't happening.Some creationists focus exclusively on the Creation or design and ignore the Fall, which leads them to postulate functions for disease processes although the Fall is quite sufficient for an explanation of them. My impression is that these tend to be creationists who find ways to fit evolution into the book of Genesis. In the full Biblical context, the Fall best explains all disease processes, which would include organs that have lost their original function.Some claim that some function remains, or some other function has been adopted by the organ, and not just some creationists but also some evolutionists are convinced of something along these lines, as Coragyps' post shows.The same situation applies to junk DNA, or "pseudogenes" or "dead genes" (or was it "dead DNA") as Jerry Coyne calls them in his recent book. Some claim they have some sort of function but not the function of normal genes, while others treat them entirely as the corpses of previously functioning genes.In the theory of evolution dead DNA is interpreted as representing formerly useful functions no longer needed by the newer adaptations.Here too some creationists look for function because of their exclusive focus on a perfect creation of viable designs; but to a YEC creationist who takes the Fall into account the most reasonable hypothesis is that they are a record at the genetic level of all the death and disease brought about because of the Fall.Apparently there's some evidence on both sides -- no function, some function -- of the claims for both vestigial organs and junk DNA.There's really nothing here for me to debate, I just wanted to make the distinctions between creationist views of this. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Huh?I said it explains DISEASE and DEATH, nothing else. The thread is about vestigial organs, not all of human history. Some creationists insist vestigial organs have a function, I see them as having lost former function, which is consistent with the Fall. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I claim nothing about the relative merits of the explanation, merely wanted to correct the OP which assumed that creationists always see such things as vestigial organs as necessarily having a function.

Just for the record, I couldn't care less if a particular example is or is not a vestigial organ, has no function or has some function. I don't have a vested interest one way or the other. My point is that IF it is a vestigial organ or an organ with no function then I wouldn't be trying to find one for it as some creationists apparently do, because it is easily enough explained in terms of the disease and death that the Fall brought into the world. If it has a function, fine, no problem.

I did explain it. The Fall gives an explanation for disease and death so where we see disease and death the Fall is the explanation.The Creation doesn't explain everything for creationists, is the point. The Creation explains design in nature, but not everything is design; there is also disease and death and deformity.When the Fall isn't taken into account you get people accusing God of "bad design" and creationists trying to make unfunctioning things have a function. If you take the Fall into account you have an explanation for both design and death.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Could be all false, but the point is that these two explanations are available to creationists whether you are convinced of them or not.In most contexts an ancient written document would be taken as excellent evidence. Prejudice against the Bible is the odd thing.

Isn't it true that even facts in Homer's fiction have been used by archaeologists to find real places?