Vestigial Organs?

From the very start vestigial has meant having a secondary or rudimentary function compared with the same feature in another species. The human vermiform appendix is a vestigial organ because it is no longer used as a part of a caecum used for digesting plant material. The human tail bone and associated musculature is vestigial because it is no longer used to anchor and move a tail.As an analogy, let's say you have a computer keyboard that is broken. The keyboard is no longer capable of putting letters on the computer screen. Along comes another person who claims it isn't broken at all, it functions perfectly fine. They then take the keyboard and start pounding in nails with it. See, it has a function, it isn't broken. This is the creationist argument, that any function, no matter how rudimentary, negates the vestigial nature of an organ. Evolutionists point out that it is quite obvious that the keyboard was not designed to pound in nails, but this is flatly ignored by creationists.

So the human coccyx is evidence that humans used to have tails? We even have the extensor coccygis muscle which spans the fused joints in the coccyx. This muscle is used to raise the tail in other species. What function did this muscle have in humans?

That's how fast it occurs in the embryo, so it isn't without precedent. Just at first glance, this would seem to indicate that the development in the cave fish eye is halted at an early stage and that this process can be restarted by transplanting cells from a species with fully developed eyes.

This is an explanation in the same way that Thor's Hammer is an explanation for thunder. IOW, it doesn't explain anything. It is a belief that has no connection to reality. So what did the extensor coccygis muscle do prior the fall? In modern humans it spans a fused joint in the tail bone. In other species with tails this muscle is used to raise the tail. So what did this muscle do in Pre-Fall man?

Let's look at this from a slightly different angle. If humans and other primates do share a common ancestor wouldn't you expect there to be shared characteristics? If I may be so bold, Bluejay is asking why God would change the DNA sequence of genes in different species even though that change in DNA has no effect on the final function of the gene.No gene is this short, but let's say that you compare the same gene from humans and mice and they look like this:AAAAATAAAA : human
AAAAACAAAA : mouseUsing modern technology you can actually take the gene from humans and put it in mice. Guess what? The gene functions exactly the same. So why wouldn't the same designer use the same sequence in both species? Even more, why do small changes like this correlate with evolutionary distance? It would be analogous to slightly changing the placement of dials in every Ford Mustang that comes off the line for no other reason than personal whim. It is ineffecient to say the least, the very opposite of what you would expect from a design process.

You missed my point. If two species share a common ancestor would you or would you not expect them to have shared characteristics? I am not asking you to accept common ancestry. All I am asking is what you would expect to see if common ancestry was true. They are all in the placental mammal kind, aren't they? Nope. These can be genes vital for the survival of the mouse, and they work just fine. The expression of these genes is always verified, and there are even systems where you can control the expression of the gene with different drugs. Yep.