Difference between revisions of "Vestigial organ" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
m
 
(40 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Claimed}}{{Contracted}}
+
{{Ebcompleted}}{{Approved}}{{Images OK}}{{Submitted}}{{Paid}}{{Copyedited}}{{2Copyedited}}
[[Image:Gray536.png|right|300px|thumb|The human [[vermiform appendix]] is a vestigial structure; it no longer retains its original function.]]
+
[[Image:Blindmaus-drawing.jpg|thumb|right|250px|The blind mole rat ''(Spalax typhlus)'' has tiny eyes completely covered by a layer of skin. They are vestigial organs in comparison with the presumably functional eyes of the rat's ancient ancestors.]]
  
In [[evolutionary biology]] and [[comparative anatomy]], '''vestigiality''' is a term which describes [[homology (biology)|homologous]] biological structures of [[organism]]s (such as [[anatomy|anatomical]] structures ('''vestigial structures'''), [[behavior]]s and [[biochemical]] pathways) which have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through [[evolution]]. These structures are typically in a degenerate, atrophied, or rudimentary condition, and are often called ''vestigial organs'', although not all of them are actually [[organ (anatomy)|organs]].
+
In [[evolution]]ary [[biology]] and comparative [[anatomy]], "'''vestigiality'''" in a [[species]] describes organs '''(vestigial organs)''', structures '''(vestigial structures)''', behaviors, and biochemical pathways that have seemingly lost all or most of an original function present in ancestor species. These structures are typically in a degenerate, atrophied, or rudimentary condition, and are often called '''vestigial organs,''' despite some of them not being actual [[organ (anatomy)|organs]]. Examples include the eyes of some cave dwelling [[fish]] and mole [[rat]]s, the leg and hip [[bone]]s found in [[whale]]s, the [[teeth]] that quickly disappear in duck billed [[platypus]]es, [[pollen]] in [[dandelion]]s, and the [[human]] [[appendix]] and wisdom [[Tooth|teeth]].  
  
Although structures deemed "vestigial" are identified as largely or entirely functionless, a  
+
Although structures deemed "vestigial" are often identified as largely or entirely functionless, in modern conceptions of the term in evolutionary biology, a vestigial structure may still retain lesser functions. This broader definition (versus no function), as well as the use of vestigial organs as one of the main arguments toward [[evolution]]ary theory, has led to significant debate between evolutionists and [[creationism|creationists]]. Religious adherents may accept the reality of vestigial organs as evidence of descent with modification without accepting [[natural selection]] as the main causal agent of large scale changes ([[macroevolution]]).
vestigial structure may still retain lesser functions or develop new ones.<ref name=Muller>Muller, G. B. (2002) "Vestigial Organs and Structures." In M. Pagel, eds., ''Encyclopedia of Evolution''. New York: Oxford University Press. 1131-1133. ISBN: 0195122003</ref> Thus, a "vestigial wing" is one useless for ''flight'', but may serve some other purpose.  However, care must be taken not to apply the label of vestigiality to exaptations, in which a structure originally used for one purpose is modified for a new one. For example, the wings of penguin would not be vestigial, as they have been modified for a substantial new purpose (underwater locomotion), while those of an emu would be, as they have no major purpose anymore (not even for display as in ostriches).
 
  
 
==History==
 
==History==
[[Image:Blindmaus-drawing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|The [[blind mole rat]] (''Spalax typhlus'') has tiny eyes completely covered by a layer of skin that respond only to light and dark, thus lacking pattern recognition.]]
+
Prior to the theory of [[Darwin]]ian [[evolution]], the reason for the existence of vestigial structures was long speculated upon. In the fourth century B.C.E., [[Aristotle]] commented in his ''History of Animals'' on the vestigial [[eye]]s of [[mole]]s, which lack pattern recognition due to a layer of [[skin]] that completely covers them. Despite this long-held curiosity, it is only in recent centuries that anatomical vestiges have become a subject of serious study.  
Vestigial structures have been noticed since ancient times, and the reason for their existence was long speculated upon before [[Darwinian evolution]] provided a widely-accepted explanation. In the 4th century B.C.E., [[Aristotle]] was one of the earliest writers to comment, in his ''[[History of Animals]]'', on the vestigial eyes of moles, calling them "stunted in development".<ref>[[Aristotle]].[http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/a8ha/ "History of Animals" (Book 1, Chapter 9)]</ref> However, only in recent centuries have anatomical vestiges become a subject of serious study. In 1798, [[Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire]] noted on vestigial structures:
 
  
{{cquotetxt|Whereas useless in this circumstance, these rudiments... have not been eliminated, because [[Natura non facit saltus|Nature never works by rapid jumps]], and She always leaves vestiges of an organ, even though it is completely superfluous, if that organ plays an important role in the other species of the same family.<ref>[[Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire|St. Hilaire, Geoffroy]] (1798). "Observations sur l'aile de l'Autruche, par le citoyen Geoffroy," ''La Decade Egyptienne, Journal Litteraire et D'Economie Politique'' 1 (pp. 46&ndash;51).</ref>}}
+
In 1798, Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire hypothesized that vestigial structures exist because nature leaves vestiges of an [[organ (biology)|organ]] as long as it plays an important role in [[species]] of the same [[family]]. His colleague, [[Jean-Baptiste Lamarck]], also researched vestigial structures, naming a number of them in his 1809 book, ''Philosophie Zoologique''. Lamarck speculated that Guillaume-Antoine Olivier's blind mole rat ''Spalax'' had lost its eyesight because it rarely came in contact with daylight, thus leaving behind vestiges of the unnecessary organs and passing on these traits to its offspring. Thus, he advocated the once popular concept of inheritance of acquired characters, or that the individual efforts of an organism during its lifetime were the main mechanism driving species to [[adaptation]].  
  
His colleague, [[Jean-Baptiste Lamarck]], named a number of vestigial structures in his 1809 book ''[[Philosophie Zoologique]]''. Lamarck noted "[[Guillaume-Antoine Olivier|Olivier]]'s ''[[blind mole rat|Spalax]]'', which lives underground like the mole, and is apparently exposed to daylight even less than the mole, has altogether lost the use of sight: so that it shows nothing more than vestiges of this organ."<ref>[[Jean-Baptiste Lamarck|Lamarck, Jean-Baptiste]] (1809). ''[[Philosophie Zoologique|Philosophie zoologique]] ou exposition des considérations relatives à l'histoire naturelle des animaux''.</ref>
+
Several decades later, the inheritance of acquired characters concept was largely diminished by [[Charles Darwin]]'s [[evolution#Theory of natural selection|theory of natural selection]], which used such presumed vestigial structures as the muscles of the [[ear]], wisdom teeth, the [[Vermiform appendix|appendix]], the tail bone, body [[hair]], and the semilunar fold in the corner of the human [[eye]] as evidence for his theory. He also made the important distinction in ''The Origin of Species'' (1859), that if a structure had lost its primary function, but still retained secondary anatomical roles, it could still be described as vestigial.
  
[[Charles Darwin]] was very familiar with the concept of vestigial structures, though the term for them did not yet exist. He listed a number of them in ''[[The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex|The Descent of Man]]'', including the [[Intrinsic muscles of external ear|muscles of the ear]], [[wisdom teeth]], the [[Vermiform appendix|appendix]], the [[tail bone]], [[body hair]], and the [[Nictitating membrane|semilunar fold]] in the corner of the [[human eye|eye]]. Darwin also noted, in ''[[The Origin of Species]]'', that a vestigial structure could be useless for its primary function, but still retain secondary anatomical roles: "An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other.... [A]n organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object."<ref name=Darwin>Darwin, Charles (1859). ''On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection''. John Murray: London.</ref>
+
[[Image:Gray536.png|left|250px|thumb|The human [[vermiform appendix]] was identified by Charles Darwin as a vestigial structure based on its having no known function. Scientists later discovered that the appendix plays a role in the immune system and the identification of the appendix as being vestigial has become a point of contention.]]
  
Darwin however still often refers to the 'use and disuse' of structures having some role in heredity, with [[inheritance of acquired characters]] being treated as an important aspect besides the central force of natural selection.<ref>Desmond, A. & Moore, J. (1991) ''Darwin'' Penguin Books p.617 "Darwin was loathe to let go of the notion that a well-used and strengthened organ could be inherited"</ref> In the final chapter of ''The Origin of Species'' he describes the process: "This has been effected chiefly through the natural selection of numerous successive, slight, favourable variations; aided in an important manner by the inherited effects of the use and disuse of parts".<ref name=Darwin />
+
In the late nineteenth century, [[Robert Wiedersheim]] published a list of 86 human [[organ (anatomy)|organs]] that, he claimed, had lost their original function. He then labeled them vestigial, theorizing that they were vestiges of [[evolution]]. Since the publication of his list, the true function of some of these structures has been discovered, while other anatomical vestiges have been unearthed, resulting in the use of the list as a record of the knowledge of human [[anatomy]] at the time. Later, versions of Wiedersheim's list were expanded to as many as 180 human "vestigial organs," which was later referenced in the landmark Scopes Monkey Trial by the [[zoology|zoologist]] Newman, as evidence of evolution (Briney).  
  
In 1893, [[Robert Wiedersheim]] published a list of 86 human organs that had, in his words, "lost their original physiological significance." Theorizing that they were vestiges of evolution, he called them "vestigial".<ref>[[Robert Wiedersheim|Wiedersheim, Robert]] (1893). ''The Structure of Man: An Index to His Past History.'' London: Macmillan and Co.</ref> Since his time, the function of some of these structures has been discovered, while other anatomical vestiges have been unearthed, making the list primarily of interest as a record of the knowledge of human anatomy at the time. Later versions of Wiedersheim's list were expanded to as many as 180 human "vestigial organs." This is why the zoologist Newman stated in the [[Scopes Monkey Trial]] that "There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities."<ref>[http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame.htm Creation Insights: Evolution Hall of Shame]</ref>
+
Currently, the term vestigial organ is used in the media to refer to a wholly useless organ, while it retains [[Darwin]]'s functional distinction in evolutionary [[biology]].
  
 
==Evidence of evolution ==
 
==Evidence of evolution ==
 
{{Further|[[Evidence of evolution]]}}
 
{{Further|[[Evidence of evolution]]}}
 +
The fact that vestigial structures reveal a similarity in structure and position with organs in presumed ancestors, but lack the function found in the ancestors, can be considered evidence for evolution&mdash;specifically, the [[evolution#Theory of descent with modification|"theory of descent with modification,"]] or "theory of common descent." That is, vestigial organs support the view that all organisms have descended from common ancestors by a continuous process of branching; in other words, all life evolved from one kind of organism or from a few simple kinds, and each species arose in a single geographic location from another species that preceded it in time. The presence of a vestigial organ suggests a shared ancestry with another organism that has similar, but functional organs.
  
Vestigial structures are often [[Homology (biology)|homologous]] to structures that are functioning normally in other species. Therefore, vestigial structures can be considered evidence for [[evolution]], the process by which beneficial heritable traits arise in populations over an extended period of time. The existence of vestigial organs can be attributed to changes in the environment and behavior patterns of the organism in question. As the function of the structure is no longer beneficial for survival, the likelihood that future offspring will inherit the "normal" form of the structure decreases. In some cases the structure becomes detrimental to the organism (for example the eyes of a mole can become infected<ref name=Darwin />). In many cases the structure is of no direct harm, yet all structures require extra [[energy]] to build and maintain, providing some [[natural selection|selective]] pressure for the removal of parts that do not contribute to an organism's fitness. A structure that is not harmful will obviously take longer to be phased out than one that is.
+
The [[evolution#Theory of natural selection|"theory of natural selection"]] offers a proposed mechanism by which vestigial organs can come about. That is, the existence of vestigial organs may be hypothesized as resulting from changes in the environment and behavior patterns of the [[species]] in question. As the function of the structure is no longer beneficial for survival, the likelihood that future offspring will inherit the "normal" form of the structure decreases. In some cases, the structure becomes detrimental to the organism (for example the eyes of a [[mole]] can become infected (Darwin 1859)). In many cases, while the structure may not be directly harmful, all structures require extra [[energy]] to build and maintain, providing some [[natural selection|selective]] pressure for the removal of parts that do not contribute to an [[organism]]'s fitness. A structure that is not harmful is theorized to take longer to be phased out by natural selection than one that is.
  
The vestigial versions of the structure can be compared to the original version of the structure in other species in order to determine the homology of a vestigial structure. Homologous structures indicate [[common descent|common ancestry]] with those organisms that have a functional version of the structure.<ref>Reeder, Alex. "Evolution." Bioweb. 29 Dec 1997. 8 Jun 2006 <http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/HTML/live.html>.</ref>
+
[[Darwin]]'s theory of descent with modification remains the most widely accepted scientific theory regarding ''why'' such organs exist, with Darwin's theory of natural selection the most widely accepted scientific theory regarding ''how'' such organs came about. However, technically, vestigial organs only strongly support the theory of descent with modification (the non-causal "pattern" of evolution between ancestral and descendant taxa), not the theory of natural selection (the "process" by which evolution took place to arrive at the pattern).  
  
==Examples==
+
It is often stated that vestigial versions of a structure can be compared to the original version of the structure in other [[species]] in order to determine the homology of a vestigial structure, and that [[Homology (biology)|homologous]] structures indicate common ancestry with those organisms that have a functional version of the structure. However, technically, the presence of homology, as currently defined, does not offer evidence of common descent. That is because homology is commonly defined as any similarity between structures that is attributed to their shared ancestry. Anatomical structures that are similar in different biological taxa (species, [[genus|genera]], etc.) would be termed homologous if they evolved from the same structure in some ancestor. It would be incorrect to state that homology, as presently defined, provides evidence of evolution because it would be circular reasoning, with homology defined as similarity due to shared ancestry.
===Animals===
+
 
 +
===Examples===
 +
====Animals====
 
[[Image:Whale skeleton.png|350px|thumb|Letter ''c'' in the picture indicates the undeveloped hind legs of a [[baleen whale]].]]
 
[[Image:Whale skeleton.png|350px|thumb|Letter ''c'' in the picture indicates the undeveloped hind legs of a [[baleen whale]].]]
  
In [[whale]]s and other [[cetacean]]s, one can find small vestigial leg bones deeply buried within the back of the body. These are remnants of their land-living ancestors' legs. Many whales also have undeveloped, unused, [[pelvis]] bones in the [[anterior]] part of their torsos.
+
There are numerous examples of vestigial organs in the [[animal]] kingdom. In [[whale]]s and other [[cetacean]]s, one can find small vestigial leg bones deeply buried within the back of the body. The [[evolution]]ary explanation is that these bones are the remnants of their land-dwelling ancestor's legs. Many whales also have undeveloped, unused, pelvis bones in the anterior part of their torsos, added remains from their land-dwelling ancestors (LiveScience.com).
  
[[Dodo|Dodo birds]] (now extinct) have hollow bones, a feature usually reserved for flying birds. (The weight reduction is crucial to staying in the air. Since Dodo birds did not fly, having hollow bones was unneeded, and likely vestigial.{{Fact|date=June 2007}}) The wings of [[ostrich]]es, [[emu]]s, and other [[flightless bird]]s are vestigial; they are remnants of their flying ancestors' wings.
+
Several flightless [[bird]]s, including [[Dodo|Dodo birds]] (now extinct) and [[penguin]]s, have hollow [[bone]]s, a feature usually reserved for flying birds (since the weight reduction is crucial to staying in the air). Thus, these hollow bones are explained by [[evolution]] to be the remnants of a flying ancestor. The wings of [[emu]]s, and some other flightless birds, like the dodo, are often identified as vestigial as well, much like the hollow bones. However, there is a difference with penguins. While penguins' [[wing]]s are not used for flight, they are essential for the penguin to be able to navigate underwater (they essentially act as flippers). Thus, penguin wings are often not identified as vestigial, since they have gained an essential function that has not been found in any ancestral state (Theobald, 2004).
  
The eyes of certain [[cavefish]] and [[salamander]]s are vestigial, as they no longer allow the organism to see, and are remnants of their ancestors' functional eyes.  
+
The eyes of certain cavefish, like the blind [[fish] ''Astyanax mexicanus,'' are also vestigial, presumably as a result of living in total darkness. While the fish are developing in their eggs, their newly formed eyes start to degenerate, until the fish is left with the collapsed remnant of an [[eye]], covered by a flap of [[skin]]. These are thought to be the remnant of their ancestors' functional eyes (LiveScience.com).
  
[[Crabs]] have small tails tucked between their rear legs that are probably vestigial, as they are no longer in use. The working version of these tails can be found in their close [[crustacean]] relative, the [[lobster]].{{Fact|date=June 2007}}
+
The modern-day duck-billed [[platypus]] is said to have vestigial [[teeth]], which it quickly loses in early life, resulting in gums that are more suited for scooping [[crustacean]]s and worms out of [[river]]beds. While [[fossil]] records of prehistoric platypus ancestors are not extensive, the fossils that have been found show platypus-like creatures with rows of teeth, thus adding to [[evolution]]ists' arguments (Folger 1993).  
  
Certain species of [[moths]] (for example the [[Gypsy moth]]) have females that, although flightless, still carry small wings. These wings have no use, and are vestigial to the versions in species whose females can fly.{{Fact|date=June 2007}}
+
=====Humans=====
  
The [[fruit fly]] can be bred in high school experiments to produce off-spring with vestigial wings, to better understand basic genetics in biology.
+
[[Image:Darwin-s-tubercle.jpg|225px|thumb|The muscles connected to the ears of a human do not develop enough to have the same mobility allowed to [[monkey]]s.]]
  
====Humans====
+
Although the list of [[human]] presumed vestigial structures has remained essentially the same over time, the relative usefulness of certain structures on the list is a continuing subject of debate. The following are some of the structures often included in this list.
{{Main|Human vestigiality}}
 
[[Image:Darwin-s-tubercle.jpg|225px|thumb|The muscles connected to the ears of a human do not develop enough to have the same mobility allowed to monkeys.]]
 
  
Although the list of human vestigial structures is still more or less the same, the relative usefulness of certain structures on the list is a subject of debate. The following are some of the structures often included in this list:
+
The '''[[vermiform appendix]]''' is an appendage of the cecum, the ascending colon. According to the speculations of [[evolution]]ary biologists, the vermiform appendix may have been used by humans' [[herbivore|herbivorous]] ancestors to digest [[cellulose]]. The large appendix of the rabbit is often identified as an example of the original nature and  use of the organ. The modern functionality of the [[appendix]] is still controversial in the field of human [[physiology]], although evidence has been uncovered for certain useful functions of the appendix in both fetal and adult humans, such as producing important compounds in [[fetus]]es (biogenic amines and peptide hormones), working as a [[Lymphatic system|lymphatic]] organ in adult with immune function, and a safe haven for useful [[bacteria]] (Rowland 2007; Zahid 2004; AP 2007). The evidence of these functions calls into question the designation of the vermiform appendix as a vestigial organ.
  
The '''[[vermiform appendix]]''' is a vestige of the [[cecum]], an organ that may have been used to digest cellulose by humans' herbivorous ancestors.<ref name=Descent>[[Charles Darwin|Darwin, Charles]] (1871). ''[[The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex]]''. John Murray: London.</ref> Analogous organs in other animals similar to humans continue to perform that function, whereas other meat-eating animals may have similarly diminished appendices. The modern functionality of the appendix is still controversial in the field of human physiology, although most scientists and physicians believe that it has little or no function.
+
The '''coccyx,''' or tailbone, is thought to be the remnant of a lost ancestral tail, selected out as [[human]]s began to walk increasingly upright. All [[mammal]]s have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a short time during [[embryo]]nic development. The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, serves as an attachment point for [[muscle]]s, but it does not assist in balance and mobility as do the tailbone and tail of many mammals. In rare cases the human embryonic tail can persist after birth and must be surgically removed (LiveScience).
  
The '''[[coccyx]]''', or tailbone, is the remnant of a lost [[tail]]. All mammals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a short time during [[embryo]]nic development. The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, has lost its original function in assisting balance and mobility, though it still serves some secondary functions, such as being an attachment point for muscles, which explains why it has not degraded further. In rare cases it can persist after birth and must be surgically removed.
+
The '''plica semilunaris''' is the small, pink fold of tissue on the inside corner of the [[eye]]. It is claimed to be the vestigial remnant of the nictitating membrane (or the clear "third eyelid"), which is fully present in other [[animal]]s, and which can be controlled to protect the eye from debris and moisture loss, while still allowing the animal to see. It forms while a human is an [[embryo]], but then declines afterward until it is only present in the corner of the eye. Whether or not this structure is vestigial is a matter of popular controversy, partially due to the interpretation of the word vestigial to mean useless. This is because the plica semilunaris in humans currently serves the important purpose of cleaning out dust and other particles from the eye, resulting in a common crusted mucus. However, evolutionary biologists claim that it evolved from the nictitating membrane found in other animals, and is thus vestigial (Thompson 1956).
  
The '''[[plica semilunaris of the conjunctiva|plica semilunaris]]''' is small fold of tissue on the inside corner of the eye. It is the vestigial remnant of the [[nictitating membrane]] (the "third eyelid") which is present in other animals.
+
'''Wisdom teeth''' were identified by Darwin as being vestigial third molars that human ancestors used to help in grinding down [[plant]] tissue. It has been postulated that the skulls of human ancestors had larger jaws with more [[teeth]], which were possibly used to help chew down foliage to compensate for a lack of ability to efficiently digest the [[cellulose]] that makes up a plant cell wall. As human diets changed, it is posited, a smaller jaw was selected by [[evolution]], yet the third molars, or "wisdom teeth," still commonly develop in human mouths, often leading to extractions (Johnson, 2006).  
  
'''[[Wisdom teeth]]''' are vestigial third molars that human ancestors used to help in grinding down plant tissue. It has been postulated that the skulls of human ancestors had larger jaws with more teeth, which were possibly used to help chew down foliage to compensate for a lack of ability to efficiently digest the [[cellulose]] that makes up a plant cell wall. As human diet changed, a smaller jaw was [[selection|selected]] by evolution, yet the third molars, or "wisdom teeth," still commonly develop in human mouths.<ref>Johnson, Dr. George B.. "Evidence for Evolution (Page 12)." Txtwriter Inc.. 8 Jun 2006 <http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage12.html>.</ref>
+
[[Image:Gaensehaut.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Goose bumps are an example of a vestigial human reaction to stress.]]
  
[[Image:Gaensehaut.jpg|thumb|left|150px|[[Goose bumps]] are an example of a vestigial human reaction to stress.]]
+
[[Evolution]]ary biologists also state that humans bear some vestigial behaviors and reflexes. For example, the formation of goose bumps in humans under [[stress (medicine)|stress]] is considered a vestigial reflex from the view that human evolutionary and more hairy ancestors are believed to have used the goose bumps reflex to raise the body's [[hair]], making the ancestor appear larger so as to help scare off predators. Raising the hair also could be used to trap an extra layer of air, keeping an [[animal]] warm. This reflex formation of goosebumps when cold is not vestigial in humans, but the reflex to form them under stress is considered to be so (LiveScience.com).
  
Humans also bear some vestigial behaviors and reflexes. For example, the formation of [[goose bump]]s in humans under [[stress (medicine)|stress]] is a vestigial [[reflex action|reflex]]; its purpose in human evolutionary ancestors was to raise the body's hair, making the ancestor appear larger and scaring off predators. Raising the hair is also used to trap an extra layer of air, keeping an animal warm. This reflex formation of goosebumps when cold is not vestigial in humans, but the reflex to form them under stress is.
+
In the case of the ear muscles of a human, it is believed that a function once provided by one structure has been replaced by another. The [[ear]]s of a Macaque monkey and most other [[monkey]]s, have [[muscle]]s that are more developed than those of humans and therefore have the capability to move their ears to better hear potential threats (Macalister 1871). In humans, the inability to move the ears is compensated mainly by the ability to turn the head on a horizontal plane, an ability which is not common to most monkeys (Mivart 1873).  
  
The [[ear]]s of a [[Macaque monkey]], and most other monkeys, have far more developed muscles than those of humans and therefore have the capability to move their ears to better hear potential threats.<ref>Prof. A. Macalister, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, vol. vii., 1871, p. 342.</ref> In humans, the inability to move the ear is compensated mainly by the ability to turn the head on a horizontal plane, an ability which is not common to most monkeys. A function once provided by one structure is now replaced by another.<ref>Mr. St. George Mivart, Elementary Anatomy, 1873, p. 396.</ref>
+
Delving deeper into vestigiality arguments, there are also thought to be vestigial molecular structures in humans, which are no longer in use but may indicate common ancestry with other species. One example of this is L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, a [[gene]] found to be functional in most other mammals, which produces a [[Vitamin C]]-[[enzyme|catalyzing enzyme]]. In [[human]]s, an earlier [[mutation]] may have caused it to become disabled (unable to produce the enzyme), and it now remains in the human genome only as a vestigial genetic sequence (Theobald 2004).
  
There are also vestigial molecular structures in humans, which are no longer in use but may indicate common ancestry with other species. One example of this is [[L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase]], a gene, found functional in most other mammals, which produces a [[Vitamin C]]-[[enzyme|catalyzing enzyme]]. In humans, an earlier mutation may have caused it to become disabled (unable to produce the enzyme), and it now remains in the [[human genome]] only as a vestigial genetic sequence.<ref>"Vestigial Structures." BookRags.com. BookRags Inc.. 8 Jun 2006 <http://www.bookrags.com/other/health/vestigial-structures-wap.html>.</ref>
+
====Plants====
 
+
Vestigial structures are found not only in [[animal]]s; [[plant]]s are also said to have vestigial parts. [[Dandelion]]s and other [[asexual reproduction|asexually reproducing]] plants retain [[flower]]s, and produce [[pollen]], both of which are only necessary for the process of [[sexual reproduction]]. Also, [[grass]] often has small, undeveloped structures that strongly resemble those of [[flowering plant]]s (Knobloch 1951).
===Plants===
 
{{sectionstub}}
 
Vestigial structures are not only found in animals; plants also are known to have vestigial parts.<ref>Knobloch, I. (1951) Are There Vestigial Structures in Plants? ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' New Series, Vol. 113: 465</ref> [[Dandelions]] and other [[asexual reproduction|asexually reproducing]] plants produce unneeded flower petals. These petals were once used to attract pollinating insects, but are now no longer needed.{{Fact|date=June 2007}}
 
 
 
[[Grass]] often has small, undeveloped structures which strongly resemble those of flowering plants.{{Fact|date=June 2007}}
 
  
 
==Controversy==
 
==Controversy==
{{Further|[[Creation-evolution controversy]]}}
+
{{Further|[[Creationism]]}}
Because vestigial organs are used as supporting evidence for [[evolution]], some [[creationism|creationists]] oppose the validity of the idea. They question whether these organs are useless, since they believe that gods or [[God]] gave each organism its organs for a specific reason and use. Other creationists allow for "micro-evolution" (variations in individual species) but not "macro-evolution" (all species originating from common ancestors). Vestigial structures do not oppose the beliefs of this branch of creationism.
+
The concept of vestigial organs as supporting evidence for [[evolution]] is opposed by [[creationism|creationists]] in the narrower sense of creationism that does not allow [[evolution#theory of descent with modification|descent with modification]] or [[evolution#theory of natural selection|evolution by natural selection]]. A common point of contention between creationists in this sense and evolutionists is the actual definition of vestigial. Creationists often define vestigial organs as having no purpose, whereas evolutionists view vestigial organs as those that have lost their primary function, but are not necessarily functionless (Bergman and Howe 1990). (This contradiction is shown above, in the examples of the appendix and plica semilunaris.) Thus, based on these opposing definitions, some creationists believe that there are no true vestigial organs, because some function can be discerned and because [[God]] is considered to have had a specific plan and purpose for all the structures of living beings. It is also argued that over 100 years ago, scientists made claims that certain structures, such as the tonsils, were vestigial, simply because medical science had not advanced to the point where the function of the tonsils could be well understood. Today, the function of the tonsils in disease prevention has been identified, and creationists use this as further evidence in the case against vestigial organs (Oktar 2007).  
  
Those who question the existence of vestigial organs usually claim a different definition for ''vestigial'', giving a strict interpretation that an organ must be utterly useless to qualify.<ref>Bergman, J. and Howe, G. (1990) "Vestigial Organs" Are Fully Functional. Kansas City, MO. Creation Research Society Books.</ref> This is a definition often used in dictionaries<ref>New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary fourth edition (1993)</ref> and children's encyclopedias.<ref>World Book Encyclopedia 2000</ref> Biology textbooks<ref>Futuyma DJ (1998) Evolutionary Biology 3rd edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc (Sunderland, MA)</ref><ref>Freeman S & Herron JC (2004) Evolutionary Analysis 3rd edition. p.30 Pearson Prentice Hall (Upper Saddle River, NJ)</ref> and scientific encyclopedias<ref name=Muller>Muller</ref> usually describe an organ as vestigial if it does not serve the same function in the modern animal as the [[homology (biology)|cognate]] organ served in an ancestor, even if the modern organ serves a completely different use ([[preadaptation]]).
+
Another common argument is that the observed similarity of structures between [[species]] essentially proves nothing. Creationists maintain that such structures, as observed, can indicate a repeated, effective model put in place by God in different species. They also point out that some [[organ]]s, such as the [[appendix]], are present in [[ape]]s and [[human]]s, but not in the lower apes, and then appear again in even lower [[animal]]s, such as [[opossum]]s. Such gaps in the presumed chain of evolution (the gap being the lower apes) indicate evidence in their view of logical flaws in the theory of evolution, further showing that similar organs do not provide evidence of evolution, but instead creationism (Oktar 2007).  
  
Those who consider the true meaning of ''vestigial'' to be "completely without use" tend to claim that the meaning has been changed over time as structures thought to be vestigial were found to have other uses.<ref>Sarfati J (2002) "AiG misunderstands evolution?" Answers In Genesis Feedback Response. June 3 [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_03June2002.asp](accessed 8th June 2006)</ref> However, documentation indicates that from the theory's beginnings in the 19th century, vestigial structures have invariably been understood to "sometimes retain their potentiality"<ref name="Darwin" />, becoming either "wholly or in part functionless".<ref>Wiedersheim R (1893) The Structure of Man: An Index to His Past History Second Edition. Translated by H. and M. Bernard (1895). Macmillan and Co. (London)</ref> It was thought that "not infrequently the degenerating organ can be turned to account in some other way".<ref>Weismann, A. (1886) "IX. Retrogressive Development in Nature." reproduced in Essays upon Heredity and Kindred Biological Problems. Volume II. pp. 5-9 Poulton, E. B. and Shipley, A. E., editors., Clarendon Press: Oxford. 1892.</ref>
+
At the same time, some branches of creationistism will allow for [[microevolution]] (variations in individual species) but not [[macroevolution]] ([[speciation]] or higher changes, such as the origin of new designs). Thus, the existence of vestigial traits as support of microevolution is not opposed, but their use as an argument in support of macroevolution is opposed (Long 2004).
  
An example of the dispute is the [[gas bladder]] of many fish, which is thought to be a vestigial [[lung]], "left over" from the occasionally-air-gasping common ancestor of [[Actinopterygii|ray-finned fish]] and land vertebrates.
+
Religious adherents who accept the reality of [[evolution#theory of descent with modification|descent with modification]], but not [[natural selection]] as the main causal agent of macroevolutionary change, do not find conflict with the concept of vestigial structures as evidence for evolution (in the sense of descent with modification). Rather, they view newer creations coming on the foundation of earlier creations.
 
 
==See also==
 
{{Commonscat|Vestigiality}}
 
{{Wiktionary|Vestige}}
 
* [[Atavism]]
 
* [[Dewclaw]]
 
* [[Homology (biology)]]
 
* [[Plantaris muscle]]
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
<div class="references-small">
+
* Aristotle. 2007. [http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/a8ha/ History of Animals]. D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson, trans. ''ebooks@adelaide''. Retrieved November 25, 2007.
<references />
+
* Associated Press (AP). 2007. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21153898/ Scientists may have found appendix’s purpose: Seemingly useless organ may produce, protect good germs for your gut]. ''Associated Press'' October 5, 2007. Retrieved November 1, 2007.
</div>
+
* Bergman, J., and G. Howe. 1990. ''Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional''. Kansas City: Creation Research Society Books. ISBN 0940384094.
 
+
* Briney, P. [http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame.htm Hall of shame for evolution fraud and deceit]. ''University of Arkansas''. Retrieved November 25, 2007.
==External links==
+
* Darwin, C. 1859. ''On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection''. London: John Murray.
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#vestiges Talk origins page on vestigial organs]
+
* Darwin, C. 1871. ''The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex''. London: John Murray.
 +
* Folger, T. 1993. [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n1_v14/ai_13670058 A platypus in Patagonia: Ancient life]. ''FindArticles.com''. Retrieved November 25, 2007.
 +
* Johnson, G. B. 2007. [http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage12.html Evidence for evolution (Page 12)]. ''Txtwriter Inc.'' Retrieved November 25, 2007.
 +
* Knobloch, I. 1951. Are there vestigial structures in plants? ''Science'' 113: 465.
 +
* Lamarck, J.-B. 1809. ''Philosophie zoologique. Ou exposition des considérations relatives à l'histoire naturelle des animaux''.
 +
* LiveScience.com. n.d. [http://www.livescience.com/animals/top10_vestigial_organs-1.html Top 10 useless limbs (and other vestigial organs)]. ''Imaginova Corp.'' Retrieved November 25, 2007.
 +
* Long, J. T. 2004. [http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/micromacro.htm Micro vs. macro evolution: Objections against creation]. ''TrueAuthority.com''. Retrieved December 1, 2007.
 +
* Macalister, A. 1871. Myology of the chimpanzee and other primates. ''Annals and Magazine of Natural History'' 7: 342.
 +
* Mivart, S. G. J. 1873. ''Lessons in Elementary Anatomy''. London: Macmillan.
 +
* Muller, G. B. 2002. Vestigial organs and structures. Pages 1131-1133 in M. Pagel, ed., ''Encyclopedia of Evolution''. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195122003.
 +
* Oktar, A. 2007. [http://darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html The myth of vestigial organs]. ''Darwinism Refuted.com''. Retrieved November 25, 2007.
 +
* Reeder, A., and J. Wilcox. 1997. [http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/HTML/live.html Evolution]. ''Bioweb''. Retrieved November 25, 2007.
 +
* Rowland, R. 2007. [http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000CAE56-7201-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3 What is the function of the human appendix? Did it once have a purpose that has since been lost?] ''Scientific American''. Retrieved November 1, 2007.
 +
* St. Hilaire, G. 1798. Observations sur l'aile de l'Autruche, par le citoyen Geoffroy. ''La Decade Egyptienne, Journal Litteraire et D'Economie Politique'' 1: 46-51.
 +
* Theobald, D. 2004. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#vestiges 29+ Evidences for macroevolution]. ''Talkorigins.org''. Retrieved November 25, 2007.
 +
* Thompson, W. R. 1956. ''Introduction to the Origin of Species by C. Darwin''. London: J. M. Dent and Sons.
 +
* Wells, J. 2000. ''Icons of Evolution''. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing. ISBN 0895262762.
 +
* Wiedersheim, Robert. 1895. ''The Structure of Man: An Index to His Past History.'' London: Macmillan and Co.
 +
* Zahid, A. 2004. The vermiform appendix: Not a useless organ. ''J Coll Physicians Surg Pak'' 14: 256-258.
  
 
{{evolution}}
 
{{evolution}}
  
[[Category:Life sciences]]
+
[[Category:Life sciences]][[Category:Evolution]][[Category:Anatomy and physiology]]
 
{{Credit|146391399}}
 
{{Credit|146391399}}

Latest revision as of 19:33, 6 February 2009

The blind mole rat (Spalax typhlus) has tiny eyes completely covered by a layer of skin. They are vestigial organs in comparison with the presumably functional eyes of the rat's ancient ancestors.

In evolutionary biology and comparative anatomy, "vestigiality" in a species describes organs (vestigial organs), structures (vestigial structures), behaviors, and biochemical pathways that have seemingly lost all or most of an original function present in ancestor species. These structures are typically in a degenerate, atrophied, or rudimentary condition, and are often called vestigial organs, despite some of them not being actual organs. Examples include the eyes of some cave dwelling fish and mole rats, the leg and hip bones found in whales, the teeth that quickly disappear in duck billed platypuses, pollen in dandelions, and the human appendix and wisdom teeth.

Although structures deemed "vestigial" are often identified as largely or entirely functionless, in modern conceptions of the term in evolutionary biology, a vestigial structure may still retain lesser functions. This broader definition (versus no function), as well as the use of vestigial organs as one of the main arguments toward evolutionary theory, has led to significant debate between evolutionists and creationists. Religious adherents may accept the reality of vestigial organs as evidence of descent with modification without accepting natural selection as the main causal agent of large scale changes (macroevolution).

History

Prior to the theory of Darwinian evolution, the reason for the existence of vestigial structures was long speculated upon. In the fourth century B.C.E., Aristotle commented in his History of Animals on the vestigial eyes of moles, which lack pattern recognition due to a layer of skin that completely covers them. Despite this long-held curiosity, it is only in recent centuries that anatomical vestiges have become a subject of serious study.

In 1798, Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire hypothesized that vestigial structures exist because nature leaves vestiges of an organ as long as it plays an important role in species of the same family. His colleague, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, also researched vestigial structures, naming a number of them in his 1809 book, Philosophie Zoologique. Lamarck speculated that Guillaume-Antoine Olivier's blind mole rat Spalax had lost its eyesight because it rarely came in contact with daylight, thus leaving behind vestiges of the unnecessary organs and passing on these traits to its offspring. Thus, he advocated the once popular concept of inheritance of acquired characters, or that the individual efforts of an organism during its lifetime were the main mechanism driving species to adaptation.

Several decades later, the inheritance of acquired characters concept was largely diminished by Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, which used such presumed vestigial structures as the muscles of the ear, wisdom teeth, the appendix, the tail bone, body hair, and the semilunar fold in the corner of the human eye as evidence for his theory. He also made the important distinction in The Origin of Species (1859), that if a structure had lost its primary function, but still retained secondary anatomical roles, it could still be described as vestigial.

The human vermiform appendix was identified by Charles Darwin as a vestigial structure based on its having no known function. Scientists later discovered that the appendix plays a role in the immune system and the identification of the appendix as being vestigial has become a point of contention.

In the late nineteenth century, Robert Wiedersheim published a list of 86 human organs that, he claimed, had lost their original function. He then labeled them vestigial, theorizing that they were vestiges of evolution. Since the publication of his list, the true function of some of these structures has been discovered, while other anatomical vestiges have been unearthed, resulting in the use of the list as a record of the knowledge of human anatomy at the time. Later, versions of Wiedersheim's list were expanded to as many as 180 human "vestigial organs," which was later referenced in the landmark Scopes Monkey Trial by the zoologist Newman, as evidence of evolution (Briney).

Currently, the term vestigial organ is used in the media to refer to a wholly useless organ, while it retains Darwin's functional distinction in evolutionary biology.

Evidence of evolution

Further information: Evidence of evolution

The fact that vestigial structures reveal a similarity in structure and position with organs in presumed ancestors, but lack the function found in the ancestors, can be considered evidence for evolution—specifically, the "theory of descent with modification," or "theory of common descent." That is, vestigial organs support the view that all organisms have descended from common ancestors by a continuous process of branching; in other words, all life evolved from one kind of organism or from a few simple kinds, and each species arose in a single geographic location from another species that preceded it in time. The presence of a vestigial organ suggests a shared ancestry with another organism that has similar, but functional organs.

The "theory of natural selection" offers a proposed mechanism by which vestigial organs can come about. That is, the existence of vestigial organs may be hypothesized as resulting from changes in the environment and behavior patterns of the species in question. As the function of the structure is no longer beneficial for survival, the likelihood that future offspring will inherit the "normal" form of the structure decreases. In some cases, the structure becomes detrimental to the organism (for example the eyes of a mole can become infected (Darwin 1859)). In many cases, while the structure may not be directly harmful, all structures require extra energy to build and maintain, providing some selective pressure for the removal of parts that do not contribute to an organism's fitness. A structure that is not harmful is theorized to take longer to be phased out by natural selection than one that is.

Darwin's theory of descent with modification remains the most widely accepted scientific theory regarding why such organs exist, with Darwin's theory of natural selection the most widely accepted scientific theory regarding how such organs came about. However, technically, vestigial organs only strongly support the theory of descent with modification (the non-causal "pattern" of evolution between ancestral and descendant taxa), not the theory of natural selection (the "process" by which evolution took place to arrive at the pattern).

It is often stated that vestigial versions of a structure can be compared to the original version of the structure in other species in order to determine the homology of a vestigial structure, and that homologous structures indicate common ancestry with those organisms that have a functional version of the structure. However, technically, the presence of homology, as currently defined, does not offer evidence of common descent. That is because homology is commonly defined as any similarity between structures that is attributed to their shared ancestry. Anatomical structures that are similar in different biological taxa (species, genera, etc.) would be termed homologous if they evolved from the same structure in some ancestor. It would be incorrect to state that homology, as presently defined, provides evidence of evolution because it would be circular reasoning, with homology defined as similarity due to shared ancestry.

Examples

Animals

Letter c in the picture indicates the undeveloped hind legs of a baleen whale.

There are numerous examples of vestigial organs in the animal kingdom. In whales and other cetaceans, one can find small vestigial leg bones deeply buried within the back of the body. The evolutionary explanation is that these bones are the remnants of their land-dwelling ancestor's legs. Many whales also have undeveloped, unused, pelvis bones in the anterior part of their torsos, added remains from their land-dwelling ancestors (LiveScience.com).

Several flightless birds, including Dodo birds (now extinct) and penguins, have hollow bones, a feature usually reserved for flying birds (since the weight reduction is crucial to staying in the air). Thus, these hollow bones are explained by evolution to be the remnants of a flying ancestor. The wings of emus, and some other flightless birds, like the dodo, are often identified as vestigial as well, much like the hollow bones. However, there is a difference with penguins. While penguins' wings are not used for flight, they are essential for the penguin to be able to navigate underwater (they essentially act as flippers). Thus, penguin wings are often not identified as vestigial, since they have gained an essential function that has not been found in any ancestral state (Theobald, 2004).

The eyes of certain cavefish, like the blind [[fish] Astyanax mexicanus, are also vestigial, presumably as a result of living in total darkness. While the fish are developing in their eggs, their newly formed eyes start to degenerate, until the fish is left with the collapsed remnant of an eye, covered by a flap of skin. These are thought to be the remnant of their ancestors' functional eyes (LiveScience.com).

The modern-day duck-billed platypus is said to have vestigial teeth, which it quickly loses in early life, resulting in gums that are more suited for scooping crustaceans and worms out of riverbeds. While fossil records of prehistoric platypus ancestors are not extensive, the fossils that have been found show platypus-like creatures with rows of teeth, thus adding to evolutionists' arguments (Folger 1993).

Humans
The muscles connected to the ears of a human do not develop enough to have the same mobility allowed to monkeys.

Although the list of human presumed vestigial structures has remained essentially the same over time, the relative usefulness of certain structures on the list is a continuing subject of debate. The following are some of the structures often included in this list.

The vermiform appendix is an appendage of the cecum, the ascending colon. According to the speculations of evolutionary biologists, the vermiform appendix may have been used by humans' herbivorous ancestors to digest cellulose. The large appendix of the rabbit is often identified as an example of the original nature and use of the organ. The modern functionality of the appendix is still controversial in the field of human physiology, although evidence has been uncovered for certain useful functions of the appendix in both fetal and adult humans, such as producing important compounds in fetuses (biogenic amines and peptide hormones), working as a lymphatic organ in adult with immune function, and a safe haven for useful bacteria (Rowland 2007; Zahid 2004; AP 2007). The evidence of these functions calls into question the designation of the vermiform appendix as a vestigial organ.

The coccyx, or tailbone, is thought to be the remnant of a lost ancestral tail, selected out as humans began to walk increasingly upright. All mammals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a short time during embryonic development. The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, serves as an attachment point for muscles, but it does not assist in balance and mobility as do the tailbone and tail of many mammals. In rare cases the human embryonic tail can persist after birth and must be surgically removed (LiveScience).

The plica semilunaris is the small, pink fold of tissue on the inside corner of the eye. It is claimed to be the vestigial remnant of the nictitating membrane (or the clear "third eyelid"), which is fully present in other animals, and which can be controlled to protect the eye from debris and moisture loss, while still allowing the animal to see. It forms while a human is an embryo, but then declines afterward until it is only present in the corner of the eye. Whether or not this structure is vestigial is a matter of popular controversy, partially due to the interpretation of the word vestigial to mean useless. This is because the plica semilunaris in humans currently serves the important purpose of cleaning out dust and other particles from the eye, resulting in a common crusted mucus. However, evolutionary biologists claim that it evolved from the nictitating membrane found in other animals, and is thus vestigial (Thompson 1956).

Wisdom teeth were identified by Darwin as being vestigial third molars that human ancestors used to help in grinding down plant tissue. It has been postulated that the skulls of human ancestors had larger jaws with more teeth, which were possibly used to help chew down foliage to compensate for a lack of ability to efficiently digest the cellulose that makes up a plant cell wall. As human diets changed, it is posited, a smaller jaw was selected by evolution, yet the third molars, or "wisdom teeth," still commonly develop in human mouths, often leading to extractions (Johnson, 2006).

Goose bumps are an example of a vestigial human reaction to stress.

Evolutionary biologists also state that humans bear some vestigial behaviors and reflexes. For example, the formation of goose bumps in humans under stress is considered a vestigial reflex from the view that human evolutionary and more hairy ancestors are believed to have used the goose bumps reflex to raise the body's hair, making the ancestor appear larger so as to help scare off predators. Raising the hair also could be used to trap an extra layer of air, keeping an animal warm. This reflex formation of goosebumps when cold is not vestigial in humans, but the reflex to form them under stress is considered to be so (LiveScience.com).

In the case of the ear muscles of a human, it is believed that a function once provided by one structure has been replaced by another. The ears of a Macaque monkey and most other monkeys, have muscles that are more developed than those of humans and therefore have the capability to move their ears to better hear potential threats (Macalister 1871). In humans, the inability to move the ears is compensated mainly by the ability to turn the head on a horizontal plane, an ability which is not common to most monkeys (Mivart 1873).

Delving deeper into vestigiality arguments, there are also thought to be vestigial molecular structures in humans, which are no longer in use but may indicate common ancestry with other species. One example of this is L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, a gene found to be functional in most other mammals, which produces a Vitamin C-catalyzing enzyme. In humans, an earlier mutation may have caused it to become disabled (unable to produce the enzyme), and it now remains in the human genome only as a vestigial genetic sequence (Theobald 2004).

Plants

Vestigial structures are found not only in animals; plants are also said to have vestigial parts. Dandelions and other asexually reproducing plants retain flowers, and produce pollen, both of which are only necessary for the process of sexual reproduction. Also, grass often has small, undeveloped structures that strongly resemble those of flowering plants (Knobloch 1951).

Controversy

Further information: Creationism

The concept of vestigial organs as supporting evidence for evolution is opposed by creationists in the narrower sense of creationism that does not allow descent with modification or evolution by natural selection. A common point of contention between creationists in this sense and evolutionists is the actual definition of vestigial. Creationists often define vestigial organs as having no purpose, whereas evolutionists view vestigial organs as those that have lost their primary function, but are not necessarily functionless (Bergman and Howe 1990). (This contradiction is shown above, in the examples of the appendix and plica semilunaris.) Thus, based on these opposing definitions, some creationists believe that there are no true vestigial organs, because some function can be discerned and because God is considered to have had a specific plan and purpose for all the structures of living beings. It is also argued that over 100 years ago, scientists made claims that certain structures, such as the tonsils, were vestigial, simply because medical science had not advanced to the point where the function of the tonsils could be well understood. Today, the function of the tonsils in disease prevention has been identified, and creationists use this as further evidence in the case against vestigial organs (Oktar 2007).

Another common argument is that the observed similarity of structures between species essentially proves nothing. Creationists maintain that such structures, as observed, can indicate a repeated, effective model put in place by God in different species. They also point out that some organs, such as the appendix, are present in apes and humans, but not in the lower apes, and then appear again in even lower animals, such as opossums. Such gaps in the presumed chain of evolution (the gap being the lower apes) indicate evidence in their view of logical flaws in the theory of evolution, further showing that similar organs do not provide evidence of evolution, but instead creationism (Oktar 2007).

At the same time, some branches of creationistism will allow for microevolution (variations in individual species) but not macroevolution (speciation or higher changes, such as the origin of new designs). Thus, the existence of vestigial traits as support of microevolution is not opposed, but their use as an argument in support of macroevolution is opposed (Long 2004).

Religious adherents who accept the reality of descent with modification, but not natural selection as the main causal agent of macroevolutionary change, do not find conflict with the concept of vestigial structures as evidence for evolution (in the sense of descent with modification). Rather, they view newer creations coming on the foundation of earlier creations.

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

Basic topics in evolutionary biology (edit)
Processes of evolution: evidence - macroevolution - microevolution - speciation
Mechanisms: natural selection - genetic drift - gene flow - mutation - phenotypic plasticity
Modes: anagenesis - catagenesis - cladogenesis
History: History of evolutionary thought - Charles Darwin - The Origin of Species - modern evolutionary synthesis
Subfields: population genetics - ecological genetics - human evolution - molecular evolution - phylogenetics - systematics

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.