INSIDE:
A Tale of a Tail
The Eyes have it!
Is your little toe useless?
A Bible-believing Scientist
Bird that gained through Loss
Well Designed: The Dragon-fish
Not evolved, but wonderfully made!
ORIGINAL
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
An airman wearing
night-vision goggles
Researchers at Columbia University Medical Center, New York,
have
discovered
something
unique. Dragon-fish have chlorophyll in their eyes — the chemical
which gives green plants their colour. This gives the Dragon-fish
the ability not only to produce red light, but to see red
light in the depths of the sea. Other dragon-fish can
see this, but not their prey.
Experiments with mice and rabbits suggest that
putting chlorophyll drops into their eyes can double
their ability to see. The U.S. military is interested in the
findings, since night-time goggles are bulky to use. So
the Dragon-fish has the potential to help humans see
better in the dark.
VIEW
USELESS LEFT-OVERS?
No. 82
Those “vestigial organs” do have a purpose after all
Researchers are puzzled as to how the chlorophyll got into the Dragon-fish’s eyes. Some
claim they “discovered it through evolution”,
but that’s not an explanation, only an hypothesis, which can’t be proved. How could a fish
discover this by accident? It certainly couldn’t
happen gradually Darwinian fashion. It is more
logical to believe that, like night-vision goggles,
Dragon-fish were intelligently designed to be the
way they are .
NOT EVOLVED, BUT WONDERFULLY MADE!
The existence of so-called vestigial organs has long been used as an
argument against belief in creation. Why would an intelligent Creator give
us useless parts? Isn’t it more logical to believe that everything evolved,
and that as creatures became more complex, some organs were no longer
useful or necessary?
As we have explained, advances in medical knowledge have reduced the list of vestigial organs in our
own bodies, proving that such claims were evidence
of our own ignorance of the wonderful workings of
the body. There are many parts we can live without,
e.g. an arm or a leg, but no one would argue they
are useless! 2,500 years ago the Psalmist — without
the knowledge we now have — viewed his body as
the work of a Creator: “I praise you because I am
fearfully and wonderfully made.” (Psalm 139. 14).
Evolutionists look for evidence of continuous improvement, but creationists believe that we live in a “fallen world” which bears
little comparison to the original creation which God declared “very good.” (The
Bible, Genesis 1: 31) The creation model allows for the deterioration of a
perfect creation because the world has been spoilt by human sin — and we are
all sinners against a holy God. The good news is that, because He loves us, God
has taken steps to renew and restore His creation through His Son, Jesus
Christ. He took the penalty for our sin by his death on the cross, then rose
again in victory over death. ”Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins.” (Acts 10: 43). Gods wants us all to respond and accept His free
offer. Will you believe and receive?
“Our bodies are littered with parts we don’t need,” claimed Discover magazine, June 2004. This
repeated a myth that has persisted since Charles Darwin claimed that what he called “rudimentary organs” meant that “man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly
origin.”
In the 1890s some scientists believed that our own bodies contained around 180 “junk” organs,
which were regarded as relics of our supposed evolutionary past. These included our appendix,
third eye-lid, tonsils and coccyx. Atheistic scientists have argued that this proves that we
weren't created, since a wise Creator wouldn’t give us useless organs, some of which can
threaten our health. Other scientists say that we can’t call an organ useless simply because we
don’t know its function. Evolutionists also claim that some animals have vestigial organs, and APPENDIX
argue that this is further evidence for evolution. However, evolution is supposed to be an
upward process, so even if some organs do lose their use, it doesn’t really help the theory. This argument
conceals an even greater problem for evolution — the lack of evidence of organs on the way to becoming useful.
In the words of Dr Evan Shute: “Structures on the way out are not what the evolutionist needs, but structures on
the way in.” (Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, Craig Press, New Jersey, 1961, pp. 56-57).
Doctor to Nurse: “How is that
little boy doing, the one who
swallowed ten coins?”
Nurse: “No change yet.”
Teacher: “John, why are you
doing your math multiplication
on the floor?”
John: “You told me to do it
without using tables.”
facebook.com/
creationresources
Original View is published three
times a year by the Creation Resources Trust (Reg. Charity No.
1016666). Editing and design by Geoff Chapman. Unless otherwise stated, articles are written by the editor.
There is no subscription charge, but
donations are invited. Contact CRT
at P O Box 3237, YEOVIL, BA22
7WD. Phone: 01935 850569. Email:
[email protected]. Other resources
available by post or on-line at
www.crt.org.uk Scripture references
are taken from the
The Holy Bible, New
International
Version. © 1984 International Bible Society.
Your appendix is useful!
ABLY, AND WILL BE MORE LIKELY TO DIE OF AN INFECTION.
In cases of appendicitis, our appendix becomes infected, and has to be surgically removed. Since we can live
quite happily without it, it has been claimed that it’s of no
use to us. However, scientists have discovered that the
appendix is part of the body's lymphatic system, and is
useful in helping the body fight infection, particularly in
early childhood. According to USA surgeon Bill Parker,
“Far from useless, the organ is actually a storehouse of
beneficial bacteria that help us digest
food.”1
Some animals have an appendix,
while others, such as New World
Monkeys (right) and cats don’t. Have
they lost their appendix, as evolutionists claim? Does that mean that humans are more “primitive.”? Or is it
because they don’t need an appendix, so their Creator didn’t give them
one?
BUT ON THE PLUS SIDE YOU HAVE LOST A LOT OF WEIGHT.’
1. National Geographic.com 30th July 2009.
© 2009 R. A. Miller. evidentcreation.com
THE Deepsea Dragon-Fish is around 25 cm (10
inches) long, and lives at a depth of between 460
and 1,380 meters (500 and 4,500 feet). At this depth
there is only a very dim, blue light, so how do these
fish manage to see? Dragon-fish have a rare ability
for deep-sea fish: they are able to see light at the red
end of the spectrum. More than that, they actually
produce their own flashing red
light! In fact, they are sometimes called “stop-light fish” because their eyes look like red
traffic lights. How do they do it?
© 2017. Printed by CPO Worthing
Wikipedia photo by Ian Forshaw
The Deepsea Dragon-Fish
‘WE’VE REMOVED ALL YOUR USELESS LEFT-OVERS, MR JONES.
UNFORTUNATELY YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO SIT DOWN COMFORT-
No appendix
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Geneticist*
IS YOUR LITTLE TOE
USELESS?
Photo by Alpsdake: Wikipedia
S
OMETIMES called “the
third eyelid”, the semilunar membrane is a small
fold of tissue at the inner
corner of the human eye. It is
sometimes claimed that it is
a remnant of the third eyelid
possessed by birds and repSemi-lunar membrane
tiles — reptiles supposedly
being our distant ancestors.
In reptiles and birds the membrane covers the eye completely. In
birds, this protects the eyes
in flight, without affecting
their vision. However, in
humans, the semi-lunar
membrane is far from useless. It supports the eyeball;
without it, the eyeball
would sink, causing double
vision. It also supports the
tear-duct, preventing tears
from draining over our
cheeks, and collects foreign
matter, which may enter
the eye. That’s why you
sometimes find white bits in A bird’s third eyelid: In the top picture
the kingfisher’s third eyelid is closed.
your eyes when you wake up In the lower picture it is open.
in the morning.
Some evolutionists say that our little toe is a
leftover from the time when our apelike ancestors used it to grasp and swing from
branches, and that we don’t need it for upright walking. However, not all apes live in
trees, and most land-dwelling animals have
five toes.
Our little toe is really important for upright
walking, particularly to the millions of people
in the world who walk barefoot. It also provides balance for dancing, running and many
sporting activities. No athlete would expect to
perform better if they had their little toes
amputated!
Some people have
problems with their
fifth toe, but this is
usually caused by
wearing
unsuitable
shoes, not because we
don’t need this digit.
*Acknowledgements to Answers in Genesis for information in this article. See answersingenesis.org/bios/georgia-purdom
DID WHALES LOSE THEIR LEGS?
T
HE Flightless Cormorant
(right), which lives only
on the Galapagos Islands
off the coast of Equador, is
the only species of cormorant that is unable to fly.
However, it is an excellent
swimmer, even swimming
below the water. Some evolutionists claim that its
TANK A
wings are “vestigial” and
provide proof of evolution.
In a Youtube film, Professor Richard Dawkins claimed that the
flightless cormorant is evidence for “rapid evolution”, and that
evolution sometimes causes creatures to lose something because they don’t need it. He says that creationists can’t explain
why the Flightless Cormorant has wings that are no use for
flying, and that “no reasonable observer could seriously
doubt… the fact of evolution.”1
The fact is that mutations have caused the Galapagos Cormorant to lose the power of flight. Its reduced wings are ideal for
swimming — which is an advantage to it, since it lives on fish.
But that is de-volution, not evolution. Nothing new has been
added to this bird’s genome, but something has been lost. This
bird’s “vestigial wings” don’t support the theory of evolution,
which needs evidence of creatures developing new structures,
not losing them!1
1. The Greatest Show on Earth, 2009, p. 345.
Humpback
whale
Credit: NOAA
1. ‘The human tail and other tales of evolution’, St. Louis MetroVoice, January 1994.
Dr. Georgia Purdom graduated from Ohio State University in 2000 after earning her Ph.D. in
molecular genetics. She went on to become a biology professor at Mount Vernon Nazarene
University in Ohio, where she was employed for six years. Her speciality is cellular and
molecular biology. She has had papers published in Journal of Neuroscience, the Journal of
Bone and Mineral Research, and the Journal of Leukocyte Biology, as well as creation science journals, and has
won a number of honours for her work.
She is very critical of attempts by secular scientists to explain the origin of life. She writes:
“All of these theories have their own set of problems. What becomes obvious is evolutionists
are really exercising their imaginations rather than engaging in real research as they come up
with their origin-of-life theories.” She points out that a million-dollar prize is being offered
to anyone who can propose “a highly plausible mechanism” for the spontaneous origin of life.
She emphasises that natural selection is not evolution, and that it was creationist Edward
Blyth (left) who discovered it and wrote about it 22 years before Charles Darwin published The
Origin of Species. In fact, Darwin actually quoted from Blyth’s articles.
Dr Purdom points out that natural selection can’t be a mechanism for molecules-to-man evolution, because it
doesn’t add new information to the genome. “Natural selection simply can’t do that because it works with
information that already exists.”
Dr Purdom has stated: “There is only one truth source for the past as it concerns the beginnings of the universe,
earth, and life — and that is the eyewitness account God gave to us in the book of Genesis. Everything else is
merely human opinion, imaginations, and ideas — subject to fallible thinking.” Like many scientists who oppose
evolution, she has been the target of abuse; some have even demanded that she be stripped of her PhD! She now
works for Answers in Genesis (USA) and is one of few women in her field engaged in full-time research and lecturing.
By Charlesjsharp: Wikipedia
Monkeys have tails, but
apes, including chimps
(left) — our supposed
close relatives — don’t.
Why would they lose
their tails if their ancestors had them? Surely
a tail would have been
a useful aid for swinging in the trees in the
same way that monkeys use theirs?
www.crt.org.uk
Evolutionists believe that humans evolved from animal
ancestors, and therefore try to find evidence for this in our
bodies. One of their favourites is our “tailbone” — actually
the coccyx — at the base of our spine (circled left). They
claim this is a remnant of the tail our ancestors once had.
Far from being a “useless leftover”, our coccyx is an
important part of our pelvis, part of a three-part support for
when we sit down, providing balance and stability. It is
also the connecting point for many pelvic floor muscles
Anatomy Professor David Menton says that the coccyx
“keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from
literally falling through between our legs.”1 Removal of the
coccyx often causes incontinence and serious difficulties
with sitting, standing or giving birth.
It is often claimed that, in the early stages, human embryos have a tail, because the end of the spine sticks out
noticeably, but as the legs develop, they surround and
envelop the coccyx, and it winds up inside the body.
Is it true that human babies have been born with a tail? Very rarely
babies are born with a fleshy growth protruding from the spine, but this
never contains bones or muscles. It’s not even part of the coccyx, and
is easily removed. Certainly not a tail!
The evolution theory says that whales evolved
from four-legged, land-dwelling ancestors. Evolutionists often point to tiny pelvic bones found
in some whales as evidence for this. They say
these tiny bones (circled above) are all that remain of the hind limbs their ancestors once had,
and that they are now useless vestiges.
However, we now know that these bones are
not useless remnants of the whales’ land-dwelling past after all. They have a purpose in
strengthening the whales’ reproductive organs,
and are different in males and females. They are
not even attached to the rest of the skeleton, but
just embedded in the body. There are no fossils
showing that these bones have degenerated
from real legs. Neither is there any proof that
whales had four-legged ancestors. So the theory
that these bones are vestigial is wrong.