Somewhere on the Internet there is an article about ‘divine design’. Below this, a discussion had arisen between evolutionists and creationists (as far as these terms cover the meaning). An evolutionist triumphantly raised the question: ,Then explain how our appendix (the vermiform appendix is colloquially called the appendix), little toe, wisdom teeth, tailbone and the absurdly stupid design of our esophagus evolved from the creation can be explained?, In other words: some body parts are put together in such a way that it is much more likely that they were created by a blind evolutionary process than that they were created by a clever Designer. However, the evolutionist makes a number of crucial errors, which will be explained in more detail.
Useless body parts?
- Useless body parts and ‘stupid design’
- Appendix and thymus: redundant organs?
- Appendix
- Thymus
- Plantaris muscle: a useless muscle?
- Function of the tailbone or tailbone
- The little toe plays her part
- Plica semilunaris
- The design of the trachea and esophagus
- Optimal design
- Better design?
- Water with the wine
Useless body parts and ‘stupid design’
As noted in the introduction, one of the main evolutionary arguments against creation is that the human body is a ‘stupid design’. They say that there are body parts that are put together in such a way that it is much more likely that they were created by a blind evolutionary process than that a clever Designer came up with them. However, the evolutionist makes a crucial error. Some body parts that were initially thought to have (almost) no function later turned out to be useful, for example the thymus or thymus and appendix, the vermiform appendage of the appendix (colloquially the appendix itself is called ‘cecum’ which is in fact incorrect).
The thymus is located behind the sternum / Source: Nerthuz/Shutterstock.com
Appendix and thymus: redundant organs?
Appendix
In 2007, scientists at Duke University Medical Center revealed that the appendix is not, as often thought, an evolutionary relic without a function.[1] The organ forms a real storehouse for good intestinal bacteria from which the intestine can be resupplied with good bacteria if they have disappeared from the intestine, for example after a prolonged attack of diarrhea. Good hygiene and healthcare in the Western world has made the appendix less important. This is consistent with the observation that appendix removal has no observable negative effects in modern society.[2]
Thymus
The thymus or thymus is an organ located in the chest cavity and is highly developed in children, but shrivels after puberty. For a long time it was assumed that the thymus was an (almost) useless organ. Only since experiments began with removing the thymus have it been discovered that it is one of the most important organs in our immune system. It can be regarded as the center of immunity.[3]
These examples show that an organ that seems superfluous may have a function, but we do not know it (yet).
Plantaris muscle: a useless muscle?
Another example of a body part deemed redundant is the plantaris muscle – a so-called rudimentary muscle in the human calf. The story goes in the evolutionary community that although this leg muscle is used to flex the ankle and knee, the gastrocnemius muscle – a muscle located next to it – can perform this task hundreds of times more efficiently. The muscle may not be completely useless, but it can be missed, it is said. This assumption puts a stop to further research. People no longer wonder whether this muscle might have another function.
There is increasing evidence that some of the smaller muscles in our body that are considered vestigial, based on their small size and weak contractile force, in fact have a sensory function and not a motor one. The plantaris appears to be a highly specialized sensory muscle, which provides information to the central nervous system about the position of the foot. This sensory information is necessary for optimal motor skills.[4]
Tailbone or tailbone / Source: BodyParts3D is made by DBCLS, Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA-2.1)
Function of the tailbone or tailbone
The tailbone or tailbone consists of 4 to 5 compound vertebrae. According to evolutionary theory, the rump of humans has long since lost its most important function, supporting the tail. The tailbone has gradually acquired a different function. But this is based on a preconceived idea. The coccyx has two important functions: as an attachment point for muscles such as the gluteus maximus – the main muscle in the buttocks – and to a certain extent also as a shock absorber. This can be easily explained from a design perspective; it has always had this function, there is no need for a tail.
The little toe plays her part
There are people who believe that the little toe is of no use because we no longer grasp branches with it. This overlooks the fact that we use all our toes – including the little toe – to maintain our balance and walk upright.
The nictitating membrane of the masked lapwing / Source: Toby Hudson, Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA-3.0)
Plica semilunaris
The mucosal fold in the inner corner of the eye, where the two tear points meet, is called the plica semilunaris. It’s that little patch of pink tissue in the corner of your eye where scabs often collect. Many authors who believe that this tissue is useless speculate that it is the remains of a third eyelid, nictitating membrane or nictilizing membrane (membrana nictitans) that many of our distant ancestors use, but also ,other, animals use today, but that in is essentially no longer functional for humans. The nictitating membrane (from the Latin ‘nictare’ meaning ‘to blink’) is a transparent or translucent third eye lid present in some animals that can be pulled over the eye from the medial canthus to protect and lubricate it with preservation of vision.
However, the plica semilunaris is not a useless relic of a long-gone evolutionary past. It has a function in the movement of the eye, helping to maintain tear drainage through the lacrimal lake (the area where tear fluid collects after wetting the eyeball) and to allow greater rotation of the globe, because without the plica, the conjunctiva (the conjunctiva) would attach directly to the eyeball, limiting its movement.[5/6]
Esophagus / Source: Decade3d/Shutterstock.com
The design of the trachea and esophagus
The esophagus is seen by some people as an example of poor design. Because why do our esophagus and trachea cross each other? This unfortunate construction allows food to enter the trachea, sometimes with fatal consequences. How could a Creator think of this?
Optimal design
Well, we must keep in mind that optimal design is always an optimal compromise between competing conditions. Every design involves conflicting goals and therefore a compromise. Optimal designs therefore come with the best possible compromise, or as Stuart Burgess puts it:
It is important to clarify that just because a system has fully optimal design does not mean that the performance of every single function is optimal. A system has fully optimal design when the performance of a group of functions is maximized. For example, in vehicle design, fuel efficiency and a powerful engine are contradictory functions, and it is therefore impossible to design a car with the most fuel efficient use and the most powerful engine at the same time. An optimal design for a sports car has the best possible combination of fuel consumption and engine power. The fact that a sports car does not have the best possible fuel consumption or the highest engine power does not mean that the car is not an optimal design.[7]
Better design?
The esophagus is approximately 25 cm and functions as a transport tube from the pharynx to the stomach. The peristaltic movements propel the food in the esophagus towards the stomach. The epiglottis, the trachea, and the uvula close off the nasal cavity. This sometimes goes wrong, causing food to go down the ‘wrong throat’. There are evolutionists who believe that it would have been better if there had been two separate tubes: one for transporting food and drink to the stomach and one for transporting air to the lungs via the bronchi and alveoli[8 ]. However, this ‘better’ design leads to a number of insurmountable problems, three examples:
- Two separate transport tubes in the neck means it would be very difficult to breathe when you have a sinus infection. Nasal blockage would be a potentially life-threatening situation as it could make breathing extremely difficult or even impossible. With two completely separate systems, the nose is the only route through which air can be transported to the lungs.
- Another problem is the discharge of fluid that accidentally enters the lungs. It must then be pushed all the way up to the nose, through which it can be discharged. Just keep tissues at hand. With the current design, it only needs to be transported to the top of the trachea, after which it disappears into the esophagus and ends up in the stomach.
- We also use our mouth and tongue to produce sound. The sound made in the larynx must be converted into intelligible speech, which takes place in the mouth, nose and pharynx, where the teeth, lips, cheeks, palate and tongue also play an important role. For clearly intelligible speech, each of these organs must function properly.[9]
Water with the wine
Optimal designs must come with the best possible compromise. As a designer you always have to make compromises somewhere. But now consider the ‘better’ design of the evolutionists mentioned above. With this design, humans would have a separate system, but overall it would be inferior. Your trachea would only be connected to the nose, with all the consequences that entails if you have a bad cold or a sinus infection. Not to mention your speech. You could make sounds, but not convert them into intelligible speech, unless the nose had certain extra structures. This in turn would mean that the nose becomes larger and more unsightly; This design would therefore also have to compromise considerably in terms of beauty. The face must also become much longer to accommodate these additional structures. No, it doesn’t make you more beautiful. The end result is dismal and it functions much less well.
Notes:
- Bollinger, R. R., A. S. Barbas, E. L. Bush, S. S. Lin, and W. Parker. 2007. Biofilms in the large bowel suggest an apparent function of the human vermiform appendix. Journal of Theoretical Biology 249: 826-831.
- It was of course inevitable that the discovery that the appendix vermiformis is not a useless relic of evolution would be provided with an evolutionary theoretical approach. So two years later , an article by William Parker of Duke University Medical Center appeared in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology with the story that the appendix is 80 million years old and was even invented twice by nature. As if he had been there himself. (Smith HF, Fisher RE, Everett ML, Thomas AD, Bollinger RR, Parker W. Comparative anatomy and phylogenetic distribution of the mammalian cecal appendix. J Evol Biol. 2009 Oct;22(10):1984-99. doi: 10.1111/ j.1420-9101.2009.01809.x. Epub 2009 Aug 12.)
- JAM Baar, CA Bastiaansen, AAF Jochems: Anatomy & physiology. Bohn Stafleu van Loghum, second edition, 2007, p.33.
- David N. Menton. The plantaris and the question of vestigial muscles in man. http://creation.com/plantaris-vestigial / Moore KL, Dalley AF, editors. Clinically Oriented Anatomy. 5. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006. pp. 648–649.
- Peter Gurney. Dawkins’ eye revisited. Journal of Creation 15(3):92–99, December 2001
- Wikipedia. Plica semilunaris or conjunctiva. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plica_semilunaris_of_conjunctiva (accessed on 5-1-2020)
- Stuart Burgess. Development or design – Evidence of purposeful design and added beauty in nature. Medema Publishers, 2002, p.57.
- Olshansky, S.J., B. Carnes, and R. Butler. 2001. If Humans Were Built to Last. Scientific American, March, 2001.
- Rich Deem. Bad Designs in Biology? Why the ,Best, Examples Are Bad. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/designgonebad.html
read more
- Evolution as a philosophical argument against naturalism
- Recurrent laryngeal nerve: (no) evidence of poor design
- Evolution and Belief: The theory of evolution is a myth, not a fact
- Objective moral values and the moral argument
- Vaperidae: evidence of poor design? – Richard Dawkins