So your an Athiest

[Redbeard The Pink]

I don't think there are vestigial organs. Most of the time a structure with an unknown function will be labeled as a vestige by evolutionists, only to have its function discovered later. Although I would agree that the idea of vestigial organs is biologically possible, because we know that biological information degrades in function rapidly if it isn't under selective pressure (aka  fish that live in underwater caves losing their eyesight). But that fits well within the constraints of biological change that is possible still with the top-down view of biological life. Degradation of the genetic code information is demonstrable, but improving it is not.

Ummm...ok?


You're welcome to think that, I guess...you're just wrong, is all. There are definitely vestigial parts on animals.


I realize I said "useless" before, but that's probably not the best description. Many vestigial parts do still manage to serve some function or another. A part being vestigial doesn't mean it's necessarily totally useless; it just means it isn't currently used for the same function as before, and usually it means the newer function is slightly less vital than the old one.


For instance, many snakes have vestigial legs inside their bodies near their mating parts, and sometimes those legs have protruding claws. Those claws sometimes have just enough mobility to grasp another snake's scales while they're mating, making it less likely the mate will slither away and more likely that the snake with the claws will finish trying to reproduce. If you look at the fossil record, though, that's not what those were originally for. Those used to be legs, and they didn't used to be all shrunk up and dysfunctional like that, hence they are vestigial limbs.


Emus also have a vestigial limb, and this thing really is totally useless. You see, the emu has a single arm. Attached to that arm is a single claw. Attached that arm and that claw are...no muscles. That's right, they can't even move the damn thing. It contains no organs, it has no mobility, it doesn't help them hunt or navigate terrain...literally all it does is flop around and run the risk of injury and/or infection.


As for "improving" the genetic code: there is no improving it. There is no objective better or worse when it comes to genetics. There is only the environment, and what survives in it. The only way for an organism to hypothetically "improve" itself would be for it to become better suited to its conditions (making it more likely to survive and reproduce), and the fossil record as well as microbiology both show us that yes, this happens all the time. Humans, for instance, have adapted so well to conditions on Earth that we've practically overrun the place, clinging to even the scantest of resources in the most difficult of terrains and still managing to survive.