Kumicitのコンテンツ>Who's Who>Harun Yahya>Atlas of Creation

Atlas of Creation -- 痕跡器官は進化論の証拠ではない

もう少し、Harun Yahya:"Altas of Creation"を見ていこう。今日はVol.1にもどって、痕跡器官について。

この、おなじみのネタをHarun Yahyaがどう処理したかというと...

The Fallacy of Vestigial Organs

For a long time, the concept of "vestigial organs" appeared frequently in evolutionist literature as "evidence" of evolution. Eventually, it was silently put to rest when this was proved to be invalid. But some evolutionists still believe in it, and from time to time someone will try to advance "vestigial organs" as important evidence of evolution.


The notion of "vestigial organs" was first put forward a century ago. As evolutionists would have it, there existed in the bodies of some creatures a number of non-functional organs. These had been inherited from progenitors and had gradually become vestigial from lack of use.


The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely on insufficient knowledge. These "nonfunctional organs" were in fact organs whose "functions had not yet been discovered". The best indication of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs. S.R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:

この仮定そのものが非常に非科学的であり、全く不十分な知識に基づいている。これらの“非機能的器官”は、実際は“まだその機能が発見されていない”器官である。進化論者が作成した痕跡器官の長いリストが、徐々に、しかし確実に減少しているのを見ればこの事実は明らかである。進化論者のS. R. Scaddingは、雑誌『Evolutionary Theory』に掲載された自身の記事『痕跡器官は進化論の証拠になるのか?』でこの事実に同意している。

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that "vestigial organs" provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.


[S. R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?", Evolutionary Theory, Vol 5, May 1981, p. 173.]

The list of vestigial organs that was made by the German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim in 1895 included approximately 100 organs, including the appendix and coccyx. As science progressed, it was discovered that all of the organs in Wiedersheim's list in fact had very important functions. For instance, it was discovered that the appendix, which was supposed to be a "vestigial organ", was in fact a lymphoid organ that fought against infections in the body. This fact was made clear in 1997: "Other bodily organs and tissues-the thymus, liver, spleen, appendix, bone marrow, and small collections of lymphatic tissue such as the tonsils in the throat and Peyer's patch in the small intestine-are also part of the lymphatic system. They too help the body fight infection."

1895年にドイツ人解剖学者、R. Wiedersheimによって作成された痕跡器官のリストには、虫垂および尾骨を含む約100個の器官が含まれていた。科学の進化につれ、Wiedersheimのリストに載っていた全ての器官は、それぞれ重要な機能を持つことが発見された。例えば、“痕跡器官”だとされていた虫垂は、体内の感染症と戦うリンパ器官だということが1997年に明らかにされた。“胸腺、肝臓、脾臓、虫垂、骨髄、へんとう線などの小さなリンパ組織、小腸のパイエル板などの組織は、リンパ系の一部である。これらも体が感染症と戦うのを助けている
[The Merck Manual of Medical Information, Home edition, New Jersey: Merck & Co., Inc. The Merck Publishing Group, Rahway, 1997.]

It was also discovered that the tonsils, which were included in the same list of vestigial organs, had a significant role in protecting the throat against infections, particularly until adolescence. It was found that the coccyx at the lower end of the vertebral column supports the bones around the pelvis and is the convergence point of some small muscles and for this reason, it would not be possible to sit comfortably without a coccyx. In the years that followed, it was realised that the thymus triggered the immune system in the human body by activating the T cells, that the pineal gland was in charge of the secretion of some important hormones, that the thyroid gland was effective in providing steady growth in babies and children, and that the pituitary gland controlled the correct functioning of many hormone glands. All of these were once conside- red to be "vestigial organs". Finally, the semi-lunar fold in the eye, which was referred to as a vestigial organ by Darwin, has been found in fact to be in charge of cleansing and lubricating the eyeball.


There was a very important logical error in the evolutionist claim regarding vestigial organs. As we have just seen, this claim was that the vestigial organs in living things were inherited from their ancestors. However, some of the alleged "vestigial" organs are not found in the species alleged to be the ancestors of human beings! For example, the appendix does not exist in some ape species that are said to be ancestors of man. The famous biologist H. Enoch, who challenged the theory of vestigial organs, expressed this logical error as follows:

痕跡器官に関する進化論者の主張には重要な論理的誤りがある。この主張では、生物の痕跡器官は先祖より受け継がれたものとされている。しかし、“痕跡”器官であると言われている器官のいくつかは、人間の先祖だと言われている種には見られないのである!例えば、人類の先祖だとされているいくつかの類人猿には虫垂はない。痕跡器官の論理に取り組んだ有名な生物学者(H. Enochは、論理的な誤りを次のように述べている。

Apes possess an appendix, whereas their less immediate relatives, the lower apes, do not; but it appears again among the still lower mammals such as the opossum. How can the evolutionists account for this?


[H. Enoch, Creation and Evolution, New York: 1966, pp. 18-19.]

Simply put, the scenario of vestigial organs put forward by evolutionists contains a number of serious logical flaws, and has in any case been proven to be scientifically untrue. There exists not one inherited vestigial organ in the human body, since human beings did not evolve from other creatures as a result of chance, but were created in their current, complete, and perfect form.


Vol.1 732-733

例によって古典的な創造論者の主張を繰り返すHarun Yahyaである。

が、ここで注目すべきは生物学者の著作物の引用だろう。創造論者による引用そのものが、既に使い古されているのがScadding[1981]で、もうひとりのH. Enochはとってもマイナーな人物である。

まず、引用が有名なScadding[1981]から。批判は RA. Cartwright and DL.Theobald (2003) が行っている。Cartwrite and Theobaldによれば、Scadding[1981]が掲載された雑誌は、査読を意図的にゆるめたものである:

This is an open journal. We welcome speculations and critical discussion of books, papers, or ideas. Short papers or even a few lines are appropriate, with no limit on maximum length. So are research suggestions or queries. We prefer a higher than usual probability of error to exclusion of new ideas, which are unorthodox by definition. Good taxonomic and other factual papers are welcome. Papers that disagree with the editors' views have a higher probability of acceptance than those that agree. Comments can be made on relevant papers in any journal at any time, or on more general questions. Comments and replies are reviewed like any other paper.


Vestigial organs represent simply a special case of homologous organs. . . . While homologies between animal species suggest a common origin, the argument . . . asserts that vestigial organs provide special additional evidence for evolution.

[Scadding 1981, p 173 ]

さらに、 RA. Cartwright and DL.Theobald (2003) は、痕跡器官が相同性を問わずとも進化の証拠だという点について:

Vestigial structures do offer evidence for evolution beyond the fact they are homologous. In the absence of evolutionary theory, there is no reason for wings to exist on flightless species or eyes to exist on blind species. The "proper" purpose (in Darwin's terms) of wings is for flight. The proper purpose of eyes is for sight. Rudimentary, flightless wings used for functions other than flight are vestigial, as are blind eyes used for something other than sight. Vestiges are truly functionless only with respect to their proper purposes. The coccyx may have many good functions, but as Naylor says, "certainly it is not functioning as an external tail for balance or grasping" (Naylor 1982, p 92). The human vermiform appendix may have a minor role in the development of the immune system, but it is not functioning as a cellulose-fermenting caecum. In contrast, fins and wings are homologous and are not vestigial organs, but the fins of a trout are functioning for their proper purpose, as are the wings of an eagle. That is the significant thing about vestiges they are special, puzzling cases of homology, and evolution explains the puzzle in a testable, scientific manner.



もうひとりのH. Enochとは何者かというと、ネット上にも情報がほとんどないマイナーな人物で、"若い地球の創造論"ミニストリ Answers in Genesis によれば:

what influenced David Watson to accept Genesis as literal? David says it was the writings of a creationist university professor who was teaching in Madras, India, in the 1950s.
David Watsonに創世記を字義どおりに受け入れさせたものは何だったのか。Davidによれば、それはマドラスの大学で教鞭をとっていた創造論者の大学教授の書物だった。

Professor Hannington Enoch, named after the famous Bishop of Uganda, was born in Trivandrum, south India. He taught university students for more than 30 years in Madras, and retired as Professor of Zoology in Presidency College. David says Professor Enoch was a devout Christian who puzzled over evolution for many years. The professor finally concluded that the theory of evolution was a colossal mistakea ‘grand illusion’.
ウガンダの有名な聖職者の名をとったHannington Enoch教授は、南インドのTrivandrumに生まれた。彼は30年にわたりマドラスの大学で教鞭をとり、Presidency Colledgeの動物学教授を退官した。Enoch教授は敬虔なキリスト教徒で、進化論に当惑してきた。教授は最後は進化論は驚くべき誤り、壮大な幻想だと結論した。
[ The man who got me hunting down evolution! -- Professor Enoch ]


まあ、なんだかんだで、Harun Yahyaの痕跡器官ネタは、創造論者の主張の範囲内。

最終更新:2009年11月25日 09:11