Creationism doesn't "predict" vestigia, it apologizes for it. You would never have heard a Creationist claiming it before they were discovered, and now RF is trying to redefine vestgial structures to make them sound as they are not: the typical Creationist plot of creating Strawmen and hoping to reel in the ignorant.
Vestigial Organs and Structures
Vestigial organs and structures (also called vestigia, rudiments, or remnants) are reduced body parts or organs, often without visible function in the derived bearers, that were fully developed and functioning in earlier members of that phylogenetic lineage. These structures, sometimes described as atrophied or degenerate, are usually small in comparison with their relative size in ancestral generations or in closely related species. ... vestigial structures may have acquired new, less obvious functions that differ from the original ones. Hence, a vestigium should not generally be considered without function, or only with respect to its ancestral, adult roles.
(Encyclopedia of Evolution 2002, pp 1131-1133)
Gee, no wonder RF can claim its only 7 (its at least 10, btw, but facts don't concern him), because he is just redefining them out of exsistence.
What is it about you RF that you must define your god into existence and redefine the challenges to your creation out?
Even the etymology of "vestigial" signals that it does not mean "without function." "Vestige" and "vestigial" derive from the Latin word vestigium, which means "footprint, trace, mark, or track" and does not carry the meaning of "functionless, useless." It is significant that biologists chose the term "vestigial" over derivitaves of irritus, inutilis, inanis, or reiculus, which all carry the meaning of "functionless, useless."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/scadding.htmlCreationists should learn science before they try to destroy it. Before they tear down Reason in favor of Faith.
Claim CB361.1:
Even if a vestigial organ has no use today, we can be sure it had a function in the past. God does not make junk, but things deteriorated after sin entered the world. Calling an organ useless reflects evolutionary thinking.
Source:
Morris, John D. 2005. Does the gallbladder have a necessary function? Back to Genesis 194d (Feb.).
Response:
This claim is dogmatic assertion. It is based purely on personal religious belief; it cannot be tested against evidence. It is scientifically useless.
The idea that death and decay entered the world only after the original creation implies that many presently functional organs were originally useless. For example, defenses would have had no function when there were no threats to defend against.
Calling an organ useless reflects its having no detectable use, nothing more. Morris's view of deteriorating life is also evolutionary thinking, just with a very different mechanism of evolution.
Vestigial does not mean useless.
(RF has made this argument in the past, btw.)
