Can evolution produce new organs or structures? Theorists have no scientific evidence.
Excerpts: "Organs theorized to be developing but not yet useful (but which are hypothesized to become useful in later evolutionary development) are called ‘nascent organs’. Nascent organs must exist if Darwinian evolution is true, but Darwin expected them to be rare at any one time in history because they would supposedly soon be supplanted by more perfectly functional organs. A literature review shows that all extant human and animal organs are fully operative in healthy individuals. For this reason, almost all evolutionists have dropped the idea of nascent organs, and, instead, believe that all functional organs evolved from previously existing functional ones. However, functional organs require a minimum level of irreducible complexity, and therefore the need to originate as nascent organs. This is a problem for Darwinian evolution, since nascent organs do not appear to exist."
"Evolution is based on the idea that all organs developed from simpler ones; thus, once the original organ evolved, new and improved organs subsequently evolved from it. For an organ or structure to be selected by natural selection, it must first exist. The challenge Darwinists face is to find evidence of new organs evolving—such as a primitive protolung or heart. ‘Simpler’ hearts exist, but all are functional and designed to allow the specific organism to survive in its environment.1 A particular organ may be larger or more complex in one animal than in another, but that does not necessarily mean it is ‘more evolved’. The letter ‘T’, for example, is more complex than an ‘I’, but it is not better, only different; both letters are ‘perfect’ for the task for which they were designed (effective communication).
Organs theorized to be developing, but not yet useful (yet which are hypothesized to be useful in later evolutionary development) are called nascent organs. Darwin expected to find few nascent organs at any one time in the living world, arguing that they would soon be supplanted by their more perfect successors. He also expected them to be comparatively rare at any one time in history because they would be replaced by more functional organs that would persist for a long time if they conferred a clear survival advantage to the organism. Nevertheless, according to his theory, Darwin expected to find in the living world at least some organs in a ‘nascent condition, and progressing toward further development’. He also gave us some idea of what to look for, but noted that it often would be ‘difficult to distinguish between rudimentary (i.e. atrophied through disuse) and nascent organs’.
Nascent organs (and nascent carbohydrate, protein and lipid structures as well) not only were predicted by Darwinism, but many must have existed historically if evolutionism occurred—a logical expectation of evolution, since all organs and structures would have been at one time nascent. However, after a century and half of looking, researchers have not found evidence of a single nascent organ developing in any plant or animal because all known organs are currently functional. A 2005 search of the over 18 million journal articles in two scientific literature databases using the term ‘nascent organ’ revealed that not a single example of a nascent organ has been demonstrated or even postulated. Only five studies were located, all of which related to the normal development of embryos. This literature review, and the study of life in general, indicates that all extant human and animal organs are functional and fully developed in healthy animals. For this reason, almost all evolutionists have dropped the idea of nascent organs and, instead, believe that all functional organs evolved from previously existing functional organs, not nascent organs. A problem with this conclusion is explaining the source of completely new types of organs such as the liver or the special senses."
Nascent organs (and nascent carbohydrate, protein and lipid structures as well) not only were predicted by Darwinism, but many must have existed historically if evolutionism occurred—a logical expectation of evolution, since all organs and structures would have been at one time nascent. However, after a century and half of looking, researchers have not found evidence of a single nascent organ developing in any plant or animal because all known organs are currently functional. A 2005 search of the over 18 million journal articles in two scientific literature databases using the term ‘nascent organ’ revealed that not a single example of a nascent organ has been demonstrated or even postulated. Only five studies were located, all of which related to the normal development of embryos. This literature review, and the study of life in general, indicates that all extant human and animal organs are functional and fully developed in healthy animals. For this reason, almost all evolutionists have dropped the idea of nascent organs and, instead, believe that all functional organs evolved from previously existing functional organs, not nascent organs. A problem with this conclusion is explaining the source of completely new types of organs such as the liver or the special senses."
"A literature search has determined that no claimed examples of nascent organs or intermediate organs exist today. Consequently, it is widely recognized that Darwin’s theory of nascent organs has been disproved and replaced by a theory that postulates that all organs evolved from other simpler organs. This theory is also problematic in that organs must be of a certain complexity before they can function, a concept called ‘irreducible complexity’. Nascent organs are therefore still required in Darwinian theory but they do not appear to exist. (By Jerry Bergman) "
My comment: Why to maintain a theory that has no evidence?
