Riddle me this

If the suggestion here is then that the same vestigial organs ought to be found independently across "millions" of different organisms, they just aren't and would be a silly argument to use against evolutionary theory. If you are saying that a lot of species show redundant features as such then well, yes: powerfully suggesting the mechanism of slow change. The suggestion that individual examples "may have had an original purpose or be an offshoot of a combination of something [else]" seems special pleading. The most obvious vestigial, and probably useless, structure specifically in the human body would be the plantaris tendon. In other apes and monkeys, this tendon enables the animal to clench its foot into a fist. In humans, the tendon is reduced, its place of attachment is highly variable, and obviously we can’t make fists of our feet. About one human in eight lacks a plantaris tendon entirely, suggesting that it is indeed useless. A better means to establish common descent would be that of genetic study.


If one accepts that humans are the result of evolution rather than any 'design', then one must perforce agree with you, though it is easier to attribute vestigiality to just plain redundancy (although a vestigial organ might have lost its main function but remain functional in other ways) without adding other value judgements. If one implies design from a judgement of versatility and consistency, then one can also ask if redundancy is ever efficient design. If we are considering 'bad' design per se then we can take the cases of the human knee and eye, both examples for which human engineers can easily suggest better ways to go about things with the improved results in utility.