What Is Wrong With The Human Body?

[BobG]

On another thread, it was mentioned that if God made us, why are there so many things wrong with us? This is especially true when it is said that God made us in his own image. It's actually that man made God in his own image!

Regardless, I thought it would be interesting to start a thread discussing all that is wrong with the human body. I just hope it doesn't get too depressing.:)

I'll start.

1. The unnecessary appendix.

2. A terrible waste disposal system.

3. Lack of the strength of a chimpanzee, the eyesight of an eagle, the smell of hound dog and the hearing of bat! Why not on this one? Why should he, while he is at the drawing board, not achieve these capabilities?

4. A very weak back. It could have been beefed up a bit.

5. Troublesome knees.

[SphereGuy]

Short service life. And what's with 1 hour orgasms? Couldn't they be a bit longer?

[Mojo]

(Male) genitalia at kickable height.

Teeth that don't last long enough.

Actually, pretty much everything starts going downhill after about 35 or so - I thought it was supposed to be designed to last three score years and ten. Now where's that warranty?

[Ashles]

Testicles... on the outside?

Yes I know they function better at slightly cooler temperatures but... here's a thought God... why not make them work... AT BODY TEMPERATURE!

Then we can tuck them away deep inside the ribcage in some form of bony box. Surrounded in concrete and cotton wool.

[VisionFromFeeling]

1. The unnecessary appendix.Actually isn't the appendix involved in the digestion of plant matter? It's unnecessary today since people don't eat raw, unprocessed, wild (uncultivated) plants anymore. [/unfounded claim based on Vision From Feeling (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/)] Sorry for ruining the thread.

But here's another one: painful childbirth and risk for death at labor. Women losing their body tone after having and breastfeeding children.

By the way women couldn't have been made out of the rib of a man because all babies begin developing into females and only after a few weeks do some change course and become male, which is why men have nipples by the way. Also all mitochondrial DNA, in males and females, is purely female DNA passed down from mothers across countless generations and has nothing to do with men what so ever.

[EHocking]

Turning off the gene that enabled Vitamin C production.

[jmcvann]

2. A terrible waste disposal system.


the fact that we have a waste disposal system at all. why weren't we made to process everything? and everything else made to be processed by us?

[VisionFromFeeling]

The fact that the human body will absorb unhealthy substances from the food that we eat and is unable to distinguish between what is truly good for us and what is not, and will build toxins and other harmful material into our body. Now why would God allow that?

[The Man]

An immune system that can attack more than it protects.

See this list of autoimmune diseases.

http://www.aarda.org/research_display.php?ID=47

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually isn't the appendix involved in the digestion of plant matter?
No.
It's unnecessary today since people don't eat raw, unprocessed, wild (uncultivated) plants anymore. [/unfounded claim based on Vision From Feeling (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/)]
Yes, it's an unfounded and false claim. It's also easily disproven. Ask anyone who's had an appendectomy to eat a "raw, unprocessed, wild (uncultivated) plant" and see if they can't digest it.
______________

My contribution to the thread: apparently God created us with the need for constant chiropractic adjustments! ;)

Oh yeah, and an insatiable need for lecithin. L-E-C-I-T-H-I-N. :rolleyes:

[JoeTheJuggler]

Turning off the gene that enabled Vitamin C production.
Interesting point. My first response was, "Well if the body produced that substance, we wouldn't call it a vitamin."

And that led me to a broader framing of your observation, "Why didn't God design us to be an autotroph?"

My other contribution: debilitation due to aging, that is, grey hair and so on. And death. Why would an all-powerful creator inflict we who were created in his image with programmed cell death?

[Rrose Selavy]

and why if he wanted us to fly did he give us such small wings?

[JFrankA]

and why if he wanted us to fly did he give us such small wings?

Yeah, flying works for birds, hell why can't we have that ability?

Wait. I want more: I want to be able to survive space and be able to fly to other planets, bending time so that I can still keep in touch with my loved ones on Earth while I travel to the Andromeda Galaxy for a quick holiday with my girlfriend....

....what? Too much to ask?????

[Fnord]

By the time we learn how to really appreciate the shear joy of a shared sexual experience, we're too old to do much about it.

Only six or seven ejaculations/orgasms in an hour? How about a "continuous wave" until exhaustion and/or chafing sets in?

Not all evil people are ugly, and not all good people are pretty.

For that matter, good people die just the same as evil people. Evil people should die hideously sooner, and good people should just go on healthy and youthful, and for as long as they want.

Bad cholesterol. Discuss.

Fat cells. Ditto.

Are we meant to have hair or not? It grows in, then it falls out. Wassup widdat?

Same for teeth.

[KingMerv00]

Actually isn't the appendix involved in the digestion of plant matter?

The original purpose of the appendix was to digest cellulose (and possibly other things). There is also apparently some debate about whether or not the appendix currently has some value to the immune system but I'm no biologist.

But here's another one: painful childbirth and risk for death at labor.

Death for mother AND baby.

Also all mitochondrial DNA, in males and females, is purely female DNA passed down from mothers across countless generations and has nothing to do with men what so ever.

I am familiar with mitochondrial DNA but I never considered if it served a function or not. Does anyone have a link?

[KingMerv00]

Interesting point. My first response was, "Well if the body produced that substance, we wouldn't call it a vitamin."

Don't we make vitamin D?

[KingMerv00]

The prostate ultimately fails to function properly in 1 of every 3 men.

[Floyt]

- The design of the throat. Having larynx and esophagus cross over and then installing a swivel valve was a bit of an odd design decision.

- Wisdom teeth. At least we could also have gotten a prehensile trunk to fish them out of our moths and fling them at people as elefants seem to enjoy doing in zoos!

- Knee joints and kneecaps. The Ellbow Model is a lot less liable to seize up/run out of lubrication/get hit with baseball bats.

[I Ratant]

The sewer that runs thru the major pleasure center.
Cataracts... and the eye is designed backwards to start!
Arthritis.
Cooper's droop.

[Maia]

Ahem.... this is IMHO, of course. YMMV. Y'all do know that, right?

There's nothing "wrong" with the human body. At all. It is what it is. We are what we are. The problem is when we start expecting our bodies to be something that they're not, and to live up to some artificial, impossible standard of perfection.

Now, let me tell y'all why I have this attitude. There is no way in the world that I should be alive. I was in a car accident when I was 18 years old that absolutely should have killed me. I broke 13 bones and had to have 12 operations; I was in 2 hospitals for almost two months total (and yes, it's true that after a total hip replacement, the average patient is kicked out in four days; after a knee replacement, you get three. That gives you some idea of just how serious those injuries were!) I had a closed head injury. I had optic nerve damage. I was rodded, pinned, plated, and nailed back together. I had YEARS of MANY different types of physical therapy to get back to where I am. I have to take a handful of anticonvulsant and stimulant medications every day because of epilepsy and functional ADHD from the head injury, and I'm legally blind in one eye (still hoping for stem cell research to get to the point where that can be fixed! Someday...)

And nobody ever, EVER guesses that any of this happened to me today if I don't tell them. I can basically do anything I want to do. I drive. I study. I work. I go to kickboxing classes!! It is a HUGE achievement. Nobody will ever know how hard I worked to get here.

So I have to tell y'all, I don't have a whole lot of patience with "oh, woe is me, why isn't the human body perfectly put together!" (Yes, I know, self-righteousness is so unattractive, isn't it?) ;) But I EARNED the right to make preachy,snippy posts like this!! That's my .02 cents,anyway.

[The Man]

Are we meant to have hair or not? It grows in, then it falls out. Wassup widdat?



Reminds me of the old burma-shave slogan.


“Within this vale of toil and sin your head grows bald but not your chin.”

[Akhenaten]

Red hair makes them go all ROOAAWHR!!eleven! on you.

@ Maia

:)

Love you even more now. Thanks for sharing.



PS Ooh look, a new avat . . . ZOMG!!!

[aggle-rithm]

The prostate ultimately fails to function properly in 1 of every 3 men.

The urethra running through the prostate is pretty stupid. However, it's not as stupid as the similar construction in the giant squid, where the esophagus runs through the brain. Too big of a bite, and they suffer fatal brain damage.

[Rrose Selavy]

The sewer that runs thru the major pleasure center.
.

You mean our dirty minds....?



and why do our eyes "see" everything upside down then making the brain turn the world the right way up?

-

[Akhenaten]

http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/ExcuseMe.jpg

[Bikewer]

Knees. Nuff said.

[Jeff Corey]

I had a bio prof who bitched about the lower back design and Hemorrhoids, I wonder why?

[thaiboxerken]

We're not transformers. That would've been cool.

[Stray Cat]

The minds apparent fixation with sex, when (we are told by those god squadders) God doesn't like us having those thoughts.

But then again he also put our genitals within easy reach and yet doesn't like us to play with them.

Or maybe it's just me that's a sex mad w****er

[I Ratant]

The minds apparent fixation with sex, when (we are told by those god squadders) God doesn't like us having those thoughts.

But then again he also put our genitals within easy reach and yet doesn't like us to play with them.

Or maybe it's just me that's a sex mad w****er
.
You are not alone!

[JoeTheJuggler]

Don't we make vitamin D?
Vitamin D is a class, and some members of that class are produced in the body. But the term "vitamin" means, in part, something that we have to take in as a nutrient. That's why it led me to the broader question of why we aren't perfect autotrophs? (If it's better not to need some nutrients, wouldn't it be best not to need any?)

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's nothing "wrong" with the human body. At all. It is what it is. We are what we are. The problem is when we start expecting our bodies to be something that they're not, and to live up to some artificial, impossible standard of perfection.

I think most all of us agree with you. The conceit of the thread, I think, was "If God designed us, why are there what appears to be design flaws?"

The answer of course is that God didn't create us and we weren't actually designed.

Evolution often selects old structures for new functions, for example.

[JoeTheJuggler]

A sign of very poor design: our bodies are home to so many yucky other organisms. Why couldn't God figure out a way to digest food and whatnot without all these gross and soulless lesser organisms?

[shandyjan]

Sweat and sweat glands.... gross! Why not just an internal thermostat?

[Uncayimmy]

Psychological problems like delusions and narcissistic personality disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder), which wouldn't be so bad if psychologically we were not predisposed to put up with the crap and form a society.

Oh, and piss shivers (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1044/what-causes-piss-shiver).

[Wolrab]

A sign of very poor design: our bodies are home to so many yucky other organisms. Why couldn't God figure out a way to digest food and whatnot without all these gross and soulless lesser organisms?

I'm getting to be of the mind that we are designed by bacteria to allow them to spread effectively. Hell, they out number our cells 10 to 1. They may just be evolving us so they can ride us to space.

[arthwollipot]

Did you realise that our retinas are installed backwards? The light-sensitive cells are behind multiple layers of nerves, blood vessels and other stuff. The nerves that attach to the photoreceptors protrude into our eyeballs, where they have to run over the surface of the retina before diving through a hole (the fovea) and heading off to the brain. The fovea is why we have a blind spot - look on YouTube for Richard Wiseman's Disappearing Head.

The best part? The eyes of squid and octopus have the retinas installed the right way round.

[KingMerv00]

Ahem.... this is IMHO, of course. YMMV. Y'all do know that, right?

There's nothing "wrong" with the human body. At all. It is what it is. We are what we are. The problem is when we start expecting our bodies to be something that they're not, and to live up to some artificial, impossible standard of perfection.

We aren't really ranting against the human body. We are ranting against the idea of a perfect creator.

[IXP]

Boogers. (And a society which does not allow their timely removal.)

IXP

[IMST]

Yeah, knees. Seriously. If there turns out to me some kind of designer deity that we get to meet after death, we're going to have a serious conversation about what the **** it was thinking when it designed those.

[themusicteacher]

We're not transformers. That would've been cool.

LOL. Someday, Ken. Someday...

[PlayingDeaf]

A lot of the wrongs posted aren't wrong, they're just wanted attributes.

Of course, plenty is wrong though.
Oh cry over your knees some more.

But what if we didn't have anything wrong and had all the top animal attributes. It would be a crazy **** world.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Seems like the 'designer' wasn't very good at it. I guess one man's 'irreducible complexity' is another man's jumbled together evolved 'just good enough' mechanism. Evolution produces results, but not the results one would expect from design, especially in that evolution can happen when a mechanism evolved for one purpose breaks and does something it's not designed to do. The human body is patched together, with bug fix stacked on bug fix. The only DESIGNED products I know that are like that come from Microsoft.

A

[BenBurch]

OK, What if there is an IMPERFECT creator, or even an INDIFFERENT one?

What if the Universe was made as a device for studying Dark Energy, and the Creator of it is either barely aware things like us might be here, or utterly and blissfully ignorant of that?

Then the imperfections evolution left us with are no proof one way or the other of the existence of that class of Creator.

Not that I believe this, but I am just pointing it out...

[rjh01]

Did you realise that our retinas are installed backwards? The light-sensitive cells are behind multiple layers of nerves, blood vessels and other stuff. The nerves that attach to the photoreceptors protrude into our eyeballs, where they have to run over the surface of the retina before diving through a hole (the fovea) and heading off to the brain. The fovea is why we have a blind spot - look on YouTube for Richard Wiseman's Disappearing Head.

The best part? The eyes of squid and octopus have the retinas installed the right way round.


Not only that but we cannot see into the ultra violet or infra red regions as per many reptiles. This is because the early mammals were nocturnal in order to hide from the reptiles. Then God saw that was wrong and wiped most of them out via a well aimed rock.

[Dorcas]

Appendix Isn't Useless At All: It's A Safe House For Good Bacteria

Science Daily

[Andrew Wiggin]

Appendix Isn't Useless At All: It's A Safe House For Good Bacteria

Science Daily

Tell that to mine. It's in a jar somewhere after almost killing me a couple years back. Seriously, can you be a bit more specific that 'Science Daily', maybe post a link?

A.

[BobG]

Did you realise that our retinas are installed backwards? The light-sensitive cells are behind multiple layers of nerves, blood vessels and other stuff. The nerves that attach to the photoreceptors protrude into our eyeballs, where they have to run over the surface of the retina before diving through a hole (the fovea) and heading off to the brain. The fovea is why we have a blind spot - look on YouTube for Richard Wiseman's Disappearing Head.

The best part? The eyes of squid and octopus have the retinas installed the right way round.

This is good to know because the eye is often used by creationists as an example of something that could not have evolved. So the designer screwed up with their own example of perfection!

[H3LL]

Three arguments:

If you are bored - jump to 3:40 (ish)

0123R6vjIoE

:D

[Agatha]

An immune system that can attack more than it protects.

See this list of autoimmune diseases.

http://www.aarda.org/research_display.php?ID=47

If I believed in a creator, I'd be blooming annoyed that he/she/it saddled me with Crohn's and all the attendant complications.

[BobG]

There's nothing "wrong" with the human body. At all. It is what it is. We are what we are. The problem is when we start expecting our bodies to be something that they're not, and to live up to some artificial, impossible standard of perfection.

I think most all of us agree with you. The conceit of the thread, I think, was "If God designed us, why are there what appears to be design flaws?"




I don't think you have a clue where Maia is coming from!

[BobG]

Has anybody mentioned that we are naturally xenophobic?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't think you have a clue where Maia is coming from!
And I think you're wrong.

[Mojo]

Testicles... on the outside?


Worse still, testicles on the outside that originate within the abdomen, resulting in weakening of the abdominal wall and increased risk of inguinal hernias. If He had to put them on the outside, couldn't he at least have had them grow that way?

[Cainkane1]

Ahem.... this is IMHO, of course. YMMV. Y'all do know that, right?

There's nothing "wrong" with the human body. At all. It is what it is. We are what we are. The problem is when we start expecting our bodies to be something that they're not, and to live up to some artificial, impossible standard of perfection.

Now, let me tell y'all why I have this attitude. There is no way in the world that I should be alive. I was in a car accident when I was 18 years old that absolutely should have killed me. I broke 13 bones and had to have 12 operations; I was in 2 hospitals for almost two months total (and yes, it's true that after a total hip replacement, the average patient is kicked out in four days; after a knee replacement, you get three. That gives you some idea of just how serious those injuries were!) I had a closed head injury. I had optic nerve damage. I was rodded, pinned, plated, and nailed back together. I had YEARS of MANY different types of physical therapy to get back to where I am. I have to take a handful of anticonvulsant and stimulant medications every day because of epilepsy and functional ADHD from the head injury, and I'm legally blind in one eye (still hoping for stem cell research to get to the point where that can be fixed! Someday...)

And nobody ever, EVER guesses that any of this happened to me today if I don't tell them. I can basically do anything I want to do. I drive. I study. I work. I go to kickboxing classes!! It is a HUGE achievement. Nobody will ever know how hard I worked to get here.

So I have to tell y'all, I don't have a whole lot of patience with "oh, woe is me, why isn't the human body perfectly put together!" (Yes, I know, self-righteousness is so unattractive, isn't it?) ;) But I EARNED the right to make preachy,snippy posts like this!! That's my .02 cents,anyway.
I have to ask this question. Were you able to accomplishment all of these things because of the way our bodies evolved or despite them?

Incidentally I'm happy for you and good luck in the future. Sorry the accident happened you.

[Cainkane1]

If I believed in a creator, I'd be blooming annoyed that he/she/it saddled me with Crohn's and all the attendant complications.
having chronic asthma, spinal scholiosis and lack of short term memory kinda sorta disappoints me.

[Akhenaten]

Has anybody mentioned that we are naturally xenophobic?


No, we're too terrified of other peoples' opinions.

[SphereGuy]

And what's the deal with giving us arms and hands that can't reach every single part of our body? (On a side note, the position of "Starthinker's Back Washer" is currently open.) Or with not being able to see in all directions at once? And what's this "one mate for life" crapola?

[Cainkane1]

OK, What if there is an IMPERFECT creator, or even an INDIFFERENT one?

What if the Universe was made as a device for studying Dark Energy, and the Creator of it is either barely aware things like us might be here, or utterly and blissfully ignorant of that?

Then the imperfections evolution left us with are no proof one way or the other of the existence of that class of Creator.

Not that I believe this, but I am just pointing it out...
This would explain a great deal. A God who ignores prayers and a God who lets bad things happen to good people. A God who apparently sits on his hands while atrocities happen etc.

[Ixion]

An immune system that can attack more than it protects.

See this list of autoimmune diseases.

http://www.aarda.org/research_display.php?ID=47

I just have to comment on this, being an immunologist. Compare the list of autoimmune diseases to the number of pathogens and potential pathogens your immune system protects against. I am not arguing that there is a deity, but rather that your immune system is pretty damn efficient considering the job it has to fulfill.

[BobG]

And what's this "one mate for life" crapola?

This is man's law! And IMHO, nature did not intend it that way; however, there are good reasons for the institution of marriage and having only one mate.

[critterrice]

Interesting point. My first response was, "Well if the body produced that substance, we wouldn't call it a vitamin."


But our skin makes Vitamin D. Speaking of which, why is sunlight both carcinogenic and required for vitamin D production?
Sunlight is beneficial to the production of a number of beneficial hormones, but it causes cancer! Why would that be? A failsafe to keep us from getting "too healthy?"

[Akhenaten]

This is man's law! And IMHO, nature did not intend it that way; however, there are good reasons for the institution of marriage and having only one mate.


Gibbons, wolves, termites, coyotes, barn owls, beavers, bald eagles, golden eagles, condors, swans, brolga cranes, French angel fish, sandhill cranes, pigeons, prions, red-tailed hawks, anglerfish, ospreys, prairie voles and black vultures disagree with you.

[I Ratant]

Gibbons, wolves, termites, coyotes, barn owls, beavers, bald eagles, golden eagles, condors, swans, brolga cranes, French angel fish, sandhill cranes, pigeons, prions, red-tailed hawks, anglerfish, ospreys, prairie voles and black vultures disagree with you.
.
And Mormons, and Muslims, and Evangelist preachers.

[tesscaline]

I just have to comment on this, being an immunologist. Compare the list of autoimmune diseases to the number of pathogens and potential pathogens your immune system protects against. I am not arguing that there is a deity, but rather that your immune system is pretty damn efficient considering the job it has to fulfill.The argument wasn't necessarily that it's not good at it's job. It's more along the lines of that it's too good at it's job and attacks more things than it is supposed to.

Example: My immune system nearly killed me a year and a half ago by clogging my lungs up with white blood cells (eosinophils) which were attacking not a pathogen of any sort, but my own lung tissues instead.

You want to talk about errors in specification, that would definitely be one :)

[Ixion]

The argument wasn't necessarily that it's not good at it's job. It's more along the lines of that it's too good at it's job and attacks more things than it is supposed to.

Example: My immune system nearly killed me a year and a half ago by clogging my lungs up with white blood cells (eosinophils) which were attacking not a pathogen of any sort, but my own lung tissues instead.

You want to talk about errors in specification, that would definitely be one :)

I guess I interpreted the post differently. The Man was speaking that the immune system should "attack" more than it protects, which it does. It is certainly true that it can become hypersensitive and go haywire and probably does more than it should. Not a perfect system, by any means. :)

[tesscaline]

I guess I interpreted the post differently. The Man was speaking that the immune system should "attack" more than it protects, which it does. It is certainly true that it can become hypersensitive and go haywire and probably does more than it should. Not a perfect system, by any means. :)
I assumed the "can" was a typo, since listing auto immune diseases didn't really fit with the idea that the immune system doesn't attack enough things :)

[Ixion]

I assumed the "can" was a typo, since listing auto immune diseases didn't really fit with the idea that the immune system doesn't attack enough things :)

Good point

[Wowbagger]

You can't look at any part of the body without finding some flaw, and some subtle adaption for dealing with that flaw.

[Floyt]

The urethra running through the prostate is pretty stupid. However, it's not as stupid as the similar construction in the giant squid, where the esophagus runs through the brain. Too big of a bite, and they suffer fatal brain damage.

Aaah, mollusc evolution. A prof of mine used to give one lecture informally called "How to turn a lawnmower into a drag racer", showing how your basic snail got warped to become a squid. The lawnmower trundles along, being drip-fed fuel through a veritable capillary. When the ineffable decision was made to upgrade to high-speed hunter-killer, it was canted upright by 90 degrees and equipped with jet propulsion. But the drip feed was kept. Yep, your truck-size Architeuthis still has a garden snail-type radula to grind pieces of sperm whale into fine sludge, in order to force them through a gullet of a few mm radius. Through the middle of its brain.

Massively successful design in evolutionary terms, regardless.

[Yoink]

Three arguments:

If you are bored - jump to 3:40 (ish)

0123R6vjIoE

:D

That was great! I like the "biting the inside of your own cheek one" which I don't think has been mentioned in the thread yet. That does seem like a sloppy touch from a divine designer.

[Yoink]

OK, What if there is an IMPERFECT creator, or even an INDIFFERENT one?

What if the Universe was made as a device for studying Dark Energy, and the Creator of it is either barely aware things like us might be here, or utterly and blissfully ignorant of that?

Then the imperfections evolution left us with are no proof one way or the other of the existence of that class of Creator.

Not that I believe this, but I am just pointing it out...

Yes, I'm always puzzled by the way people take the argument from design to imply the existence of "God" as an omniscient, omnipotent, loving being etc. etc. Even if one were to accept the necessity of a designer I can't see the remotest argument for the perfection of that designer.

[Eyeron]

Poo. Too much waste excreted.

Teeth.

Hari.

Eyes.

Cancer.

No recycling of food.

No wings.

We don't have the ability to fire bullets out of our hands. If God wanted us to have guns he would've made it so that we could fire bullets out of our fingers.

Mental illness.

Giving us the herding behavior when we're supposed to have free will.

No longevity. People in the bible have lived over six centuries.

Poor eyesight.

Low energy.

High maintenance.

Unhealthy fat.

No regeneration of limbs or organs.

[I Ratant]

When one accepts the idea that humanity (ones self) is the ultimate end of creation, then perfection in design is part of swallowing that line of self-congratulation, while ignoring all the many blunders that in fact exist.

If there were a intentional design at all, instead of a collage of parts that work OK sometimes and sometimes not so OK then it would be less fun to point out all these physical problems to the true believers.
Evolution, the driver of the collage that is us has no direction, we're just "lucky" it works in the slap-dash manner it does.

[Rrose Selavy]

Hari.



EH?

[Marduk]

I cannot possibly imagine a compassionate God who would allow my sexual perversions to get deeper and darker with age while at the same time take away my ability to realise those fantasies with each passing day

I mean, what a bastard
:D

[Jeff Corey]

Did you realise that our retinas are installed backwards? The light-sensitive cells are behind multiple layers of nerves, blood vessels and other stuff. The nerves that attach to the photoreceptors protrude into our eyeballs, where they have to run over the surface of the retina before diving through a hole (the fovea) and heading off to the brain. The fovea is why we have a blind spot - look on YouTube for Richard Wiseman's Disappearing Head.

The best part? The eyes of squid and octopus have the retinas installed the right way round.

That blind sport in humans is located near the fovea, but displaced nasally. This is why the old demo in every intro psych book asks you to look directly at some stimulus, centering it on the fovea, and a nearby stimulus disappears.
There is another, called the night blind sport, which centered in the fovea. This is because the fovea only contains cones, responsible for daylight high acuity color vision. At low level of illumination, the cones don't respond. So if you want to view a dim star at night, look slightly to the side.

[vIQleS]

- The design of the throat. Having larynx and esophagus cross over and then installing a swivel valve was a bit of an odd design decision.

I can't see why you have a problem with this...

I can think of no purpose whatsoever for wanting someone to insert something in their throat while still being able to breath...

:p

[Rodney]

The original purpose of the appendix was to digest cellulose (and possibly other things). There is also apparently some debate about whether or not the appendix currently has some value to the immune system but I'm no biologist.
"Loren G. Martin, a professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University, argues that the appendix has a function in fetuses and adults. Endocrine cells have been found in the appendix of 11 week old fetuses that contribute to 'biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms.' In adults, Martin argues that the appendix acts as a lymphatic organ. The appendix is experimentally verified as being rich in infection-fighting lymphoid cells, suggesting that it might play a role in the immune system. Zahid suggests that it plays a role in both manufacturing hormones in fetal development as well as functioning to 'train' the immune system, exposing the body to antigens so that it can produce antibodies. He notes that doctors in the last decade have stopped removing the appendix during other surgical procedures as a routine precaution, because it can be successfully transplanted into the urinary tract to rebuild a sphincter muscle and reconstruct a functional bladder." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix

[paximperium]

"Loren G. Martin, a professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University, argues that the appendix has a function in fetuses and adults. Endocrine cells have been found in the appendix of 11 week old fetuses that contribute to 'biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms.' In adults, Martin argues that the appendix acts as a lymphatic organ. The appendix is experimentally verified as being rich in infection-fighting lymphoid cells, suggesting that it might play a role in the immune system. Zahid suggests that it plays a role in both manufacturing hormones in fetal development as well as functioning to 'train' the immune system, exposing the body to antigens so that it can produce antibodies. He notes that doctors in the last decade have stopped removing the appendix during other surgical procedures as a routine precaution, because it can be successfully transplanted into the urinary tract to rebuild a sphincter muscle and reconstruct a functional bladder." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix
Yes indeed. It has been known that the appendix has minimal functions. It is still a vestigial organ.

[Rodney]

Yes indeed. It has been known that the appendix has minimal functions. It is still a vestigial organ.
Not known to Professor Martin, apparently.

[KingMerv00]

Not known to Professor Martin, apparently.

You don't know what "vestigial" means.

If you want examples of completely useless vestiges look here (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#vestiges).


Olivier's Spalax, which lives underground like the mole, and is apparently exposed to daylight even less than the mole, has altogether lost the use of sight: so that it shows nothing more than vestiges of this organ. Even these vestiges are entirely hidden under the skin and other parts, which cover them up and do not leave the slightest access to light.

The Proteus, an aquatic reptile allied to the salamanders, and living in deep dark caves under water, has, like the Spalax, only vestiges of the organ of sight, vestiges which are covered up and hidden in the same way."

There are many examples of flightless beetles (such as the weevils of the genus Lucanidae) which retain perfectly formed wings housed underneath fused wing covers.

[Maia]

I have to ask this question. Were you able to accomplishment all of these things because of the way our bodies evolved or despite them?

Incidentally I'm happy for you and good luck in the future. Sorry the accident happened you.


I don't know. I thought about it for a while, and I still don't know. I'm not sure that it was either. I mean, all of those injuries came about because of a decidedly unnatural cause (we didn't exactly evolve to hurtle down the road at 90 mph in a cage of metal which could easily collide with a much bigger one when unbelievable dumbness became involved, as it did with the driver of the car I was in.) The human body does have the capacity to heal, and clearly none of that would have happened without that capacity. Good doctors and physical therapists were involved. :) But I think the point is that I absolutely refused to give up, that I pushed myself through everything I had to do to get here, and that's why I'm here. So what we're talking about, I think, is why the mind evolved that way... or did it happen because of sheer insane stubborness on my part... was it free will? Was it an existential choice? Now, that's an entirely different question. ;)

[Delvo]

This would explain a great deal. A God who ignores prayers and a God who lets bad things happen to good people. A God who apparently sits on his hands while atrocities happen etc.Another option, other than that God doesn't know or care, is that he's a meanie.

Compare the list of autoimmune diseases to the number of pathogens and potential pathogens your immune system protects against. I am not arguing that there is a deity, but rather that your immune system is pretty damn efficient considering the job it has to fulfill.These complaints about what's supposedly wrong with our "design" tend to ignore what things were actually designed for. Knees and spine come up a lot, but they have trouble because they get abused. They're perfectly good for the environment we were actually designed for. It's our own fault that we cover natural ground with flat hard surfaces.

[bob_cadaver]

Male pattern baldness. Why, God, WHY

and for the ladies: painful menstruation with attendant bloating, pimples and supercrabbiness as opposed to monthly cellulite cell deaths, wrinkle reduction and a sudden abundance of exuberance. What the flying eff is a monthly course of pain and bloating good for as opposed to my alternatives?

[arthwollipot]

This is good to know because the eye is often used by creationists as an example of something that could not have evolved. So the designer screwed up with their own example of perfection!Naah. They post hoc it away by saying that the cephalopod eyes are designed to perform a different purpose and the optical characteristics of seawater are different from those of air.

I tried it.

[Akhenaten]

That blind sport in humans is located near the fovea, but displaced nasally. This is why the old demo in every intro psych book asks you to look directly at some stimulus, centering it on the fovea, and a nearby stimulus disappears.
There is another, called the night blind sport, which centered in the fovea. This is because the fovea only contains cones, responsible for daylight high acuity color vision. At low level of illumination, the cones don't respond. So if you want to view a dim star at night, look slightly to the side.


Soldiers are trained to use "off-centre vision" to see targets at night. It becomes second-nature to do it after a while, but I still find it remarkable sometimes when a dimly-perceived blob suddenly takes on shape and features when I shift the centre of my vision by a few degrees.


I might just write "centre" one more time. ;)

[Rodney]

You don't know what "vestigial" means.
Sorry, but for many years schoolchildren have been taught, to quote Wikipedia, "that the human appendix is a vestigial structure which does absolutely nothing for the body." If Professor Martin is correct, that's dead wrong.

[paximperium]

Sorry, but for many years schoolchildren have been taught, to quote Wikipedia, "that the human appendix is a vestigial structure which does absolutely nothing for the body." If Professor Martin is correct, that's dead wrong.
So you have no idea what vestigial is. Got it.

[critterrice]

Example: My immune system nearly killed me a year and a half ago by clogging my lungs up with white blood cells (eosinophils) which were attacking not a pathogen of any sort, but my own lung tissues instead.



There's also Graves disease, caused by an overproduction of thyroxine when your immune system mistakenly attacks the thyroid gland.

[critterrice]

I think it's important to mention various types of gonadal dysgenesis and intersex conditions (hermaphroditism/pseudohermaphroditism) where a persons primaray and secondary or internal and external sex organs or different.
Mutated SRY genes, 5-Alpha-reductase, deficiencies, Androgen insensitivity syndrom, gender confusion, et al.
The evidence would indicate that these are imperfect designs.
However, my opinion is: "Good!"
I can conjure a picture of a perfect race of humans in my head and it bores the **** out of me.

[BobG]

I think it's important to mention various types of gonadal dysgenesis and intersex conditions (hermaphroditism/pseudohermaphroditism) where a persons primaray and secondary or internal and external sex organs or different.



This is one of the cruelest jokes that nature can play on a person! It's very sad.

[ZirconBlue]

If you want examples of completely useless vestiges look here (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#vestiges).

The Proteus, an aquatic reptile allied to the salamanders, and living in deep dark caves under water, has, like the Spalax, only vestiges of the organ of sight, vestiges which are covered up and hidden in the same way."

Allied to the salamanders? Against whom? Who is covering up this Vast Ampibo-Reptile Conspiracy?

[aofl]

Having just been diagnosed with diabetes, I think the aging body's inability to scrub the sugar properly from its bloodstream is pretty crappy. But I might be biased.

A

[I Ratant]

I think it's important to mention various types of gonadal dysgenesis and intersex conditions (hermaphroditism/pseudohermaphroditism) where a persons primaray and secondary or internal and external sex organs or different.
Mutated SRY genes, 5-Alpha-reductase, deficiencies, Androgen insensitivity syndrom, gender confusion, et al.
The evidence would indicate that these are imperfect designs.
However, my opinion is: "Good!"
I can conjure a picture of a perfect race of humans in my head and it bores the **** out of me.
.
Vive all those differences jiggling around out there!

[I Ratant]

Having just been diagnosed with diabetes, I think the aging body's inability to scrub the sugar properly from its bloodstream is pretty crappy. But I might be biased.

A
.
Diet, exercise, medication, and take care of your feet!

[Rodney]

So you have no idea what vestigial is. Got it.
I know what both "vestigial" and "denial" mean.

[paximperium]

I know what both "vestigial" and "denial" mean.
You are an expert in denial.
So why are you bringing up functions of vestigial organs? If you do know what vestigial means what is the relevance?

[KingMerv00]

Sorry, but for many years schoolchildren have been taught, to quote Wikipedia, "that the human appendix is a vestigial structure which does absolutely nothing for the body." If Professor Martin is correct, that's dead wrong.

I'll just cut and paste the important part of my post.

If you want examples of completely useless vestiges look here (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#vestiges).



Olivier's Spalax, which lives underground like the mole, and is apparently exposed to daylight even less than the mole, has altogether lost the use of sight: so that it shows nothing more than vestiges of this organ. Even these vestiges are entirely hidden under the skin and other parts, which cover them up and do not leave the slightest access to light.

The Proteus, an aquatic reptile allied to the salamanders, and living in deep dark caves under water, has, like the Spalax, only vestiges of the organ of sight, vestiges which are covered up and hidden in the same way."

There are many examples of flightless beetles (such as the weevils of the genus Lucanidae) which retain perfectly formed wings housed underneath fused wing covers.

Please respond to that part.

[Rodney]

Please respond to that part.
If your point is that the animal kingdom exhibits useless vestiges, fine. But my point is that the best evidence now indicates that the appendix appears to have an important function in human beings, and yet "skeptics" continue to pretend that it doesn't, based on their prejudices.

[Ashles]

If your point is that the animal kingdom exhibits useless vestiges, fine. But my point is that the best evidence now indicates that the appendix appears to have an important function in human beings, and yet "skeptics" continue to pretend that it doesn't, based on their prejudices.


But even if it does it is still a vestigial organ, that is what the posters above are saying and why they don't think you understand what 'vestigial' means.

[Yoink]

If your point is that the animal kingdom exhibits useless vestiges, fine. But my point is that the best evidence now indicates that the appendix appears to have an important function in human beings, and yet "skeptics" continue to pretend that it doesn't, based on their prejudices.

Rodney, is your claim that there can be no such thing as a vestigial organ that serves a function?

In other words, would you regard the following statement as inherently self-contradictory: "the N-species have adapted their vestigial limbs for use as..."?

I think there is a possible defense of such a position (aren't all of our organs "vestigial" in some sense, after all? None of them serve the purpose they "originally" served if we trace our lineage back far enough--that's the whole point of evolution, after all), but I just want to know if that is the point your getting at.

[Cainkane1]

I don't know. I thought about it for a while, and I still don't know. I'm not sure that it was either. I mean, all of those injuries came about because of a decidedly unnatural cause (we didn't exactly evolve to hurtle down the road at 90 mph in a cage of metal which could easily collide with a much bigger one when unbelievable dumbness became involved, as it did with the driver of the car I was in.) The human body does have the capacity to heal, and clearly none of that would have happened without that capacity. Good doctors and physical therapists were involved. :) But I think the point is that I absolutely refused to give up, that I pushed myself through everything I had to do to get here, and that's why I'm here. So what we're talking about, I think, is why the mind evolved that way... or did it happen because of sheer insane stubborness on my part... was it free will? Was it an existential choice? Now, that's an entirely different question. ;)
You survived and healed by sheer will power and determination. Of that I am very grateful and also very proud of you. Good luck to you and whatever problem you have concerning the accident I hope that heals also. My hats off to you.

[Delvo]

Allowing that vestigial organs can have some minimal or unimportant function creates the dilemma of defining at what point an organ's function is insignificant enough to count. (Of course, insisting that it must have none puts you in the position of trying to prove a negative and possibly ending up changing what you call the organ if a function is discovered.)

Maybe a good starting point is that, with the organ removed, the organism lives on without subsequent medical compensation. For example, if your thyroid gland or pancreas dies, you need to take pills daily, and BOTH kidneys are gone or not working, you need periodic dialysis, but with the appendix gone, you carry on as if nothing ever happened. But that also applies to the tonsils...

[Yoink]

Allowing that vestigial organs can have some minimal or unimportant function creates the dilemma of defining at what point an organ's function is insignificant enough to count. (Of course, insisting that it must have none puts you in the position of trying to prove a negative and possibly ending up changing what you call the organ if a function is discovered.)

Maybe a good starting point is that, with the organ removed, the organism lives on without subsequent medical compensation. For example, if your thyroid gland or pancreas dies, you need to take pills daily, and BOTH kidneys are gone or not working, you need periodic dialysis, but with the appendix gone, you carry on as if nothing ever happened. But that also applies to the tonsils...

We live on perfectly well with one eye removed or with one arm or one leg missing. I don't think that this can be the right road to go down.

[BobG]

But that also applies to the tonsils...

No! Tonsils are lymph nodes. I think we normally have eight and with the tonsils gone, we are down to six. 25% reduction.

[FramerDave]

I'm starting to agree more and more with Brother Cavil. I'm tired of these gelatinous orbs that can only see a limited range of the EM spectrum. I want to smell dark matter and feel X-rays wash over me. Metal skin would be nice too.

[KingMerv00]

But my point is that the best evidence now indicates that the appendix appears to have an important function in human beings, and yet "skeptics" continue to pretend that it doesn't, based on their prejudices.

Pretend? I just don't know if it currently has a function or not. If it does, neat. If it doesn't, neat. I am not emotionally married to either side, I just don't have the interest in doing the research.

[Ixion]

No! Tonsils are lymph nodes. I think we normally have eight and with the tonsils gone, we are down to six. 25% reduction.

Sorry, this is not correct. Your tonsils are a secondary lymphoid tissue, but not a lymph node. Also, you have about 500 lymph nodes all over your body.

[technoextreme]

That blind sport in humans is located near the fovea, but displaced nasally. This is why the old demo in every intro psych book asks you to look directly at some stimulus, centering it on the fovea, and a nearby stimulus disappears.
There is another, called the night blind sport, which centered in the fovea. This is because the fovea only contains cones, responsible for daylight high acuity color vision. At low level of illumination, the cones don't respond. So if you want to view a dim star at night, look slightly to the side.
Thank you for telling me that. I always wondered why the hell that was the case.
Seems like the 'designer' wasn't very good at it. I guess one man's 'irreducible complexity' is another man's jumbled together evolved 'just good enough' mechanism. Evolution produces results, but not the results one would expect from design, especially in that evolution can happen when a mechanism evolved for one purpose breaks and does something it's not designed to do. The human body is patched together, with bug fix stacked on bug fix. The only DESIGNED products I know that are like that come from Microsoft.

A
I'd hate to tell you this but do not ever play that game because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT DESIGN. Design goals vary which means that a design meant to accomplish one objective will vary from one design meant to accomplish a different objective. On top of that you do actually get stuff that resembles designs created by engineers. Namely because it would defy the laws of science to get robust designs that do not act otherwise.

[iiwo]

{snip}
I am familiar with mitochondrial DNA but I never considered if it served a function or not. Does anyone have a link?

I will attempt to summarize the main points that address the topic, but first a couple links. One (http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/studies/mitochondria/mitorigin.html) and two (http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/zoology/AnimalPhysiology/Anatomy/AnimalCellStructure/Mitochondria/Mitochondria.htm).

Mitochondrial DNA is a curious thing. It is thought that mitochondria may once have been free living single-celled organisms at one point, using DNA to reproduce much as bacteria do.

At some point they entered a or various mutualistic relationships with either other single celled organisms, or with mulit-cellular organisms. (Or both, I haven't followed the research closely). Today they exist as organelles within our cells, but retain their own DNA and some semblance of being an independent organism. (Chloroplasts in plants follow a similar vein).

Animals need the mitochondria in order to live--we use the energy they produce for us (ATP). Our cells can not produce all the energy we need on their own, or at least could not do so efficiently. OTOH I have absolutely no idea if mitochondria could survive on their own without animal hosts.

Mitochondria are not coded in our DNA, we can not produce them. They are passed on both from cell to cell in our own bodies, as well as from mother to child simply by being present during meiosis and mitosis; that is to say the mitochondrial population of a cell is split when the cell divides--they are "along for the ride" if you will.

As for using it in researching origins: sperm cells do contain mitochondria, as do ova. However, the mitochondria in the sperm are not typically integrated into the developing embryo in most species. This has to do with the mitochondria being in the sperms' tails, which are dropped outside the egg during fertilization. The ova mitochondria then are the only ones present, resulting in the ability to trace maternal heritage by investigating the mDNA.

[iiwo]

I should have added that mitochondria reproduce on their own, within the host cell. We do not divide up a finite number of the crazy things with a future generation getting 1/2 or NONE, which would suck.

[paximperium]

But my point is that the best evidence now indicates that the appendix appears to have an important function in human beings, and yet "skeptics" continue to pretend that it doesn't, based on their prejudices. I've known for a long time that the appendix is a lymphoid tissue that has some immunological function and also has some function in diarrheal diseases.

So the appendix has functions. So? You still have no idea what vestigial means do you?

[Silly Green Monkey]

It's a common creationist misperception that vestigial means useless. Sometimes the noise can overpower important signals.

[I Ratant]

Thank you for telling me that. I always wondered why the hell that was the case.

I'd hate to tell you this but do not ever play that game because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT DESIGN. ...
.
But there are in existence creatures which have features "designed" in a manner superior to those features in we humans.
That's the rub, if there were a designer involved at all.

[Rodney]

I've known for a long time that the appendix is a lymphoid tissue that has some immunological function and also has some function in diarrheal diseases.

So the appendix has functions. So? You still have no idea what vestigial means do you?
According to biologist PZ Myers, who seems to be a hero to many here: "Creationists dislike the idea that we bear useless organs, remnants of past function that are non-functional or even hazardous to our health; they make up stories about the importance of these vestiges." See http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/02/what-use-is-an.html

Myers goes on to approvingly cite retired surgeon Sid Schwab, who claims: "In the appendix, we have a thing within us of no demonstrable value, but which is capable of doing us great harm. . . That the appendix has no unique or physiologically important function is as certain as it can be, based on what we can easily observe. . . But the existence of a vestigial organ which, when it does anything at all, only does harm, is a threat to certain narrow religious views." See http://surgeonsblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-of-appendix-of-truth-and-worms.html

So, both Myers and Schwab -- rather than me -- seem to be equating "vestigial" with "worthless." At a minimum, they are clearly stating that the appendix is a worthless vestigial organ. What I have said is that "the appendix appears to have an important function in human beings, and yet 'skeptics' continue to pretend that it doesn't, based on their prejudices." I'm happy to hear that you're not one of those skeptics, but what about Myers, Schwab, and the many others who are so intent on taking a swing at creationists that they ignore evidence?

[JoeTheJuggler]

If your point is that the animal kingdom exhibits useless vestiges, fine. But my point is that the best evidence now indicates that the appendix appears to have an important function in human beings, and yet "skeptics" continue to pretend that it doesn't, based on their prejudices.
I suppose it depends on how you define "important". People who've had appendectomies don't seem to suffer for the lack of one.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd hate to tell you this but do not ever play that game because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT DESIGN. Design goals vary which means that a design meant to accomplish one objective will vary from one design meant to accomplish a different objective. On top of that you do actually get stuff that resembles designs created by engineers. Namely because it would defy the laws of science to get robust designs that do not act otherwise.

Evolutionary biologists talk of trade offs. The thing about ID is that most of them are arguing in favor of an all-powerful supernatural creator. Such things as trade-offs and conflicting objectives shouldn't deter such a designer.

Again, it's just a variation of the argument from evil, but why would a truly omnipotent being design aging, debilitation and death? While death makes sense in the real world, it doesn't if we were intelligently designed by such a designer.

In fact, in some kinds of Christianity, they believe we were created perfect and immortal, but all this suffering came about because of original sin. So these design flaws we're talking about seem to have been purposely designed. If that's true, then it's hard to argue that this omnipotent designer is really all-loving or all-compassionate. Rather, he's responsible for causing ALL human suffering as punishment for a "sin" that was clearly entrapment!

[shadron]

I think that we've had enough beating around the bush on vestigial. The point that Pax is making is that vestigial means that the primary purpose of an organ is no longer a vital requirement in the typical life cycle of the organism in which it appears. That is not to say there is no purpose in them, or that they have not adapted to new purposes. The appendix apparently used to be an assistive digestive organ, not unlike a cow's rumen, in which vegetable matter could be stored and allowed to ferment, extracting energy from the results of bacterial action. The alternative is to do without, and thus not derive nutrition from cellulostic matter, which may have been a life/death situation. Once our lineage started centering our digestion on non-cellulostic vegetables and meat, it became superfluous. That doesn't mean that it has not been adapted to providing a "shelter" for our beneficial gut flora or taking on immunological aspects. As yet none of these secondary raison d'être are critical to the body, but there is no reason they could not become so.

Other similar organs are the spleen (again, it seems to have non-essential (normally) immunological function, and the three bones of the middle ear, which used to be integral parts of the reptiloid skull. It becomes semantics as to whether you consider these bones as vital in function, but it is certainly true that they are vestigial, at least from the reptile's point of view. The hand could be looked upon as vestigial to the original tetrapods, who used it to navigate and propel themselves through shallow water weed entanglements. Their current use as tool manipulators is primary from our point of view, but baroque for the tetrapods.

Then there's the whale's hind legs, which, as far as we can tell, are both vestigial and useless.

[The Man]

If I believed in a creator, I'd be blooming annoyed that he/she/it saddled me with Crohn's and all the attendant complications.

Sorry to hear that, especially after looking it up.

Psoriasis and the accompanying psoriatic arthritis are my particular afflictions.

[The Man]

I just have to comment on this, being an immunologist. Compare the list of autoimmune diseases to the number of pathogens and potential pathogens your immune system protects against. I am not arguing that there is a deity, but rather that your immune system is pretty damn efficient considering the job it has to fulfill.

No doubt, mine does an excellent job in that and I hardly ever get sick . I would just rather that it not destroy my joints as well. You’ll have to excuse me for a minute, I have to go shoot up with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor. Later in the week I get to take some methotrexate (I can hardly wait).

[The Man]

The argument wasn't necessarily that it's not good at it's job. It's more along the lines of that it's too good at it's job and attacks more things than it is supposed to.

Example: My immune system nearly killed me a year and a half ago by clogging my lungs up with white blood cells (eosinophils) which were attacking not a pathogen of any sort, but my own lung tissues instead.

You want to talk about errors in specification, that would definitely be one :)

Sorry to hear that and glad you got through it. You did get the basic gist of what I was saying though (even without the can).


I guess I interpreted the post differently. The Man was speaking that the immune system should "attack" more than it protects, which it does. It is certainly true that it can become hypersensitive and go haywire and probably does more than it should. Not a perfect system, by any means. :)


I assumed the "can" was a typo, since listing auto immune diseases didn't really fit with the idea that the immune system doesn't attack enough things :)

Not a typo, SkeptiChick, indeed our immune system protects us by attacking things, unfortunately one more thing it “can” attack as opposed to protect is us.

I don’t know how you got “should "attack" more” out of that Ixion since the intended point was that our immune systems can attack what it is suppose to protect, namely us or just certain parts of us.

Anyway I apologize for any confusion, as it is the writers responsibility to make themselves clear and apparently for either of you that was not the case. As you both seem to have gotten the impression of the immune system not attacking enough in relation to auto immune diseases.

[The Man]

I've known for a long time that the appendix is a lymphoid tissue that has some immunological function and also has some function in diarrheal diseases.

So the appendix has functions. So? You still have no idea what vestigial means do you?


Indeed my psoriasis started right after my appendix was removed, although that does not denote a direct causal relationship. It is perhaps a possibility or possible contributing factor.

[tesscaline]

Sorry to hear that and glad you got through it. You did get the basic gist of what I was saying though (even without the can).

Not a typo, SkeptiChick, indeed our immune system protects us by attacking things, unfortunately one more thing it “can” attack as opposed to protect is us. Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought you meant. I just put it into different words, based on what Ixion said.

Anyway I apologize for any confusion, as it is the writers responsibility to make themselves clear and apparently for either of you that was not the case. As you both seem to have gotten the impression of the immune system not attacking enough in relation to auto immune diseases.Oh no, I didn't really get that impression. I got the opposite impression -- that the immune system overreacts to things it really shouldn't (i.e. us). Which I most definitely agree with, given my own personal medical history.

Indeed my psoriasis started right after my appendix was removed, although that does not denote a direct causal relationship. It is perhaps a possibility or possible contributing factor.I have heard it hypothesized that traumas to the body (i.e. surgeries or infections) can trigger autoimmune diseases. The idea is that the immune system gets "switched on" and then, for some reason, fails to be "switched off" again, so it starts attacking tissue that isn't actually foreign or dangerous.

It's really quite an interesting "bug in the system". I just wish it didn't have such detrimental effects. My auto immune issue (it's called eosinophilic pneumonia, in case anyone is interested) was cleared up with a short course of corticosteroids, but that's not the case for everyone.

I really hope your issues respond to treatment!

[Rodney]

I suppose it depends on how you define "important". People who've had appendectomies don't seem to suffer for the lack of one.
According to Professor Martin:

"We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals.

"Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions. Lymphoid tissue begins to accumulate in the appendix shortly after birth and reaches a peak between the second and third decades of life, decreasing rapidly thereafter and practically disappearing after the age of 60."

See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-function-of-t

So, if Martin is correct, the appendix plays an important role early in life, but then diminishes in importance.

[paximperium]

So, if Martin is correct, the appendix plays an important role early in life, but then diminishes in importance.
So? What does this have to do with vestigial again?

[Rodney]

So? What does this have to do with vestigial again?
The title of this thread is "What Is Wrong With The Human Body?", not "Does Vestigial Mean the Same Thing as Useless?" In any event, I never said that vestigial means the same thing as useless, but PZ Myers and Sid Schwab seem to think it does. So maybe you can invite them to the thread.

[I Ratant]

This month's "Scientific American" explains the purpose of the appendix.

[paximperium]

The title of this thread is "What Is Wrong With The Human Body?", not "Does Vestigial Mean the Same Thing as Useless?"
And that is relevant in what way? Why are you yapping on about the function of the appendix, a vestigial remnant of evolution that causes approx 200,000 appendicitis in the US each year that use to kill about half of all sufferers before modern medicine and has no real major function in adults?

In what way does a function contradict the fact that the appendix is vestigial and remnant of evolution that "is wrong with the human body"? Do tell.

In any event, I never said that vestigial means the same thing as useless, but PZ Myers and Sid Schwab seem to think it does. So maybe you can invite them to the thread.Does it look like I care what they think about this issue? Unlike Creationists, I don't drool over figures of authority. Actually would you care to provide citations for these claims at all?

[paximperium]

This month's "Scientific American" explains the purpose of the appendix.
Cool. I have my copy of my Sep 2009 but don't remember reading it. Where is it?

[I Ratant]

Cool. I have my copy of my Sep 2009 but don't remember reading it. Where is it?
.
It's out on the patio.
Oh, page 98. :)

[paximperium]

.
It's out on the patio.
Oh, page 98. :)
Ahhhh...there it is, "Appendix: Not needed, but not useless", found it. Nothing really new in that short article. I've read some other research that gives some evidence that it may be protective against severe diarrheal disease like cholera.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yup--from a design perspective, the appendix is bad. It has a barely detectable function (and virtually none in adults), but it can kill you. The Designer apparently forgot to do his cost/benefit analysis on that feature.

[Yoink]

The title of this thread is "What Is Wrong With The Human Body?", not "Does Vestigial Mean the Same Thing as Useless?" In any event, I never said that vestigial means the same thing as useless, but PZ Myers and Sid Schwab seem to think it does. So maybe you can invite them to the thread.

See this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5025636&postcount=88).

[iiwo]

The title of this thread is "What Is Wrong With The Human Body?", not "Does Vestigial Mean the Same Thing as Useless?" In any event, I never said that vestigial means the same thing as useless, but PZ Myers and Sid Schwab seem to think it does. So maybe you can invite them to the thread.

Sorry, but Yoink is quite right at least at first glance:

Sorry, but for many years schoolchildren have been taught, to quote Wikipedia, "that the human appendix is a vestigial structure which does absolutely nothing for the body." If Professor Martin is correct, that's dead wrong.

I can accept that you were not claiming this as your definition, but rather that you claim that it is the more commonly held (colloquial) definition. Please clarify if this is the case and I, at least, will let off on that note.

{snip}

Does it look like I care what they think about this issue? Unlike Creationists, I don't drool over figures of authority. Actually would you care to provide citations for these claims at all?

See this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5025636&postcount=88).

First, the second post I quote here refers to the first, don't let that confuse you.

Second, in the first I quoted, Rodney suggested inviting PZ Meyers or Sid Schwab to the thread. Personally I think doing so would result in a massive waste of there time, and besides, PZ Meyers happened to cover this exact topic in quite some depth just today (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/darwin_and_the_vermiform_appen.php).

Go read that article, and just in case anyone chooses not to read the entire thing, I will quote Dr. Meyers himself on the most relevant portion:

Note why Darwin classed this appendage as vestigial: because it is greatly reduced compared to the homologous organs in non-human relatives, and because it currently exhibits a great range of variation, which is apparently non-functional. These are criteria which the paper in question does not refute at all. Darwin does say that the appendix is "useless", and the paper will show some evidence that that is wrong. It's also irrelevant.

The reason why it is irrelevant is that the presence of some function is not part of the definition of a vestigial or rudimentary organ — Darwin obligingly concedes that evolution will salvage some utility out of organs with little retention of their original function, but which are present as a consequence of contingency. He discusses this at greater length in On the Origin of Species, and here is a significant chunk of the relevant writing.

The article is really quite interesting and covers this exact question (what is vestigal?) from a number of angles. To be fair, he does in one article what we have not done in over 100 posts. It really is quite well done imo. As he says in the article, he (they, whoever) could ultimately be wrong--but such is the nature of science.

[iiwo]

D'oh, I edited the post and STILL misspelled "their". Drat, I hate when that happens.

[Rodney]

And that is relevant in what way? Why are you yapping on about the function of the appendix, a vestigial remnant of evolution that causes approx 200,000 appendicitis in the US each year that use to kill about half of all sufferers before modern medicine and has no real major function in adults?

In what way does a function contradict the fact that the appendix is vestigial and remnant of evolution that "is wrong with the human body"? Do tell.
Because Professor Martin's research indicates that "the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals."

[Rodney]

Sorry, but Yoink is quite right at least at first glance:

I can accept that you were not claiming this as your definition, but rather that you claim that it is the more commonly held (colloquial) definition. Please clarify if this is the case and I, at least, will let off on that note.

First, the second post I quote here refers to the first, don't let that confuse you.

Second, in the first I quoted, Rodney suggested inviting PZ Meyers or Sid Schwab to the thread. Personally I think doing so would result in a massive waste of there time, and besides, PZ Meyers happened to cover this exact topic in quite some depth just today (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/darwin_and_the_vermiform_appen.php).

Go read that article, and just in case anyone chooses not to read the entire thing, I will quote Dr. Meyers himself on the most relevant portion:

The article is really quite interesting and covers this exact question (what is vestigal?) from a number of angles. To be fair, he does in one article what we have not done in over 100 posts. It really is quite well done imo. As he says in the article, he (they, whoever) could ultimately be wrong--but such is the nature of science.
I just read the article and it contradicts Myer's previous position on the appendix.

Now, he says: "The paper is about the appendix, that tiny little organ in your gut that doesn't have a whole lot of obvious function. The point of the work is to try and show that yes, it does something — which is fine and interesting, although I will quibble a bit with their interpretation."

But then, as I noted in Post #116 on this thread, he said: "Creationists dislike the idea that we bear useless organs, remnants of past function that are non-functional or even hazardous to our health; they make up stories about the importance of these vestiges."

So, does the appendix have a function, as Myers concedes now, or is it non-functional, as he at least strongly implied then?

[Yoink]

I just read the article and it contradicts Myer's previous position on the appendix.

Now, he says: "The paper is about the appendix, that tiny little organ in your gut that doesn't have a whole lot of obvious function. The point of the work is to try and show that yes, it does something — which is fine and interesting, although I will quibble a bit with their interpretation."

But then, as I noted in Post #116 on this thread, he said: "Creationists dislike the idea that we bear useless organs, remnants of past function that are non-functional or even hazardous to our health; they make up stories about the importance of these vestiges."

So, does the appendix have a function, as Myers concedes now, or is it non-functional, as he at least strongly implied then?

Rodney, yes or no: are you arguing that no organ that can be shown to serve any function can be properly said to be vestigial?

Nobody in this thread disagrees with the proposition that the appendix performs some minor function, so if that is your sole argument, you have no one arguing against you.

[ddt]

Other similar organs are the spleen (again, it seems to have non-essential (normally) immunological function, and the three bones of the middle ear, which used to be integral parts of the reptiloid skull. It becomes semantics as to whether you consider these bones as vital in function, but it is certainly true that they are vestigial, at least from the reptile's point of view.
AFAIK, those middle ear bones are quite essential for hearing. But if you're going to talk about the ear, there's a whole can of worms of what is poorly designed.

- the middle ear bones can grow together and impair hearing
- there's various areas with different fluids (the middle ear, and two in the inner ear), the pressures of which must be carefully balanced
- what's the deal with the two different hair cells and a complicated feedback loop? A competent designer had needed only one
- why don't hair cells grow back? One loud bang and you lose a frequency range and never get it back

[Rodney]

Rodney, yes or no: are you arguing that no organ that can be shown to serve any function can be properly said to be vestigial?
No, but the whole argument about what vestigial means is simply a red herring to distract attention from the fact that Darwinists have been wrong about the appendix their entire lives. Instead of admitting their error, they are now pretending that they never said that the appendix has no function whatsoever. Unfortunately for them, there are many textbooks that say just that. If you don't believe me, go to your local library and investigate.

Nobody in this thread disagrees with the proposition that the appendix performs some minor function, so if that is your sole argument, you have no one arguing against you.
I'm not sure about "Nobody", but why do you believe that the appendix performs only a minor function? Again, if Professor Martin is correct, the appendix serves an important, perhaps life-saving, function prior to birth and during the first few years of life.

[Yoink]

No, but the whole argument about what vestigial means is simply a red herring to distract attention from the fact that Darwinists have been wrong about the appendix their entire lives. Instead of admitting their error, they are now pretending that they never said that the appendix has no function whatsoever. Unfortunately for them, there are many textbooks that say just that. If you don't believe me, go to your local library and investigate.

I'm not sure about "Nobody", but why do you believe that the appendix performs only a minor function? Again, if Professor Martin is correct, the appendix serves an important, perhaps life-saving, function prior to birth and during the first few years of life.

Rodney, let me quote your own favorite medical reference journal, Wikipedia: "There have been no reports of impaired immune or gastrointestinal function in people without an appendix."

Let me repeat that: "There have been no reports of impaired immune or gastrointestinal function in people without an appendix."

Yes, "Darwinists" who have said that the appendix served no function whatsoever seem to have been mistaken. So were all the Lamarckians who said it. So were all the Creationists who said it. So were all the devout Roman Catholics who believe that evolution was the path that God chose to create humanity. It was accepted medical knowledge for hundreds of years. "Darwinists" didn't invent the claim. There is no part of evolutionary theory that depends upon the claim.

Now that medical science has moved forward and the "Darwinists" and everyone else knows that the appendix serves some minor functions (no, not "life saving"--babies born with a congenitally absent appendix do fine), no single part of evolutionary theory needs to be altered.

You, surely, know that because you accept that the organ is "vestigial"--and the only theory under which organs can be described as "vestigial" is the "Darwinist" one.

So what on earth is the point you are trying to make?

[Delvo]

AFAIK, those middle ear bones are quite essential for hearing.But they still qualify as vestigial under at least one possible definition, which is that they don't have their original function. They've switched functions. (They originally propped up our gills! Other terrestrial vertebrates now have them fused into their lower jaws, and in at least or all some cases they are where the joint articulates with the rest of the skull.)

[iiwo]

I just read the article and it contradicts Myer's previous position on the appendix.

Now, he says: "The paper is about the appendix, that tiny little organ in your gut that doesn't have a whole lot of obvious function. The point of the work is to try and show that yes, it does something — which is fine and interesting, although I will quibble a bit with their interpretation."

But then, as I noted in Post #116 on this thread, he said: "Creationists dislike the idea that we bear useless organs, remnants of past function that are non-functional or even hazardous to our health; they make up stories about the importance of these vestiges."

So, does the appendix have a function, as Myers concedes now, or is it non-functional, as he at least strongly implied then?

1. If we are going to make this about what PZ Myers did or did not say, please provide a link to the article or post you have in mind. I have absolutely no idea which one you have in mind and would very likely choose the wrong one were I to try and choose from the archives.

2. Regardless of Dr. Myers's original position, he (as most scientists are prone to) is allowed to change his mind as information becomes available to him. Rather than blather on in my own words, here is a quote from the same article I linked to (and you read):

It's also annoying. Charles Darwin was wrong about many things — I'll even give an example at the end of this article — and it's part of the nature of science that everyone's work will be revised and refined over time, and some of us will even be shown to be completely wrong.

Get over the nitpick on the appendix already--this thread has been quite derailed, and rather uselessly too.


3. Useless things in the body (back on track) I would include...hmm. I would put the solar plexis on the list, along with the fact that the nose can get shoved into the brain (so to speak).

[dropzone]

(skipping four pages of unneccesarry BS): We are a magnificent kludge. Be happy we work at all and stop pointing out why we shouldn't.

[paximperium]

So what's new? Oh nothing, so Rodney still has no idea what vestigial means? As I smell it, it is Creationists attempting to strawman his way into relevance by attempting to argue against a definition of vestigial that no one holds anymore.

[paximperium]

But then, as I noted in Post #116 on this thread, he said: "Creationists dislike the idea that we bear useless organs, remnants of past function that are non-functional or even hazardous to our health; they make up stories about the importance of these vestiges."
I most definitely agree with this statement as Rodney is happily providing the case in point.

[BTMO]

I can't believe no one has mentioned the vagus nerve.

Strain too much when you are squeezing one out, and you are unconcious and prey for anything that your grunting and strainings has attracted.

Where is the divine inspiration (or evolutionary advantage) in that??

[Rodney]

You, surely, know that because you accept that the organ is "vestigial"--and the only theory under which organs can be described as "vestigial" is the "Darwinist" one.
No, I don't accept that the appendix is vestigial, only that a body part could be vestigial and still have some minor function.

So what on earth is the point you are trying to make?
That the appendix seems to have an important function and should not be included in a thread titled "What is Wrong With the Human Body?"

[catbasket]

That the appendix seems to have an important function and should not be included in a thread titled "What is Wrong With the Human Body?"
As my appendix nearly killed me at age eleven, I disagree.

[BenBurch]

Wisdom Teeth.

[JoeTheJuggler]

That the appendix seems to have an important function and should not be included in a thread titled "What is Wrong With the Human Body?"

Maybe you're so focussed on the title that you didn't read the OP. The question is being asked in the context of the body as something created by God in his own image. (That is, intelligently designed by a perfect designer.)

You've not shown that appendix has an "important" (as in vital) function--only that the case that there is some function for it has gotten stronger in recent years. It still carries with it the threat of death, so if one believes the human body was Intelligently Designed, it's an example of really poor design.

Consider a car. The cigarette lighter has a function. Some might even call it an important function. Now imagine that the cigarette lighter was prone (say 1 in every 400 cars) to have a problem. That problem in half of those cases (if not immediately treated with an emergency repair) results in the car not just losing the functionality of the cigarette lighter, and not just in the car failing to start and drive, but in it being beyond repair and only fit to be scrapped. Yes, that would be poor design!

[Yoink]

No, I don't accept that the appendix is vestigial, only that a body part could be vestigial and still have some minor function.


That the appendix seems to have an important function and should not be included in a thread titled "What is Wrong With the Human Body?"

An organ that no one has ever been shown to suffer from being without and which kills many, many people unless they receive emergency surgery.

Yeah, I think that qualifies as something "wrong with the human body."

I'd also like to see you come up with a definition of "vestigial" that didn't apply to the appendix.

[BenBurch]

The Lumbar Spine. Badly done adaption to upright posture. Insufficiently braced.

[BenBurch]

External testicles. Ouch. What Sadist designed that?

[BenBurch]

Female pelvis, too small for the heads of many infants.

Ditto the vagina, not stretchy enough for large babies, causing tearing or necessitating an episiotomy.

[Bluto]

They've switched functions. They originally propped up our gills!

No wonder my gills have gotten so droopy.

(As a relative newcomer here, can anyone clue me in to why Mssr. Rodney seems so fixated on the belief that the appendix plays some vital role in human survival, when the contrary is blatantly obvious?)

[I Ratant]

The Lumbar Spine. Badly done adaption to upright posture. Insufficiently braced.
.
And the consequent hernias due to the position of the guts.

[Rodney]

As my appendix nearly killed me at age eleven, I disagree.
1) By "nearly killed me," what are the specifics?

2) If it is established that the appendix prevents many deaths through the first few years of life, would that change your mind?

[Rodney]

1. If we are going to make this about what PZ Myers did or did not say, please provide a link to the article or post you have in mind.
I did that in Post #116 on this thread, but to repeat: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/02/what-use-is-an.html

[Yoink]

1) By "nearly killed me," what are the specifics?

Surely you're not debating the risks of appendicitis?

2) If it is established that the appendix prevents many deaths through the first few years of life, would that change your mind?

There is no evidence to support that claim. There is good evidence against it (many babies are born with no appendix, and thrive).

And even if it were true (which it is not), an organ that performs a vital function in early childhood and sits around in the body like a ticking timebomb waiting to kill you is still a clear example of poor design.

[Rodney]

I'd also like to see you come up with a definition of "vestigial" that didn't apply to the appendix.
"A remnant of a primitive structure that serves either no function or serves an insignificant function."

[BenBurch]

Like, well, the appendix. Its function is insignificant. It did, however, kill my third grade teacher.

[Rodney]

Surely you're not debating the risks of appendicitis?
A lot of medical conditions, such as infections, can be dangerous if left untreated, but I don't think most infections or cases of appendicitis can be truly said to fall into the "nearly killed him/her" category. So, I'd just like to know the specifics of how catbasket's appendix nearly killed him.

There is no evidence to support that claim. There is good evidence against it (many babies are born with no appendix, and thrive).
1)Has anyone refuted Professor Martin's claim?

2) Has there ever been a study of how babies born with no appendix fare relative to babies born with an appendix?

And even if it were true (which it is not), an organ that performs a vital function in early childhood and sits around in the body like a ticking timebomb waiting to kill you is still a clear example of poor design.
Depends what the numbers are. We know that the appendix occasionally causes a problem and can document the numbers to a large extent, but we can't quantify at all what problems are avoided by having an appendix.

[Rodney]

Like, well, the appendix. Its function is insignificant. It did, however, kill my third grade teacher.
Please document.

[JoeTheJuggler]

A lot of medical conditions, such as infections, can be dangerous if left untreated, but I don't think most infections or cases of appendicitis can be truly said to fall into the "nearly killed him/her" category.
Sure they can. If not treated (by an appendectomy) immediately, appendicitis is often fatal. Here's (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/expert_advice/article2348670.ece) the first figure I could find about historical rates:
In the 1930s, before the discovery of antibiotics, improved anaesthetics and better surgical standards, the national [i.e. UK] death rate from appendicitis was 10 per cent.

I don't expect there are too many accurate figures before that because it wasn't until the late 19th Century that Charles McBurney (http://journals.lww.com/jpelvicsurgery/Fulltext/2001/01000/Anecdotes_on_Appendicitis__Charles_McBurney,_MD.11 .aspx)worked out how to diagnose appendicitis.

Funny you mention infections. Before the advent of modern antibiotics, many infections were fatal (in fact, what is fatal about a burst appendix is the ensuing infection).

Safe appendectomies and reliable antibiotics are both extremely recent inventions in human history. Through most of human history, people died from these things routinely, and now it's relatively rare--not due to the perfect design, but because of science.

Yup--the Designer really screwed up!

But why nibble about the edges on this topic? A perfect, all-powerful, all-compassionate Designer had no reason to design suffering, old age and death at all.

ETA: As I noted earlier, this line of thinking is just a different slant on the Argument from Evil (which is a valid argument that I don't think theists have ever been able to answer).

[arthwollipot]

So, both Myers and Schwab -- rather than me -- seem to be equating "vestigial" with "worthless." At a minimum, they are clearly stating that the appendix is a worthless vestigial organ.The point to take away from this is that they are not saying that the appendix is worthless because it is vestigal, they are saying that it is worthless and it is vestigal.

[arthwollipot]

Please document.What - you're asking for their death certificate? Their autopsy report? Please be serious, and realistic.

As to the risks of untreated appendicitis, let me Google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=risks+of+untreated+appendicitis).

[paximperium]

1)Has anyone refuted Professor Martin's claim? Why? What issue would there be if Martin is correct? He says it has a function...so? People here are more than willing to accept his claim. Even if there were, so? What has this got to do with vestigial again?

2) Has there ever been a study of how babies born with no appendix fare relative to babies born with an appendix? No. It is a pretty rare condition but case studies have shown that children born without appendix don't have any significant problems. Even if there were, so? What has this got to do with vestigial again?

Depends what the numbers are. We know that the appendix occasionally causes a problem and can document the numbers to a large extent, but we can't quantify at all what problems are avoided by having an appendix. Ahhh, the infamous Creationist tactic of "Shifting the Burden of Evidence" and "Proving a negative."

I have yet to see point in Rodney's persistent nonsense. He seems to be arguing against himself to look like he has some sort of point. No one here seems to have any issue with the appendix having a function except for Rodney.

[Yoink]

"A remnant of a primitive structure that serves either no function or serves an insignificant function."

"Serves an insignificant function" isn't a very useful definition because it's just begging an argument about how "significant" this function has to be. But as for the appendix, the fact that is is frequently absent from birth without causing any mortality, that even when present it is frequently closed off (and thus functionless)--again without harm to the fetus or the adult, that it can be removed at any age without affecting the viability or the well-being of the subject, makes it about as good a candidate for "insignificance" as I could imagine.

So no, you didn't manage to come up with a definition of vestigial that excludes the appendix.

[paximperium]

"Serves an insignificant function" isn't a very useful definition because it's just begging an argument about how "significant" this function has to be. But as for the appendix, the fact that is is frequently absent from birth without causing any mortality, that even when present it is frequently closed off (and thus functionless)--again without harm to the fetus or the adult, that it can be removed at any age without affecting the viability or the well-being of the subject, makes it about as good a candidate for "insignificance" as I could imagine.
Minor correction. Even if the appendix is closed off, it continues to have lymphoid tissue which may provide some immunological function. In fact, the reasons why appendicitis occurs is either due to the tubular structure being clogged off by hard little fecal pellets(fecoliths) or more often the appendix's lymphoid tissue becomes inflamed from a viral infection and so this immune response clogs off and inflames the appendix.

This does not change the point that it is pretty well insignificant and even if it was significant, I have yet to see Rodney have any relevant point as to the appendix's vestigial nature and "bad design."

[Silly Green Monkey]

I have four vestigial teeth. They still work for grinding, despite being a little small. Vestigial, but in no way useless.

[ddt]

But they still qualify as vestigial under at least one possible definition, which is that they don't have their original function. They've switched functions. (They originally propped up our gills! Other terrestrial vertebrates now have them fused into their lower jaws, and in at least or all some cases they are where the joint articulates with the rest of the skull.)
Oh, yes, I didn't want to get involved in the discussion on what qualifies as vestigial. I picked up on another part of what shadron said:
It becomes semantics as to whether you consider these bones as vital in function
and I'd definitely call them "vital". When they don't work, e.g., because they're fused together, you're deaf - and that definitely lowers your survival chances, as you don't hear that approaching lion/car.

[catbasket]

So, I'd just like to know the specifics of how catbasket's appendix nearly killed him.
On holiday in Devon in 1971, while on the South Sands to Salcombe passenger ferry, my appendix leapt out of my abdomen, grabbed me by the throat and attempted to strangle me. If it hadn't been for the quick-thinking of my tonsils I'd have been an ex-parrot.

Translation - You don't believe me. Fine. Have an answer that you are entirely justified in not believing.

[DC]

huge lack of intelligence

[Rodney]

The point to take away from this is that they are not saying that the appendix is worthless because it is vestigal, they are saying that it is worthless and it is vestigal.
Would you agree that Myers and Schwab have been proven wrong about the appendix being "worthless"?

[Rodney]

What - you're asking for their death certificate? Their autopsy report? Please be serious, and realistic.
Suppose I say something like: "My third grade teacher was killed by her medical doctor, who took her off the herbal treatment she had been on and gave her a prescription drug." Would you accept that as being true?

As to the risks of untreated appendicitis, let me Google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=risks+of+untreated+appendicitis).
Hey, that's neat!

[King of the Americas]

1. The unnecessary appendix.

2. A terrible waste disposal system.

3. Lack of the strength of a chimpanzee, the eyesight of an eagle, the smell of hound dog and the hearing of bat! Why not on this one? Why should he, while he is at the drawing board, not achieve these capabilities?

4. A very weak back. It could have been beefed up a bit.

5. Troublesome knees.

-9 month gestation period, with lengthy infant stage

-bald where there should be hair, and hairy where we should be bald

-fingernails that can't dig, scratch, or grasp and hold prey

-walking training takes a whole year

-fragile vertebrate*

-delicate flesh, prone to cuts, scrapes and prolonged UV exposure

-non regenerative limbs or organs

...I could go on.

But I think our biggest deficiency is our brain specifically our behavioral tendency to follow ONE man or theory to our utter demise. The bandwagon effect, per say.

We 'follow' far too easily and frequent.

Whatever thing in us that causes men and women to follow/worship ONE man, forgetting all else, abandon reason and rational, and even have husbands render their wives unto him- "Because he's a prophet."...should be surgically removed at birth.

Is there any evidence in the genetic record that we are similar/close to lemmings?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Would you agree that Myers and Schwab have been proven wrong about the appendix being "worthless"?

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "worthless". The appendix generates a fair amount of billable OR time.

But to bring it back on topic, something of such limited function that can kill you is a really poor design feature. (In case you missed it, this is an argument that the human body wasn't intelligently designed. Actually it's less an argument than it is a mocking of the idea that the body was intelligently designed by pointing to what would be serious design flaws.)

Suppose I say something like: "My third grade teacher was killed by her medical doctor, who took her off the herbal treatment she had been on and gave her a prescription drug." Would you accept that as being true?

No, but the difference is that there's abundant evidence that appendicitis can kill people and no evidence for the sort of thing you're hypothesizing. So your call for proof of one case of appendicitis nearly killing someone is inexplicable.

Do you really think appendicitis is NOT life-threatening?

[SphereGuy]

A related article on the appendix showed up on Yahoo today. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090824/sc_livescience/theappendixusefulandinfactpromising;_ylt=ApjAsUT0L V422c_dPVPYOois0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTN1YXBldW9vBGFzc2V0A 2xpdmVzY2llbmNlLzIwMDkwODI0L3RoZWFwcGVuZGl4dXNlZnV sYW5kaW5mYWN0cHJvbWlzaW5nBGNwb3MDOQRwb3MDNgRwdANob 21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrA2FwcGV uZGl4aXN1cw--)

[paximperium]

A related article on the appendix showed up on Yahoo today. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090824/sc_livescience/theappendixusefulandinfactpromising;_ylt=ApjAsUT0L V422c_dPVPYOois0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTN1YXBldW9vBGFzc2V0A 2xpdmVzY2llbmNlLzIwMDkwODI0L3RoZWFwcGVuZGl4dXNlZnV sYW5kaW5mYWN0cHJvbWlzaW5nBGNwb3MDOQRwb3MDNgRwdANob 21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrA2FwcGV uZGl4aXN1cw--)
That's cool. I read about this hypothesis over a year ago. Good to hear that they've finally got enough data to produce a paper. Evolutionary science in action.

[microdot]

What about the fact that we need to spend _roughly_ a third of our lives asleep?

Does that count as a 'What's wrong with the human body?'

[BenBurch]

Please document.

What? You want me to go make a rubbing of her gravestone?

[BenBurch]

Suppose I say something like: "My third grade teacher was killed by her medical doctor, who took her off the herbal treatment she had been on and gave her a prescription drug." Would you accept that as being true?


A person would have to be pretty dumb to accept that story, but even dumber not to know what a burst appendix quickly does to a woman in her late 50s who thought what she had was a bad flu.

[Rodney]

A person would have to be pretty dumb to accept that story, but even dumber not to know what a burst appendix quickly does to a woman in her late 50s who thought what she had was a bad flu.
So she didn't go to see a doctor? FYI, according to http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/A-Ce/Appendectomy.html -- "Currently, the mortality rate is estimated at one to two per 1,000,000 cases of appendicitis."

Also, FYI, according to http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090824/sc_livescience/theappendixusefulandinfactpromising;_ylt=ApjAsUT0L V422c_dPVPYOois0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTN1YXBldW9vBGFzc2V0A 2xpdmVzY2llbmNlLzIwMDkwODI0L3RoZWFwcGVuZGl4dXNlZnV sYW5kaW5mYWN0cHJvbWlzaW5nBGNwb3MDOQRwb3MDNgRwdANob 21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrA2FwcGV uZGl4aXN1cw -- "Darwin was also not aware that appendicitis, or a potentially deadly inflammation of the appendix, is not due to a faulty appendix, but rather to cultural changes associated with industrialized society and improved sanitation, [William] Parker [an immunologist at Duke University Medical Center] said."

Finally, FYI, according to http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/23/science/sci-drugs23 -- "Prescription drug injuries and deaths reach record levels: A watchdog group reports that 4,825 deaths and 21,000 injuries occurred in the first three months of 2008." This is not to say that medical doctors are responsible for the majority of these deaths and injuries merely by prescribing the drugs, but clearly prescription drugs, for all the good they do, have a much bigger downside than the appendix does.

[Yoink]

So she didn't go to see a doctor? FYI, according to http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/A-Ce/Appendectomy.html -- "Currently, the mortality rate is estimated at one to two per 1,000,000 cases of appendicitis."

Also, FYI, according to http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090824/sc_livescience/theappendixusefulandinfactpromising;_ylt=ApjAsUT0L V422c_dPVPYOois0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTN1YXBldW9vBGFzc2V0A 2xpdmVzY2llbmNlLzIwMDkwODI0L3RoZWFwcGVuZGl4dXNlZnV sYW5kaW5mYWN0cHJvbWlzaW5nBGNwb3MDOQRwb3MDNgRwdANob 21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrA2FwcGV uZGl4aXN1cw -- "Darwin was also not aware that appendicitis, or a potentially deadly inflammation of the appendix, is not due to a faulty appendix, but rather to cultural changes associated with industrialized society and improved sanitation, [William] Parker [an immunologist at Duke University Medical Center] said."

Finally, FYI, according to http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/23/science/sci-drugs23 -- "Prescription drug injuries and deaths reach record levels: A watchdog group reports that 4,825 deaths and 21,000 injuries occurred in the first three months of 2008." This is not to say that medical doctors are responsible for the majority of these deaths and injuries merely by prescribing the drugs, but clearly prescription drugs, for all the good they do, have a much bigger downside than the appendix does.

So, your argument is that the appendix is a brilliant piece of design that poses no real threat to us because as long as we make sure we're born in the first world in the last 100 years it probably won't kill us.

This is a fundamentally unserious argument.

[BenBurch]

By the time she got to the hospital, it was too late. This was probably exacerbated by it being the Christmas break, and she was up in a small town in Minnesota that did not have its own doctor.

And as Yoink points out, that rate you quoted is for NOW, 40 years ago, when this happened, it was not so good. And 160 years ago, a doctor would have been almost no help to you. So, if you think the appendix is such a great design, your designer sentenced millions to death before Dr. Lister came up with antiseptic surgery and Morton proved the value of Ether.

[Rodney]

By the time she got to the hospital, it was too late. This was probably exacerbated by it being the Christmas break, and she was up in a small town in Minnesota that did not have its own doctor.
If that happened, it's very sad but again, very uncommon nowadays in the U.S.

And as Yoink points out, that rate you quoted is for NOW, 40 years ago, when this happened, it was not so good. And 160 years ago, a doctor would have been almost no help to you. So, if you think the appendix is such a great design, your designer sentenced millions to death before Dr. Lister came up with antiseptic surgery and Morton proved the value of Ether.
If Immunologist Parker is correct, appendicitis is only a problem in industrialized societies. So, only during the brief window in time that industrialized society came into existence and an effective treatment for appendicitis was developed, can a significant number of deaths be attributed to the appendix.

[Yoink]

If that happened, it's very sad but again, very uncommon nowadays in the U.S.


If Immunologist Parker is correct, appendicitis is only a problem in industrialized societies. So, only during the brief window in time that industrialized society came into existence and an effective treatment for appendicitis was developed, can a significant number of deaths be attributed to the appendix.

Google "iliac passion." Parker is making a patently false claim.

[BenBurch]

I assure you, appendicitis deaths can be inferred throughout history. It was only since the 1600s that the disease was recognized and it was the late 1800s before it was properly understood. The first appendectomy was in 1735. I don't know about you, and do doubt you will find some post hoc rationalization, but in my opinion there were no "industrialized societies" in 1735.

Hippocrates mentions it saying (paraphrasing from memory) "a protracted pain about the bowels is a bad sign." And it is commonly reported as a disorder of the illiac. Understand that OPENING the abdomen to treat a disease was not something done back then that I am aware of, and so we have to go by such records, but it is without a doubt that appendicitis was always a malady, and a fatal one, of mankind.

If, of course, one gages incidence by a DIAGNOSIS of appendicitis, well, then, of course it goes with industrialization as the DIAGNOSIS came with it, and reported cases increased with both population growth and the increase in the incidence of doctors worthy of the name. But to reason this shows that the disease comes from industrialization is a gross and ignorant fallacy.

[BenBurch]

Google "iliac passion." Parker is making a patently false claim.

Beat me to it!

In my defense I was trying to remember what Hippocrates said about it. I hope I got it right.

[BenBurch]

Aha! I was close! Not bad when my history of science class was in the 1970s.

http://books.google.com/books?id=2goTAAAAYAAJ&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=hippocrates&f=false

[edge]

What Is Wrong With The Human Body?

We are trapped in it ... but only for a short time.

[BenBurch]

What Is Wrong With The Human Body?

We are trapped in it ... but only for a short time.

WAY too short.

[arthwollipot]

Would you agree that Myers and Schwab have been proven wrong about the appendix being "worthless"?If I accept that Myers and Schwab were "proven wrong" about the appendix, does that make it any better a design?

Suppose I say something like: "My third grade teacher was killed by her medical doctor, who took her off the herbal treatment she had been on and gave her a prescription drug." Would you accept that as being true?Had this been a long-acknowledged cause of death, then I probably wouldn't question it. Since this was not, then I would.

Hey, that's neat!You haven't seen it before? That surprises me.

[Ixion]

The semantics going on here is so mind-numbing. As paximperium as pointed out, it has been known for a while that portions of the intestines are important for immune function. The appendix is part of that group. That does not exclude it from being vestigial. However, and this is where semantics come into play, it depends on what definition of vestigial you are using. Biologists have long complained that vestigial is a vague term and often leads to debate about what is a vestigial organ and what is not. The Oxford English Dictionary defines vestigial as: organs or structures remaining or surviving in a degenerate, atrophied, or imperfect condition or form. Even this definition, while being more precise, is incomplete. I could argue that the appendix is vestigial simply based on the idea of perfection. Silly, really.

[SphereGuy]

Who would design a body such that I couldn't put my elbow in my ear?

[BenBurch]

Who would design a body such that I couldn't put my elbow in my ear?

And why are my teeth so close together that I can't clean between them with my tongue?

[Molinaro]

According to the emails I get on a daily basis, my manhood is in need of lengthening. :(

[Molinaro]

And why are my teeth so close together that I can't clean between them with my tongue?

Why not have a tongue with bristles on the underside.. built in brush!

[Rodney]

Google "iliac passion." Parker is making a patently false claim.
I did, and it appears that iliac passion is a different condition than appendicitis. Specifically, it, or "ileus" "is a partial or complete non-mechanical blockage of the small and/or large intestine." See http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Iliac+passion

[shandyjan]

The fertility years, they start too soon and end too late. I wish evolution would sort that, we dont need to get pregnant at 12 any more.

[BenBurch]

I did, and it appears that iliac passion is a different condition than appendicitis. Specifically, it, or "ileus" "is a partial or complete non-mechanical blockage of the small and/or large intestine." See http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Iliac+passion

No, that is how the condition was interpreted in antiquity. Absolutely a proven fact.

[iiwo]

I did that in Post #116 on this thread, but to repeat: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/02/what-use-is-an.html

Thank you.

[BenBurch]

Thank you.

"text area not found"

[Rodney]

No, that is how the condition was interpreted in antiquity. Absolutely a proven fact.
So why does the modern source that I cited make no reference to appendicitis in its discussion of ileus?

[Rodney]

"text area not found"
Yes, for some reason it says that, but you are still able to read PZ Myers' pearls of wisdom. If not, here they are:

"Here's an excellent and useful summary of the appendix from a surgeon's perspective.
Creationists dislike the idea that we bear useless organs, remnants of past function that are non-functional or even hazardous to our health; they make up stories about the importance of these vestiges. Sid Schwab has cut out a lot of appendices, and backs up its non-utility with evidence.

[quoting Schwab] "The study I cited most often to my patients when asked about adverse consequences of appendectomy is one done by the Mayo Clinic: they studied records of thousands of patients who'd had appendectomy, and compared them with equal thousands who hadn't. (Back in the day, it was very common during any abdominal operation to remove the appendix. Like flicking a bug off your shoulder. No extra charge: just did it to prevent further problems: took an extra couple of minutes, is all.) The groups were statistically similar in every way other than presence of the worm. There were no differences in incidence of any disease. It's as convincing as it gets, given the impossibility of doing a prospective double-blind study. [end quoting Schwab]

"I have a personal interest in this: I was nearly killed by my appendix at the age of 9, and had it removed. I haven't missed it since."

[BenBurch]

So why does the modern source that I cited make no reference to appendicitis in its discussion of ileus?

Because there is a MODERN diagnosis of Ileus that is different from the diagnosis of Appendicitis. And much less common.

[Rodney]

Because there is a MODERN diagnosis of Ileus that is different from the diagnosis of Appendicitis. And much less common.
Do you have any historical data on the number of deaths from what we now call appendicitis?

[ponderingturtle]

Interesting point. My first response was, "Well if the body produced that substance, we wouldn't call it a vitamin."

Not nessacarily, see vitamin D.

[BenBurch]

Do you have any historical data on the number of deaths from what we now call appendicitis?

Of course not. That is a stupid thing to ask for.

Such records were simply not kept until very recently.

Likewise you cannot see a lot of cancer deaths in antiquity because many were "causes unknown" and because autopsy was not routine. But from that it is a fallacy to conclude that cancer surged in the late 1800s.

Likewise, you could conclude that heart valve failure never happened until the 20th century, when we all know it was simply not detected.

But if you will go read the book I posted a link to a page or so back, your doubts about historical appendicitis will be eliminated, or should be if you are being honest.

[paximperium]

So Rodney has completely failed in his argument and is doing nothing more than nitpicking. Do you have a point at all Rodney or are you making small talk?

[Rodney]

So Rodney has completely failed in his argument and is doing nothing more than nitpicking. Do you have a point at all Rodney or are you making small talk?
The main point is that, contrary to what textbooks have misinformed schoolchildren for years, the appendix has a function, and probably a significant function. I'm also trying to determine just how many people appendicitis has killed historically, but have not received an answer.

[paximperium]

The main point is that, contrary to what textbooks have misinformed schoolchildren for years, the appendix has a function, and probably a significant function. "Oh noes, think of the little children!!!" :rolleyes:
You're wrong and continue to be wrong. The appendix has a function(in fact several) but is not very significant. Even if the appendix has a major function, science changes and with it textbooks. "Misinformed" my ass.

I'm also trying to determine just how many people appendicitis has killed historically, but have not received an answer. Don't know. Old textbooks say 50% but there are no citations on it.

So what was your point again?

[BenBurch]

The short answer is hundreds of millions killed in a painful, hideous way by your imaginary designer, Rodney, by an organ that has no real useful function that other bits of the intestines do not have.

You DO realize that the EXISTENCE of that bit of anatomy wasn't known any earlier than the 16th century, right? And a real understanding and accurate diagnosis of the actual cause of what had been killing people for millennia wasn't until the late 19th century.

Nothing positive the appendix does comes even close to what it does to humanity when it becomes diseased. People who have had them removed have NO difference in morbidity or mortality compared to people who have not had them removed. (In the modern era, ALMOST nobody dies of appendicitis, of course, so that is as close to a proof of null benefit as you can get.)

[Rodney]

The short answer is hundreds of millions killed in a painful, hideous way by your imaginary designer, Rodney, by an organ that has no real useful function that other bits of the intestines do not have.
So now we're up to "hundreds of millions", even though you have no documentation?

You DO realize that the EXISTENCE of that bit of anatomy wasn't known any earlier than the 16th century, right? And a real understanding and accurate diagnosis of the actual cause of what had been killing people for millennia wasn't until the late 19th century.
If we have no evidence, let's blame appendicitis!

Nothing positive the appendix does comes even close to what it does to humanity when it becomes diseased.
Evidence?
People who have had them removed have NO difference in morbidity or mortality compared to people who have not had them removed.
Evidence?

(In the modern era, ALMOST nobody dies of appendicitis,
Except for your third-grade teacher.

of course, so that is as close to a proof of null benefit as you can get.)
???

[paximperium]

So now we're up to "hundreds of millions", even though you have no documentation?


If we have no evidence, let's blame appendicitis!


Evidence?

Evidence?


Except for your third-grade teacher.


???
Are you seriously actually arguing that appendicitis is a modern phenomena?

[ddt]

Are you seriously actually arguing that appendicitis is a modern phenomena?

Phenomenon (spelling nazi mode off)

Sure. God only invented appendicitis in the 19th C. to punish mankind for its technological efforts to build into the sky - you know, the Eiffeltower.

[Rodney]

Are you seriously actually arguing that appendicitis is a modern phenomena?
That seems to be more or less Dr. William Parker's take, although I would guess he wouldn't argue that appendicitis never occurred prior to industrialized society, but only that it was rare:

"Darwin was also not aware that appendicitis, or a potentially deadly inflammation of the appendix, is not due to a faulty appendix, but rather to cultural changes associated with industrialized society and improved sanitation, Parker said.

"Those changes left our immune systems with too little work and too much time their hands - a recipe for trouble," he said. "Darwin had no way of knowing that the function of the appendix could be rendered obsolete by cultural changes that included widespread use of sewer systems and clean drinking water."

"Now that scientists are uncovering the normal function of the appendix, Parker notes a critical question to ask is whether anything can be done to prevent appendicitis. He suggests it might be possible to devise ways to incite our immune systems today in much the same manner that they were challenged back in the Stone Age.

"If modern medicine could figure out a way to do that, we would see far fewer cases of allergies, autoimmune disease, and appendicitis," Parker said.

"The scientists detailed their findings online August 12 in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology."

See http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090824/sc_livescience/theappendixusefulandinfactpromising;_ylt=ApjAsUT0L V422c_dPVPYOois0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTN1YXBldW9vBGFzc2V0A 2xpdmVzY2llbmNlLzIwMDkwODI0L3RoZWFwcGVuZGl4dXNlZnV sYW5kaW5mYWN0cHJvbWlzaW5nBGNwb3MDOQRwb3MDNgRwdANob 21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrA2FwcGV uZGl4aXN1cw--

[KingMerv00]

I'm also trying to determine just how many people appendicitis has killed historically, but have not received an answer.

According to Time magazine one in ten people get appendicitis (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1906614,00.html). According to this site (http://www.oldandsold.com/articles32n/health-chats-146.shtml) 18 to 20 thousand people in the United States die every year from the disease. That's a death rate of about 0.06%. According to this site (http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx), 106,456,367,669 people have lived on the Earth.

Assuming that the rate of appendicitis has remained the same:

10,645,636,767 got sick and 638,738,206 died.

This assumes humans have had modern medicine since the beginning, which of couse they have not. Also, a lot of those people would have died too young to get appendicitis.

[fuelair]

You mean our dirty minds....?



and why do our eyes "see" everything upside down then making the brain turn the world the right way up?

-
Cause there is only a single convex lens (much simpler to do biologically I suspect) in the eye. Automatically means an inverted image.

[BenBurch]

Good estimate KingMerv!

[BenBurch]

Cause there is only a single convex lens (much simpler to do biologically I suspect) in the eye. Automatically means an inverted image.

Worse is the actual quality of the image. Its trash. Our perception of a continuous and sharp visual world is an illusion due to extensive post-processing, and if provably defective. (Hence optical illusions.)

[Yoink]

According to Time magazine one in ten people get appendicitis (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1906614,00.html). According to this site (http://www.oldandsold.com/articles32n/health-chats-146.shtml) 18 to 20 thousand people in the United States die every year from the disease. That's a death rate of about 0.06%. (Keep in mind that includes modern medicine). According to this site (http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx), 106,456,367,669 people have lived on the Earth.

Assuming that the rate of appendicitis has remained the same:

10,645,636,767 got sick and 638,738,206 died.

This assumes humans have had modern medicine since the beginning, which of couse they have not. Also, a lot of those people would have died too young to get appendicitis.

Actually, doing some Googling around, there does seem to be good evidence that appendicitis rates are substantially lower in non-industrialized societies (nobody seems to know why, although there are a bunch of theories--including low-fiber diets). Parker's basic claim is actually pretty well supported. However, you only need to look at the numbers above to realize that even if the rates in non-industrialized countries were one hundreth of what they are in industrialized ones, we're still talking about millions of dead people throughout human history.

[BenBurch]

Rates of reporting and autopsy rates are also lower in non-industrialized parts of the planet. I believe there may be an effect, but the apparent magnitude is illusory.

[Rrose Selavy]

Came across this.
Warning: some disturbing images


Neil deGrasse Tyson : stupid design

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1cKD93W3yg

-

[KingMerv00]

Actually, doing some Googling around, there does seem to be good evidence that appendicitis rates are substantially lower in non-industrialized societies (nobody seems to know why, although there are a bunch of theories--including low-fiber diets). Parker's basic claim is actually pretty well supported. However, you only need to look at the numbers above to realize that even if the rates in non-industrialized countries were one hundreth of what they are in industrialized ones, we're still talking about millions of dead people throughout human history.

The rate of appendicitis might be lower in non-industrialized nations but the rate of death from the disease is higher because of the lack of modern medicine.

[Yoink]

Rates of reporting and autopsy rates are also lower in non-industrialized parts of the planet. I believe there may be an effect, but the apparent magnitude is illusory.

Now now, don't imitate Rodney by simply dismissing evidence that doesn't fit your preconceptions. There are some conflicting reports, but the lower rate of appendicitis in non-industrialized communities seems to be a very robust finding. Here's (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1295383&pageindex=1)a typical (and, I think, quite cautious) study.

Lower is not nonexistent, however.

ETA: if you want a quick snapshot of current medical opinion on this question, by the way, go to Google books and enter "appendicitis developing countries." Almost every single link on the first page of hits talks about how incidents are low in developing countries but rising as their diets change.

[Yoink]

The rate of appendicitis might be lower in non-industrialized nations but the rate of death from the disease is higher because of the lack of modern medicine.

Yes, indeed.

[paximperium]

That seems to be more or less Dr. William Parker's take, although I would guess he wouldn't argue that appendicitis never occurred prior to industrialized society, but only that it was rare:

"Darwin was also not aware that appendicitis, or a potentially deadly inflammation of the appendix, is not due to a faulty appendix, but rather to cultural changes associated with industrialized society and improved sanitation, Parker said.

"Those changes left our immune systems with too little work and too much time their hands - a recipe for trouble," he said. "Darwin had no way of knowing that the function of the appendix could be rendered obsolete by cultural changes that included widespread use of sewer systems and clean drinking water."

"Now that scientists are uncovering the normal function of the appendix, Parker notes a critical question to ask is whether anything can be done to prevent appendicitis. He suggests it might be possible to devise ways to incite our immune systems today in much the same manner that they were challenged back in the Stone Age.

"If modern medicine could figure out a way to do that, we would see far fewer cases of allergies, autoimmune disease, and appendicitis," Parker said.

"The scientists detailed their findings online August 12 in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology."

See http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090824/sc_livescience/theappendixusefulandinfactpromising;_ylt=ApjAsUT0L V422c_dPVPYOois0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTN1YXBldW9vBGFzc2V0A 2xpdmVzY2llbmNlLzIwMDkwODI0L3RoZWFwcGVuZGl4dXNlZnV sYW5kaW5mYWN0cHJvbWlzaW5nBGNwb3MDOQRwb3MDNgRwdANob 21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrA2FwcGV uZGl4aXN1cw--
In conclusion: The appendix is poorly designed for modern living.
This paper will be peer reviewed and discussed just as with any other piece of scientific work.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Do you have any historical data on the number of deaths from what we now call appendicitis?

I provided some earlier, but with the caveat that a real diagnosis wasn't known until just about the time appendectomies began. So it's a little hard to know how many people died of appendicitis before we even attempted appendectomies. (Somewhere above I cited the death rate in the 1930's which was in the relatively early days of the surgical treatment.)


At any rate, for purposes of this thread, it's poor design even if death is rare since the benefit of having an appendix is not life and death. That is, even if only 1 person in a million used to die from appendicitis* the fact that a person can survive without an appendix shows that it's very poor design.

*Even today, the overall mortality rate of appendicitis is 0.2-0.8% "attributable to complications of the disease rather than to surgical intervention"). Incidence of appendicitis is about 7% of the population in the U.S. Linky (http://medscapecrm.net/article/773895-overview).

So even today, about 0.0035% (that's 7% x 0.5%) of the population dies from appendicitis. (That's more than 1 in a million, if I did the math right.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Now now, don't imitate Rodney by simply dismissing evidence that doesn't fit your preconceptions. There are some conflicting reports, but the lower rate of appendicitis in non-industrialized communities seems to be a very robust finding. Here's (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1295383&pageindex=1)a typical (and, I think, quite cautious) study.

Lower is not nonexistent, however.


Besides, it'd still be pretty poor design if the all-powerful and all-knowing Designer failed to plan for industrialized society!

[BenBurch]

Now now, don't imitate Rodney by simply dismissing evidence that doesn't fit your preconceptions. There are some conflicting reports, but the lower rate of appendicitis in non-industrialized communities seems to be a very robust finding. Here's (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1295383&pageindex=1)a typical (and, I think, quite cautious) study.

Lower is not nonexistent, however.

ETA: if you want a quick snapshot of current medical opinion on this question, by the way, go to Google books and enter "appendicitis developing countries." Almost every single link on the first page of hits talks about how incidents are low in developing countries but rising as their diets change.

Well, that's not what I said at all. I am sure there is an effect. I am equally sure that reporting imbalance changes the magnitude.

[Rodney]

According to Time magazine one in ten people get appendicitis (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1906614,00.html).
I'm with you so far.

According to this site (http://www.oldandsold.com/articles32n/health-chats-146.shtml) 18 to 20 thousand people in the United States die every year from the disease. That's a death rate of about 0.06%.
Your source is from 1936. A more up-to-date number is 390 deaths in the U.S. in 1999, a reduction of about 98%; see http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/a/acute_appendicitis/prognosis.htm

According to this site (http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx), 106,456,367,669 people have lived on the Earth.

Assuming that the rate of appendicitis has remained the same:

10,645,636,767 got sick and 638,738,206 died.

This assumes humans have had modern medicine since the beginning, which of couse they have not. Also, a lot of those people would have died too young to get appendicitis.
You have no evidence that appendicitis even existed until relatively recently in mankind's history, so your calculation is irrelevant.

[Yoink]

You have no evidence that appendicitis even existed until relatively recently in mankind's history, so your calculation is irrelevant.

Your Googlefu needs remedial work.

[JoeTheJuggler]

You have no evidence that appendicitis even existed until relatively recently in mankind's history, so your calculation is irrelevant.

What? You think appendicitis is only a recent phenomenon?

And I suppose TB didn't exist until we called it by name?

[BenBurch]

What? You think appendicitis is only a recent phenomenon?

And I suppose TB didn't exist until we called it by name?

And mitral valve failure started happening about 1912.

[Jethro Tull]

Nothing is wrong with the human body.
Wanting things to be different than they are is the cause of all suffering.
Ha, no but seriously, this thread is pretty cool.
I just really can't think of anything wrong. :P

[paximperium]

To Rodney unless something is described, it doesn't exist. Talk about the ultimate form of apolegetics and denial. I guess the heart attacks or strokes didn't exist until someone wrote about to Rodney.

[paximperium]

You have no evidence that appendicitis even existed until relatively recently in mankind's history, so your calculation is irrelevant.
And even if appendicitis is a brand spanking new disease, your weasel "non-point" is irrelevant.

[Rodney]

Your Googlefu needs remedial work.
Please supply a link documenting the earliest known case of appendicitis.

[paximperium]

Please supply a link documenting the earliest known case of appendicitis.
Hey, let's say appendicitis is brand spanking new disease. So what?
Still no point at all huh?

[SphereGuy]

Please supply a link documenting the earliest known case of appendicitis.

After much googling, then searching on the internet, I found this. (http://www.starthinker.com/appendix.html)

[Herzblut]

Isn't the human body pretty vulnerable to cancer, compared to sharks, turtles and other "old" species?

[paximperium]

"Suppuration upon a protracted pain of the parts about the bowels is bad." This aphorism of Hippocrates forms practically the first recorded observation of a disease known for centuries subsequently under the rather vague name of the iliac or the colic passion. Its cause was not understood, but it was explained, in a manner more or less satisfactory to themselves, by the various authors of classic times. Another aphorism of Hippocrates records the fact that from the rupture of an internal abscess prostration of strength, vomiting, and deliquium animi result. That some of these cases seen by the Father of Medicine were instances of appendicular abscess is scarcely for a moment to be doubted. That many of them were other affections seems even more certain.John Blair Deaver. Appendicitis: its history, anatomy, clinical ætiology, pathology, symptomatology, diagnosis, prognosis, technique of operation, complications and sequels; Edition 3. P. Blakiston Son and Co, Philadelphia 1905. pg 9.

[Rodney]

John Blair Deaver. Appendicitis: its history, anatomy, clinical ætiology, pathology, symptomatology, diagnosis, prognosis, technique of operation, complications and sequels; Edition 3. P. Blakiston Son and Co, Philadelphia 1905. pg 9.
You know, once in a blue moon, you come up with something of value. ;) Still, your source does say: "That some of these cases seen by the Father of Medicine were instances of appendicular abscess is scarcely for a moment to be doubted. That many of them were other affections seems even more certain." So, I think the big question is how prevalent appendicitis was prior to industrialization. Nonetheless, I give you a gold star for your research.

[paximperium]

You know, once in a blue moon, you come up with something of value. ;) Still, your source does say: "That some of these cases seen by the Father of Medicine were instances of appendicular abscess is scarcely for a moment to be doubted. That many of them were other affections seems even more certain." So, I think the big question is how prevalent appendicitis was prior to industrialization. Nonetheless, I give you a gold star for your research.
You know, once in a blue moon...wait nevermind, you still have no point at all. So still arguing that the appendix is ill suited for modern living?

[Rodney]

After much googling, then searching on the internet, I found this. (http://www.starthinker.com/appendix.html)
Hmm, that seems to contradict paximperium's source, who believes appendicitis was known in Hippocrates' time. Moreover, I have incontrovertible evidence that the pain Alexander experienced in his side was caused by a spear thrown by his wife, who wanted to collect on his life insurance policy. Sadly, she never got a dime, as the policy was underwritten by a distant relative of Bernie Madoff.

[Rodney]

You know, once in a blue moon...wait nevermind, you still have no point at all. So still arguing that the appendix is ill suited for modern living?
No, mine has served me quite well.

[paximperium]

No, mine has served me quite well.
And its removal in appendicitis has prevented it from killing thousands each year with no detrimental effect.

So still no point huh?