The Appendix - Pinnacle of design or Problematic evolutionary leftover?

[BenBurch]

Continuing the idea in the thread started here; http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151313

Which is it?

IDers absolutely need to argue the first point. For their mythical Designer to be competent (and a religion with an incompetent god would be an interesting thing to behold) it has to not only have a function, but an important function that is far more benefit than the problems the nasty wormy thing causes.

Evolutionists, on the other hand, see it as either a vestigial body (having only a marginal current benefit) of some useful organ or a "dunsel" that had no real use, but in either case that its negative impact on health has not been great enough to purge it from the human gene pool even though some humans are born without them.

"Talk amongst yourselves."

[Dancing David]

I heard on the radio last night that someone is proposing that the appendix harbors a culture of 'good' biota for the digestive system.

I think theyw ere talking about this guy,
http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/iss...408/depqa.html

[pupdog]

There is a new paper coming out about which animals have an appendix (phylogenetic distribution) and its anatomy (The Panda's Thumb.

The phylogenetic distribution of the appendix is consistent with evolution, although much remains to be learned about its origin and development.

[pupdog]

They're talking about a paper of which Parker is a co-author. The abstract can be found here.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by pupdog

They're talking about a paper of which Parker is a co-author. The abstract can be found here.

'But that's impossible. Evilutionists suppress anything that contradict their Darwinist Religion...."Ouch...channeling Creationist/IDiots was really painful.

[Cainkane1]

While it is an artifact from our pre human primate developement it does have some uses. Since its a tube it can be used to replace a urethal tube gone bad. It has another use and that is that when antiobiotics kill off useful bacteria elsewhere in the digestive tract the bacteria is usually still alive in the appendix.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

While it is an artifact from our pre human primate developement it does have some uses. Since its a tube it can be used to replace a urethal tube gone bad. It has another use and that is that when antiobiotics kill off useful bacteria elsewhere in the digestive tract the bacteria is usually still alive in the appendix.

No one here has argued that the appendix is completely useless. It has uses but it is still vestigial, poorly "designed" and is now unnecessary.

Rodney, our resident Creationist, is attempting to weasel in some sort of ID/Creationist point but has consistently failed in his strawman and argument's from ignorance in attempt to magic in some super important function for it.

[jasonpatterson]

I can't remember where I first heard the hypothesis, but it's been suggested that the reason that the appendix hasn't simply disappeared completely by shrinking into nothing is that it is already about as small as it can get without causing serious problems for far more people. If it got smaller, infection would take root much more easily and the individuals with a small appendix would be more likely to die, basically. It was an interesting idea, though I don't know whether anyone actually studied the idea rigorously.

[casebro]

Yesbut JP, studies do not show higher deaths among subjects who have had their appendixs removed.

I don't know about whether any differences at all are ever shown, like more sick days, poor absorption of particular nutrients, more sensitive to intestinal germs, nuthin I know of.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by casebro

Yesbut JP, studies do not show higher deaths among subjects who have had their appendixs removed.

I don't know about whether any differences at all are ever shown, like more sick days, poor absorption of particular nutrients, more sensitive to intestinal germs, nuthin I know of.

Well there are studies that show significantly higher death rates from people who do not get their appendix removed...when the appendix is inflamed

[BenBurch]

Problem is that you have to be careful how you derive your numbers.

I find studies of long term morbidity with people who had appendectomies due to diagnostic signs and had a normal appendix found (and removed) during the procedure... But the problem it that it is a surgical procedure and any such procedure in gut and that has its own problems you just have a hard time factoring out.

We do know that these people will never have appendicitis, however, and in the studies I looked at of the removal of a normal appendix there was some morbidity but no associated mortality. And we know that some people with appendicitis DO die.

All-in-all, though, there APPEARS to be no benefit to having an appendix.

[Wolfman]

I have a problem with the OP. It seems to base discussion of the value of the appendix on which side of the argument will benefit more. "Useful appendix" helps creationists; "useless appendix" helps evolutionists.

How about this. The 'fact' of whether or not the appendix has a role, or is entirely useless, is not based in any manner whatsoever on which side in the debate will benefit. In fact, this kind of thinking will lead us to exactly the kind of thinking that the religious folk suffer from -- we first decide what truth we want, and then pick and choose the information that will benefit our side (and ignore anything else).

As mentioned by others above, recent research does indicate that the appendix does, in fact, play a role...and is not entirely useless. And I don't really give a damn if that 'helps' one side or the other in the debate, what we should be after is 'truth'.

And quite frankly, if the 'truth' ends up hurting our side of the argument...then that's an indication that we need to re-examine our argument. Which is what science does all the time.

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by paximperium

No one here has argued that the appendix is completely useless.

Other than the Opening Poster (BobG) on the original thread (What Is Wrong With The Human Body?), who began by informing us that the number one thing that's wrong is "The unnecessary appendix."

[jasonpatterson]

Originally Posted by casebro

Yesbut JP, studies do not show higher deaths among subjects who have had their appendixs removed.

I don't know about whether any differences at all are ever shown, like more sick days, poor absorption of particular nutrients, more sensitive to intestinal germs, nuthin I know of.

I wasn't talking about an appendix having any sort of beneficial role at all or anything to do with people who have had appendectomies. What I'm talking about is why evolution hasn't driven the appendix to be smaller and smaller until it disappears. Some people don't have one at all, but it's not that they grew a really tiny one, they just didn't grow an appendix.

Again, this is a hypothesis I read about a while ago, and I don't know if there is any actual evidence to back it up, but the general idea was that if the average person's appendix were smaller (narrower, that is) then it would be more likely to become inflamed, infected, and dangerous, thus the appendix is stuck at its current size.

[elbe]

Originally Posted by Rodney

Other than the Opening Poster (BobG) on the original thread (What Is Wrong With The Human Body?), who began by informing us that the number one thing that's wrong is "The unnecessary appendix."

Unnecessary does not mean useless, you know. For me an electric wheelchair would be unnecessary, as I can walk fine, but it could still be useful when I'm lazy.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by elbe

Unnecessary does not mean useless, you know. For me an electric wheelchair would be unnecessary, as I can walk fine, but it could still be useful when I'm lazy.

Exactly. The little toe is also largely unnecessary, but though they get broken a lot, they usually do not post a threat to life.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by Rodney

Other than the Opening Poster (BobG) on the original thread (What Is Wrong With The Human Body?), who began by informing us that the number one thing that's wrong is "The unnecessary appendix."

So you really don't know how to read? I thought I was just being sarcastic and joking about your illiteracy which keeps coming off as strawmen arguments.
Sorry for making fun of your deficiency.

PS: Do you have some point yet?

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by elbe

Unnecessary does not mean useless, you know. For me an electric wheelchair would be unnecessary, as I can walk fine, but it could still be useful when I'm lazy.

According to http://www.allwords.com/word-unnecessary.html -- the definition of "unnecessary" is: "Not necessary; not needed; surplus to requirement;useless; obsolete" (emphasis added). However, even if you argue that unnecessary is not synonymous with useless, the research of a Duke team indicates that the appendix is necessary in pre-industrialized societies. Specifically: "Drawing upon a series of observations and experiments, Duke University Medical Center investigators postulate that the beneficial bacteria in the appendix that aid digestion can ride out a bout of diarrhea that completely evacuates the intestines and emerge afterwards to repopulate the gut . . . Diseases causing severe diarrhea are endemic in countries without modern health and sanitation practices, which often results in the entire contents of the bowels, including the biofilms, being flushed from the body . . . Once the bowel contents have left the body, the good bacteria hidden away in the appendix can emerge and repopulate the lining of the intestine before more harmful bacteria can take up residence . . . In industrialized societies with modern medical care and sanitation practices, the maintenance of a reserve of beneficial bacteria may not be necessary . . ." See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1008102334.htm

Moreover, the research of Prof. Loren Martin indicates that the appendix is necessary even in industrialized societies: "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 . . . 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. During the early years of development, however, the appendix has been shown to function as a lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and in the production of the class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies. Researchers have also shown that the appendix is involved in the production of molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body." See http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-function-of-t

[paximperium]

That's nice Rodney. A rehash of a 1999 opinion piece from a segment called "Ask the Experts" where he explains the functions of the endocrine and immunological functions of the appendix which seem awfully similar the Payer's Patches and just about all the lymphoid tissue in the colon. Could you please link me to Martin's paper that shows that it is "necessary" and not just his opinion.

So do you have a point yet in the little conversation?

Editorial: As we can see, we have the classic Creationist tactic of Quote Mining and Argument from Authority in an attempt to defend a collapsed ID/Creationist argument based on nonsense to the bitter end. Instead, he ignores everything that contradicts the "design" argument and quibble over this little game of semantics. Since their arguments are based on nonsense and not on any real scientific basis, they must defend their little talking points.

Even if the appendix is truly functional, it does not change the simple fact that it is in fact vestigial and it is in fact one of the worst "designs" of any organ in the human body. Something that Creationist purposefully gloss over.

[rjh01]

paximperium I think you are being a bit hard on Rodney. He gives us some interesting information from a good source. His post contains an accurate summary of the article, so he is not quote mining.

There is nothing wrong with Argument from Authority as long as the Authority has the qualifications and experience to say what he says. Almost anything from Scientific American is from a good source and can be relied on to be accurate at the time of publishing.

I have no argument with paximperium's last paragraph.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by rjh01

paximperium I think you are being a bit hard on Rodney. He gives us some interesting information from a good source. His post contains an accurate summary of the article, so he is not quote mining.

There is nothing wrong with Argument from Authority as long as the Authority has the qualifications and experience to say what he says. Almost anything from Scientific American is from a good source and can be relied on to be accurate at the time of publishing.

I'm being hard on Rodney because he has nothing relevant to add or say. No one here has stated that the appendix has no function(which was his original contention) and when told that multiple times, he has now changed his argument into stating that the appendix is some important and "essential" organ.

Nothing he has said is truly that new or interesting. Dr. Martin answered a question on Ask an Expert segment of Scientific American(and sorry, while they are overall good, I have a lot of issues with some of their articles especially their hyperbolic headlines). In that segment, there are no appropriate citations or reasoning behind his opinion and frankly, his description of the functions of the appendix are exactly the same as the multitude of lymphoid tissue in the colon. Quoting one person, even an expert, without appropriate backing is an argument from authority.

I still see nothing "essential" about the appendix.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by pupdog

There is a new paper coming out about which animals have an appendix (phylogenetic distribution) and its anatomy (The Panda's Thumb.

The phylogenetic distribution of the appendix is consistent with evolution, although much remains to be learned about its origin and development.

Interesting. Are there no animals with a "non-vestigal appendix" that would show what it was supposed to be for originally. I'd find it hard to believe that various animals would have it, and it would become about as vestigal at the same time, given their vastly different environments.


That's why the store room of emergency response white blood cells or whatever sounds like a good explanation.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Beerina

... I'd find it hard to believe that various animals would have it, and it would become about as vestigal at the same time, given their vastly different environments. ...

If it became vestigial in a common ancestor, that would explain it.

It appears to be a remnant of the cecum which many herbivores use to digest cellulose.

Like other vestigial things, it it likely that it could disappear for quite some time and then reappear when some other mutation for some other "purpose" turns the genes that make it on.

Remember that evolution sometimes changes things in neutral non-adaptive ways, just genetic drift, but that it is that sort of thing that sometimes gets re-used later in ways that are adaptive.