Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Your appendix: The king of vestigial organs has a job again

Categories
Darwinism
Medicine
News
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In “Your appendix could save your life”(Scientific American, January 2, 2012),Rob Dunn reports

Parker’s idea, his hypothesis [that the appendix is a sanctuary for useful bacteria], predicts individuals with their appendix should be more likely to recover from severe gut infections than those without. To test this prediction, one could compare the fate of individuals with and without their appendixes after being experimentally infected with a gut pathogen. Easier said than done. Not even college students will voluntarily sign up for a dose of cholera, and lab rats, those time honored guinea pigs who never object to being poked, do not have an appendix.

There was one way forward… Scientists could compare the fates of individuals who suffer gut infections and have an appendix to those of individuals who suffer the same gut infections and do not have an appendix.

They found their opportunity with deadly C. difficile, which thrives in patients heavily dosed with antibiotics that have killed off the other bacteria:

James Grendell and his team were able to find 254 patients at Winthrop-University Hospital who met the requirements of their study. Each needed to be older than 18 with evidence of having been infected by C. difficile. The team then focused on the subset of patients for whom the presence/absence of an appendix was known or discernible.

And then, second, the big result…. Individuals without an appendix were four times more likely to have a recurrence of Clostridium difficile, exactly as Parker’s hypothesis predicted. Recurrence in individuals with their appendix intact occurred in 11% of cases. Recurrence in individuals without their appendix occurred in 48% of cases.

Of course, more research will be needed, but the Darwin lobby’s loss of a talking point could well be the patient’s gain if treatments for appendicitis can steer – so far as is consistent with health – away from simple removal as a surefire solution.

Would any organ that had not been labelled by Darwin’s men as vestigial – thus proof of their theory – have been treated this way?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
SCheesman:
Since we are being anal about this...
We? You're the one who knows that "vestigial" does not imply "non-functional", yet wants to argue about whether they might still be synonyms. I'll pass.champignon
January 4, 2012
January
01
Jan
4
04
2012
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PST
Clearly not synonymous with “non-functional”.
Since we are being anal about this, I'll join in the fun. "Synonymous" does not necessarily imply identical. I understand quite well that vestigal does not imply non-functional. However, synonymous itself means "alike in meaning or significance". So maybe you understand quite well what vestigial means, just not "synonymous". And for the record, I'm quite willing to accept that any number of things are quite reasonably vestigial (e.g. eyes in cave-dwelling fish), and for all the reasons normally given.SCheesman
January 4, 2012
January
01
Jan
4
04
2012
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PST
Exactly. And even if they are truly non-functional, having lost function through evolution, that does not do evolutionists any good. This is not the kind of change they need to prove their point. Even creationists believe in degeneration over time. We just have trouble with the opposite kind of change, random change that leads to new genes, new functions, and new organs, etc. This is the kind of change that you would need to see trillions of times over in order for an amoeba to turn into an astronaut, but the kind of change that results in loss of function cannot support this argument. So, in the end, who cares if it has lost function over time due to evolutionary mutations? That would support creationism more than evolution theory, would it not?tjguy
January 4, 2012
January
01
Jan
4
04
2012
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PST
The vestigial "argument" is an argument from ignorance as there is no way to know what any original function was. Nor is there any way to know if what you are looking at is a degenerative form. Not only that the "argument" in no way supports accumulations of random mutations.Joe
January 4, 2012
January
01
Jan
4
04
2012
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PST
They both seem cogent on a second look. What portion are you having difficulty with?Maus
January 4, 2012
January
01
Jan
4
04
2012
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PST
It was in response to your odd assertions in 1.1.1.1.1 and 2.1.champignon
January 4, 2012
January
01
Jan
4
04
2012
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PST
"Non-functionality is not a requirement." Indeed, you'll note that I mentioned that dictionaries use both definitions interchangeably. So I admit being a bit stumped since I'm quite certain your intention wasn't to parrot to me my own argument.Maus
January 4, 2012
January
01
Jan
4
04
2012
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PST
'Vestigial' derives from 'vestige', of course, and Merriam-Webster provides this definition of the latter as used in a biological context:
2: a bodily part or organ that is small and degenerate or imperfectly developed in comparison to one more fully developed in an earlier stage of the individual, in a past generation, or in closely related forms
Non-functionality is not a requirement.champignon
January 3, 2012
January
01
Jan
3
03
2012
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PST
Because it was designed; though that's a bit trite and off-hand. It should be noted that if you sort your way through the postulated mechanisms that there should never have been a claim from the Dice camp that there is any such notion as a vestigial anything. This is true simply on a pure gedanken basis, never mind the ever increasing mountain of evidence that 'vestigial' simply means that we are ignorant of its purpose and need make claims to perfect revealed knowledge regardless. I'm quite aware that pro-Evolutionists claim quite the contrary in defiance of any insight into their own theories. Nonetheless, both systems require disavowing the notion of vestigial bits and kibbles beyond a very short span of generations.Maus
January 3, 2012
January
01
Jan
3
03
2012
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PST
Nor is Wikipedia synonymous with accuracy. If you like bothering with dictionaries you'll find that none -- that I could find anyways -- hedge the bet with 'seemingly' and that they use 'lost all' and 'lost all or most' interchangeably. Not that this is surprising as vestigial originally did mean non-functional at this point. And has been the justification for appendectomies, tonsillectomies and the like. As well the vestigial notion was used to justify all manner of notions that have since been shown to be false such as 'Junk' DNA, various bits of whale skeletal morphology, etc. So if your complaint is that we should not use that notion since it has been falsified then I too agree: It has been falsified and Darwinism with it. That or it was never necessary to the theory in the first place, or now, and so it's absence or presence cannot confirm it either; and thus it is independent of the theory and may not be mentioned together with it. Any possible option 3 that can be dreamed up in the minds of fevered Sophists is no more than the invocation of the Axiom of the Epicycle that not even Popper could sort out how to ward off.Maus
January 3, 2012
January
01
Jan
3
03
2012
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PST
Why would an ID perspective conclude that the appendix has a function?lastyearon
January 3, 2012
January
01
Jan
3
03
2012
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PST
Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms that have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution [emphases mine]
Clearly not synonymous with "non-functional".champignon
January 3, 2012
January
01
Jan
3
03
2012
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PST
champignon, However, up until the research reported above, it appeared that the appendix served no purpose. With a Darwinist perspective, it was easy to draw conclusion that it was just an evolutionary holdover and really had no purpose. Therefore yank it at the least sign of trouble. With an ID perspective, however, the conclusion would much more likely be that it does have a function, we just haven't discovered it yet (which is what has turned out to be true), and thus removing it would be a decision not to be taken so lightly.Bruce David
January 3, 2012
January
01
Jan
3
03
2012
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PST
By no means? Well, the opening line in Wikipedia's definition is:
Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms that have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution
So maybe you meant "not exactly". It's not hard to see why someone might "mistake" the above to mean non-functional.SCheesman
January 3, 2012
January
01
Jan
3
03
2012
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PST
If it did, it shouldn't have. 'Vestigial' is by no means synonymous with 'non-functional'.champignon
January 3, 2012
January
01
Jan
3
03
2012
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PST
Would any organ that had not been labelled by Darwin’s men as vestigial – thus proof of their theory – have been treated this way?
That's a very good question. I wonder to what extent Darwinism informed the prevailing opinion that the appendix had no purpose. It must have at least to some extent, don't you think.Bruce David
January 3, 2012
January
01
Jan
3
03
2012
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PST
1 2