Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Appendix is not even redundant, let alone not vestigial?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Gray536.png
appendix/Gray’s Anatomy

So says some new research. First, remember “vestigial organs”?

We learned in high school that  vestigial organs, including the appendix, show that there is no design in nature.

Being teens, we never considered the implications of the fact that the proposition is never supposed to work the other way. That is, now that almost all such organs have been found to be functional (so far), the no-design PR lobby just moved to other claims. For example, junk DNA!

Oh wait, let’s check our notes here on junk DNA… whoops… Okay, and now the humble appendix has the floor:

Immune cells make appendix ‘silent hero’ of digestive health

“Popular belief tells us the appendix is a liability,” she said. “Its removal is one of the most common surgical procedures in Australia, with more than 70,000 operations each year. However, we may wish to rethink whether the appendix is so irrelevant for our health.

Note: Decades ago, appendicitis was often not diagnosed until removal was the only life-saving option.

“We’ve found that ILCs [innate lymphoid cells] may help the appendix to potentially reseed ‘good’ bacteria within the microbiome — or community of bacteria — in the body. A balanced microbiome is essential for recovery from bacterial threats to gut health, such as food poisoning.”

“We found ILCs are part of a multi-layered protective armoury of immune cells that exist in healthy individuals. So even when one layer is depleted, the body has ‘back ups’ that can fight the infection.

More.

“Redundant”: A frequent feature of living systems, as well as human artifacts. If one level fails, another kicks in. Sometimes marketed to the public as evidence against design.

Note: Here is some post-vestigial organ spin from one of Darwin’s folk.

See also: “Vestigial” whale, dolphin hip bones actually needed for, um, reproduction

and

Is vestigial organ a term that should be retired?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Here’s the abstract:

Intestinal T cells and group 3 innate lymphoid cells (ILC3 cells) control the composition of the microbiota and gut immune responses. Within the gut, ILC3 subsets coexist that either express or lack the natural cytoxicity receptor (NCR) NKp46. We identified here the transcriptional signature associated with the transcription factor T-bet–dependent differentiation of NCR- ILC3 cells into NCR+ ILC3 cells. Contrary to the prevailing view, we found by conditional deletion of the key ILC3 genes Stat3, Il22, Tbx21 and Mcl1 that NCR+ ILC3 cells were redundant for the control of mouse colonic infection with Citrobacter rodentium in the presence of T cells. However, NCR+ ILC3 cells were essential for cecal homeostasis. Our data show that interplay between intestinal ILC3 cells and adaptive lymphocytes results in robust complementary failsafe mechanisms that ensure gut homeostasis. (paywall) – Lucille C Rankin, Mathilde J H Girard-Madoux, Cyril Seillet, Lisa A Mielke, Yann Kerdiles, Aurore Fenis, Elisabeth Wieduwild, Tracy Putoczki, Stanislas Mondot, Olivier Lantz, Dieter Demon, Anthony T Papenfuss, Gordon K Smyth, Mohamed Lamkanfi, Sebastian Carotta, Jean-Christophe Renauld, Wei Shi, Sabrina Carpentier, Tim Soos, Christopher Arendt, Sophie Ugolini, Nicholas D Huntington, Gabrielle T Belz, Eric Vivier. Complementarity and redundancy of IL-22-producing innate lymphoid cells. Nature Immunology, 2015; DOI: 10.1038/ni.3332

This vid begins by stating in no uncertain terms that we learned in school that the appendix was useless:

Comments
daveS
What would you say about blind cave fish? Is it inappropriate to label their “remaining eye structures” as vestigial?
It's tempting to make that example the exception that proves the rule - though in fact, it would be just the exception, really, being apparently "blindingly" obvious when most of the other examples don't hold much water. On the face of it, eyes are the classic specialised purposeful organ, and caves the place you least need them. But again, it's questionable what it proves scientifically: on an adaptationist model the eye is suited to purpose, or wouldn't be there. If one finds any non-visual function at all for it in caves, then it's tuned for the environment, not vestigial. On a non-adaptationist model, things aren't "for" anything anyway, so it's hard to say how a small eye can be less "for" anything. If there are structuralist reasons for eyes to develop, then they apply even in caves and you wouldn't expect complete absence of the organ. OTOH, if the cave-fish's eye is being used, as per Darwin, as evidence against special creation, there are many more possibilities of subtle divine purpose you have to explain away: for example, God might leave the basic structures in place against the possibility of non-cave-dwelling in future. He might favour aesthetics over function. Or all kinds of other reasons you can't possibly know. Any argument that begins, "A sensible designing God wouldn't..." is specious, because it claims to understand fully the motives and priorities of someone it's denying to be involved at all. And any argument along the lines, "The cave-fish's eyes are not functional because it doesn't need them in the dark" is a teleological argument anyway, forcing you to ask where the intentionality came from, if not God.Jon Garvey
December 4, 2015
December
12
Dec
4
04
2015
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT
Is it the same with us as wuth primates? Do apes not/do use it too?Robert Byers
December 3, 2015
December
12
Dec
3
03
2015
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
mahuna: Not being a Biologist, do chimps and gorillas have appendices? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1233252/Zachriel
December 3, 2015
December
12
Dec
3
03
2015
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
Not being a Biologist, do chimps and gorillas have appendices? If they do NOT, then exactly where was this "common ancestor" from which humans inherited our appendix as a "vestigial" organ? Don't the "no modern function" guys have to establish the fact that SOME extinct primate had an appendix that did something worth the apparently large investment in blood vessels? Otherwise, we must conclude that the design of humans was IMPROVED from the baseline Primate model by the addition of this fancy new "appendix" thing.mahuna
December 3, 2015
December
12
Dec
3
03
2015
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
Jon Garvey, Thanks for elaborating on that. What would you say about blind cave fish? Is it inappropriate to label their "remaining eye structures" as vestigial?daveS
December 3, 2015
December
12
Dec
3
03
2015
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
daveS The points are that (a) One cannot easily show that the caecum was originally for digestion at all, and perhaps it was co-opted to its digestive use in the rabbit. In fact, there is good evidence that the appendix always had primarily immune function, See here:
Rabbits and some rodents have appendices, and it is research on these species that has begun to shed some light on the mystery of the organ's function. Previously it was thought that the sack-like rabbit appendix served primarily as a reservoir for the bacteria involved in hindgut fermentation. That explanation, however, did not account for the absence of an appendix in other animals with similar digestive systems or for its presence in humans. When researchers examined the appendix microscopically, they found that it contains a significant amount of lymphoid tissue. Similar aggregates of lymphoid tissue occur in other areas of the gastrointestinal and are known as gut-associated lymphoid tissues (GALT). The functions of GALT are poorly understood, but it is clear that they are involved in the body's ability to recognize foreign antigens in ingested material.
In other words, the appendix is a convergently evolved immune organ in the quite separate clades of human and rabbit - that pretty well destroys the "vestigial" just-so story. (b) In any case, in the rabbit it's grotesquely enlarged compared to most species, and we're not descended from rabbits. If it was small in the (unknown) common ancestor, then it's exaggerated in rabbits, not vestigial in humans. Unless you know the complete ancestry and that of their appendices and caeca, it's just another evidence-free story. ( c) To say that a function or structure has changed is an statement of fact, and therefore the business of science (though "function" in an inescapably teleological term). But to say it has become "vestigial" is to make a statement about proper purpose, which is the business of religion, not science: it's supposed to be, one is saying, "for digestion", but no longer is (because it's now co-opted as an immune organ). But when did evolution ever arrive at a "correct" use for anything? Evolution doesn't (they say) know what things are "for" - it just uses what's handy for what works. Are legs vestigial fins, or just limbs doing the best job for a particular creature's needs? Are porpoise flippers vestigial fingers, or developed swimmers? As I said from the start, homology is moderately good evidence for common descent (but also for a couple of other alternatives, which limits its usefulness). But "vestigial organs" as such add nothing to our knowledge of evolution - in fact, the "vestigial story" was trotted out as a proof-case for 150 years before anybody bothered to research it properly. That is BAD science.Jon Garvey
December 3, 2015
December
12
Dec
3
03
2015
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Jon Garvey, Isn't the claim being made about the cecum is that it performed some function related to digestion in an ancestor of both humans and rabbits, but now that digestive function is lost in humans? Perhaps this case is not as clear as that of blind cave fish, for example.daveS
December 3, 2015
December
12
Dec
3
03
2015
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
Well, speaking as one who has removed a few appendices, they're not "simply" anything, but pretty tricky and extremely well supplied with blood (meaning they use valuable resources). And they didn't go wrong very often until westerners started over-refining their diet. As it happens I've also removed 100 or more rabbit caeca (in dead animals, I will add) so have some experience of both. In comparison to rabbits we have vestigial ears, but then we neither get hunted by foxes nor eat grass. But the truth is that the whole concept of vestigial organs is a throwback to an outmoded and simplistic adaptationist view of evolution, which few people hold now unless they're writing school textbooks (or Wikipedia articles)or laying into creationists. In fact they have little or no value in real science, for reasons that I've briefly outlined in a recent blog post, for anyone interested, hereJon Garvey
December 3, 2015
December
12
Dec
3
03
2015
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Isn't all this nevertheless consistent with the proposition that the human appendix is vestigial? From wikipedia:
Vestigiality refers to genetically determined structures or attributes that have apparently lost most or all of their ancestral function in a given species, but have been retained during the process of evolution.[1] Assessment of the vestigiality must generally rely on comparison with homologous features in related species.
and
In herbivores, the cecum stores food material where bacteria are able to break down the cellulose. This function no longer occurs in the human cecum (see appendix), so in humans it is simply a dead-end pouch forming a part of the large intestine.
daveS
December 3, 2015
December
12
Dec
3
03
2015
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply