The Appendix Finds A Job. Or Had One All the Time…

_{Paul Nelson

October 6, 2007

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Human appendix

“Yeah, so what. So I spend a lot of time at this one Starbucks, sure, when other organ systems are busy working. Venti dark roast, room for cream.”

“Doesn’t mean I don’t put in my time on the job.”

“Do you really think natural selection would have kept me on the payroll this long if I wasn’t doing something?”

Comments

Jstanley01, Some of the most recognized ID theorists, such as Behe and Denton, strongly support a common descent view. ID, therefore, is certainly compatible with common descent. That said, the term "uncommon descent" has a certain "play on words" appeal. That said, the ID community generally holds that even if "common descent" is valid, the fact that humanity descended is "uncommon", that humanity came into existance because humanity was intended to come into existance. So, even though common ancestry is compatible with ID, humanity is not a run of the mill "common" accident. I don't think that the weblog is misnamed.bFast_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

DaveScot, You say, "ID does not address common descent either positively or negatively." So is this weblog misnamed?jstanley01_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Thanks again Charlie, I believe combining the empirical evidence you present in post #26 with Gitt's work in Information Theory, gives solid footing to the fact that the DNA code is indeed the optimal code for life. For me, this fact further squeezes Darwinism with constraints they can't naturally explain, and in fact constraints that should not even exist in the first place if evolution were indeed true!!!!bornagain77_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Getting Closer to finding the paper.. Besides all the evidence we have covered for the intelligent design of DNA information, there is still one amazing fact remaining—the ideal number of genetic letters in the DNA code for storage and translation. Moreover, the copying mechanism of DNA, to meet maximum effectiveness, requires the number of letters in each word to be an even number. Of all possible mathematical combinations, the ideal number for storage and transcription has been calculated to be four letters. This is exactly what has been found in the genes of every living thing on earth—a four-letter digital code. As Werner Gitt states: "The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather that a [lucky] chance" (Gitt, p. 95). http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode.htmbornagain77_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Thanks for helping Charlie, I found a few other tidbits, but am still looking for a specific paper that "blew my mind" last year, with its revelation of just how optimal the DNA code really is; Here are the tidbits I found: "The genetic code could well be optimized to a greater extent than anything else in biology and yet is generally regarded as the biological element least capable of evolving." http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/28/10696 and this following one: These "parallel codes" include binding sequences for regulatory and structural proteins, signals for splicing, and RNA secondary structure. Here, we show that the universal genetic code can efficiently carry arbitrary parallel codes much better than the vast majority of other possible genetic codes. http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/4/405 Does anyone know the paper I'm looking for??,I believe it was done by an ID proponent..bornagain77_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

Hi bornagain. I don't know if this American Scientist article is what you are looking for, but it intrigued me when I received my issue: http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/37228;jsessionid=aaab0MiU5xEo_E
What's so special about the one code that—with a few minor variations—rules all life on Planet Earth? The canonical nonanswer to this question came from Francis Crick, who argued that the code need not be special at all; it could be nothing more than a "frozen accident." ... In other words, the genetic code is the qwerty keyboard of biology—not necessarily the best solution, but too deeply ingrained to be replaced or improved. There has always been resistance to the frozen-accident theory. Who wants to believe that the key to life is so arbitrary and ad hoc? And there is evidence that the accident is not quite frozen. Certain protozoa, bacteria and intracellular organelles employ genetic codes slightly different from the standard one, hinting that changes to codon assignments are not impossible after all. And if the code is subject to change, then it must also be subject to natural selection, which in turn suggests the possibility of ongoing improvement. Perhaps ours is not the very best of all possible codes, but after four billion years of evolution it ought to be a pretty darn good one. ... Returning to studies of random codes, David Haig and Laurence D. Hurst of the University of Oxford generated 10,000 of them in 1991, keeping the same blocks of synonymous codons found in the natural code but permuting the amino acids assigned to them. The result depended strongly on what criterion was chosen to judge the similarity of amino acids. Using a measure called polar requirement, which indicates whether an amino acid is hydrophobic or hydrophilic, the natural code was a stellar performer, better than all but two of the 10,000 random permutations. But in other respects the biological code was only mediocre; 56 percent of the random codes did a better job of matching the electric charge of substituted amino acids. Focusing on the encouraging result with polar requirement, Hurst and Stephen J. Freeland (now at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County) later repeated the experiment with a sample size of 1 million random codes. Using the same evaluation rule as in the smaller simulation, they found that 114 of the million codes gave better substitutions than the natural code when evaluated with respect to polar requirement. Then they refined the model. In the earlier work, all mutations and all mistranslations were considered equally likely, but nature is known to have certain biases—some errors are more frequent than others. When the algorithm was adjusted to account for the biases, the natural code emerged superior to every random permutation with a single exception. They published their results under the title "The genetic code is one in a million." ... Using this bootstrap criterion, Freeland and his colleagues compared the biological code with another set of a million random variations. The natural code emerged as the uncontested champion. They wrote of the biological code: "...it appears at or very close to a global optimum for error minimization: the best of all possible codes." The idea that the genetic code is evolving under pressure to ameliorate errors—or indeed that it is evolving at all—has not won universal assent. Some cogent objections were set forth as early as 1967 by Carl R. Woese of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Among other points, he noted that if a trait is actively evolving, you would expect to see some variation. In particular he called attention to the various "extremophiles" that live at high temperature, high salt concentration, and so on. These organisms tend to have unusual proteins and unusual nucleic acids, but they all have the standard genetic code. The few variant codes known in protozoa and organelles are thought to be offshoots of the standard code, but there is no evidence that the changes to the codon table offer any adaptive advantage. In fact, Freeland, Knight, Landweber and Hurst found that the variants are inferior or at best equal to the standard code. It seems hard to account for these facts without retreating at least part of the way back to the frozen-accident theory, conceding that the code was subject to change only in a former age of miracles, which we'll never see again in the modern world.
Here's Hayes' bibliographic info for the above references: Freeland, Stephen J., and Laurence D. Hurst. 1998. The genetic code is one in a million. Journal of Molecular Evolution 47:238-248. Freeland, Stephen J., Robin D. Knight, Laura F. Landweber and Laurence D. Hurst. 2000. Early fixation of an optimal genetic code. Molecular Biology and Evolution 17(4):511-518. Freeland, Stephen J., Tao Wu and Nick Keulmann. 2003. The case for an error minimizing standard genetic code. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 33:457-477. Golomb, Solomon W. 1980. Cryptographic reflections on the genetic code. Cryptologia 4(1):15-19. Haig, David, and Laurence D. Hurst. 1991. A quantitative measure of error minimization in the genetic code. Journal of Molecular Evolution 33:412-417.Charlie_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

"A rabbit in the Cambrian" offered as an observation that would falsify evolution does nothing more than falsify a branch in the so-called tree of life. It represents a problem for common descent. ID does not address common descent either positively or negatively. ID disputes the mechanism underlying descent with modification - specifically it disputes the belief that random mutation is the ultimate source of all variation. ID is based on statistical probability - it posits that the organization patterns we see in living things, especially at the molecular level, are so improbable that random chance is not a reasonable explanation even given a filter (natural selection) which preserves random changes that increase the reproductive success of the modified organism. RM+NS's stronghold has heretofore been that it works too slowly to observe it in action creating complex new structures. It requires, on average, millions of generations to make large scale increases in complexity. This is no longer the case as in the last decade we observed RM+NS in action over billions of trillions of generations and no significant new complexity emerged in the observed genome (p.falciparum). That we would observe no change is a prediction of ID and it was confirmed. I have yet to see a reasonable explanation congruent with neo-Darwinian theory explain what we observed in p.falciparum. Intelligent agency is the only demonstrated way that such improbable organizations become instantiated in a finite universe. For instance, if statistical probabilities are ignored then a space shuttle or computer could form purely through chance arrangements of matter. Such a supposition would be ludicrous and rightly so because statistical mechanics (which is based on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) informs us that a chance arrangement of matter into a space shuttle is so improbable that we can state with practical certainty that we will never observe a space shuttle. Yet a whole fleet of them can be observed. Space shuttles are practically possible only because of intelligent agency. When intelligent agency is involved then the otherwise reliable predictions of statistical mechanics become unreliable. In the case of actions of intelligent agency the restrictions imposed by probabilities are lifted and the organization of matter becomes limited only by what is physically possible.DaveScot_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

cont... What is interesting is that computer scientist, software people recognize this long ago. Oh and EE types, ya know, like the kind Baylor is besmearing of an opportunity to truly break new ground in my opinion. I recently found out that one of my ancestors graduated first class Baylor(when it was Waco University). Quite a woman, they started a University with I think less than 50 people. OR at least the first class to graduate was under that. It appears she and her classmates were not worried then about such political correct issues as in our day. I think, no, I know she would be disappointed today in Baylor. ID could probably start their own university, day of the Internet and all. I'm curious how much funds are needed. I'd focus on reverse-engineering and in building new life without mutations. Say, new fruit for example, more abundant, hearty. Looking over the list of scientist and qualifications, I'd say there is plent of talent and not only that but, then young fiery minds like Sal would have a place to apply doctoral research. I say it is worth a try. You'd think there would be enough backers in the Southern Baptist alone to help with such a new venture. I didn't start my own software business back in the day from merely wanting to. I ran into a dead end at holier than thou people above me at the time. So, I started my own business. I ended up going into client sites cleaning up my old companies messes. Charging less to the clients and making more for myself. Internet classes in classical micro-biology, for lower rates, but with high quality. Classes that can be easily revamped, maintained, upgraded and no undergraduate campus at first. Phoenix and a load of other universities are doing it. And making skoodles of profit. Therefore, a new university forcused upon new life designs, or the benefit from reverse engineering seems the way to go today. Call it a step towards a REAL University - Time to beeeee Bb-b-b-bad to the bone! Start a new university to implement ID research as a method to turn biotech into techbio = bucks. A combo sci-tech entrepreneurial MBA progam. Reverse Engineering Advanced Life University. REAL U ;-)Michaels7_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

BornAgain77, Yep, ENCODE spells disaster as the deeper into relationships of blueprint and building, manager and relay, the more about meta-information, communications, digital on/off switches, and overlapping layers comes into the picture of a complex multi-tiered, cascading system more fine tuned, well run, and complex than any current facility known to science and engineers. Scientist are blown away at some of the latest findings.Michaels7_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

I'm trying to find the paper that points out that the DNA code is optimal for life.. In other words a paper that proves that DNA did not go through a process to find the optimal code for life... I found one tidbit along the lines of the paper I'm looking for.. "DNA systems have a lot of advantages over the conventional systems. The most obvious one is the speed of computation. Another advantage DNA systems enjoy is their higher storage capacity than normal systems. DNA code can be any of the 4 DNA bases (A, G, T, and C) while binary code can only be 0 or 1. Thus while a binary code of 4 characters can represent 6 discrete things, a DNA code can represent 64 discrete things." Does anyone know where a good source would be????bornagain77_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 Don't forget this use of the coccyx; because it is the attachment point of various pelvic muscles it is an important part of the system that stops your insides from falling out when you stand up. As for the appendix and the risk possessing one poses: It's relatively easy to count the number of appendicectomies performed but you'd have to go through hospital records carefully to find out how many of the removed organs were not inflamed at all. At the bedside mesenteric adenitis mimics appendicitis and may result in a person being sent to surgery where, once the abdomen has been opened, the appendix is discovered not to be inflamed at all. I have no idea what the proportions might be but the fact that there is a term ("lily white") in common usage to describe these uninflamed appendices should indicate that the finding is not rare. And, of course, once you've made the incision you take the organ out whether it's lily white or not, as a matter of safety, because anyone subsequently seeing that scar will assume that the appendix has already been removed. So when the CDC says that, "two years ago 321,000 Americans were hospitalized with appendicitis," that does not necessarily mean that two years ago 321,000 Americans actually had appendicitis.Janice_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT}

Bfast,,, This a article on the reaction of scientists to the ENCODE project... http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2007/09/24/dna_unraveled/?page=1 This is an original release of ENCODE by the national institute of health in June 2007,, http://www.genome.gov/25521554 copy in NATURE if you subscribe; http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/encode/index.html The precise Finding that completely divorces Darwinian thought from Mendelian Genetics...BETHESDA, Md., Wed., June 13, 2007 - An international research consortium today published a set of papers that promise to reshape our understanding of how the human genome functions. The findings challenge the traditional view of our genetic blueprint as a tidy collection of independent genes, pointing instead to a complex network in which genes, along with regulatory elements and other types of DNA sequences that do not code for proteins, interact in overlapping ways not yet fully understood.bornagain77_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

Leo stated: or it would be disappearing to the point where it is neutral (like the tail bone) Yet the tailbone has essential purpose!!! The coccyx (tailbone) is the point of insertion of several muscles and ligaments including the one which allows man to walk completely upright. Without a tailbone, people could not walk in a completely upright manner, dance a ballet, perform gymnastics, or stroll down the street with their arm around their spouse. Hardly a useless, leftover, vestigial feature! The human body is designed for maximum versatility. It is far more versatile than the body of any other creature. What other animal can perform the range of movement required for activities as diverse as ice-skating, pearl diving, skiing, and gymnastics. This range of movement would be impossible without the tailbone. Or as some once said "If you don't think the tailbone has purpose,,I will personally pay to have yours removed!!! As well,,The vestigial "legs of the whale are actually essential attaching points for muscles that are necessary in the birth of whales... It should be remembered that at the time of the scopes trial there was a list of 180 vestigial organs,, now that list is down to practically zero...Unfortunately,,,if man did not know the function of a organ Darwinists automatically assumed it was vestigial... As a sidelight to this I want to know where all the halfway useful organs are...Instead of having organs that are in the process of disappearing where are the organs that are in the process of appearing!!!bornagain77_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77, please give me more details about ENCODE. I tried to find something meaningful about it on google. My initial search failed. I know that Gould, one of the few honest darwinists, expressed deep consern when it was first discovered that there was not a simple 1 gene 1 protein relationship. As it is clear that the 1 gene 1 protein model is the exception rather than the rule I think that Gould would have abandoned the theory over this. Alas, he has passed on, and certainly has abandoned the theory.bFast_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT}

Let's remember that Darwinism is required to have vestigial organs and genes in its scheme for it to even be considered scientifically plausible in the first place. In fact the main weakness of the hypothesis of evolution at this point is the fact that the Genome is now absolutely proven to have severe epistasis (to be a complex interwoven network) by ENCODE!!!! Whereas, it is commonly taught in evolutionary biology that evolution is absolutely required to have little or no epistasis for it to have the plasticity it needs to accomplish evolutionary novelty seen in life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistasis In fact, in order for evolution to avoid being overturned by Mendelian genetics last century,Haldane, Fisher and Wright had to develop population genetics... (pg. 52-53 Genetic Entropy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics ... in which the genome was required to be considered a multiple independent collection of genes which could be selected or discarded as natural selection saw fit... This is absolutely the only way that evolution could have been considered scientifically plausible with Mendelian Genetics... Put simply...IF genes cannot be selected on an individual basis then no new novelty can arise by RM/NS for natural selection cannot select for a completely novel trait..Thus evolution is scientifically denied the plasticity it needs for novelty!!! With the shattering revelation of ENCODE,, Evolutionary biology classes have absolutely no basic mechanism left to teach their students for evolution....All Haldane's, Wright's and Fisher's work in population Genetics is pure and utter Garbage... As well I would like to point out that all the evolutionary sequence comparisons of Genomes is also useless...The ONLY way to properly decipher the meaning of the genome is by asking foundational engineering questions,,, Any genetic data taking from the false evolutionary perspective will only lead scientists down the wrong paths...again!!!bornagain77_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

rswood, I'm afraid it's not the same. There is a big difference between something being compatible with a theory and being evidence for it. Darwinists always claim that Junk DNA and the appendix etc. are EVIDENCE for Darwinisim. In fact some go too far and argue that things like that are the PROOF of unguided evolution. So it makes no sense in claiming that the discovery of functions of these structures are also EVIDENCE (that is: predictions) for the theory. This shows what darwinism really is: PURE RUBBISH.IDist_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

To be fair, when I read this I also thought, "even when evolution is wrong, it's right." However, the Christian has the same problem here: if the appendix has a function, it's because God designed it. If it doesn't, it's a sign of the fall and universal corruption. Same goes with "Junk DNA" it seems.rswood_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

Funny, I thought simlar issues regarding tonsils. That it serves as a lightning rod so to speak, even though it hurts, burns, etc., during infection. Much like our skin swells and burns, is sore, the white blood cells, the immune system utilizes the tonsils as a focal point for killing bacteria. Nearly lost my appendix once around time I was 9 or 10. Ha, boy did I pray that night. I'll never forget it, as a kid, scared to death of surgery. Fortunately, my mother insisted they give me some medicine(penicillin or similar) and if it did not work, the next morning surgery. Doctors were ready to operate. Fever, pain broke that night. They "figured" later it was flu or some form of pneumonia had infected me. Small townsville(which I still love, but not for surgery). I'm so blessed now to have both my "vestigial" organs :) Can't remember the last time I had any sore throat, allergy, flu. Only time I was sick recently was after trips to Mexico and Russia. Different bacterial strains... of which I'm assuming may have been assimulated into my immune system. Lord knows they have to others.Michaels7_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

So it makes "sense" to be both a useless remnant AND to serve an essential purpose. Of course! This is how science works, don't you know. And this the particular beauty of Darwinian evolutionary science: it can explain anything and its opposite too! For example, evolutionary theory explains why men are faithful to their wives, and also why they cheat. What more could one ask for in a scientific theory?GilDodgen_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

The appendix finds yet another job. "For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know 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. Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions." http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000CAE56-7201-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7idnet.com.au_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Wait, maybe we have a new theory of "matrix" evolution. You heard it here first.StephenB_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

oh, by the way, needless to say that, if this paper is confirmed, then Darwinists will spin this around and say that this new found function of the apendix is exacly what "evolution would predict".Mats_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

For generations the appendix has been dismissed as superfluous.
....By Darwinists.
The idea "seems by far the most likely" explanation for the function of the appendix, said Brandeis University biochemistry professor Douglas Theobald. "It makes evolutionary sense."
lolll Trying to save the theory from another mistake.Mats_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

I personally have no difficulty with ID and vestigial organs. After all, computer software, an axample of human design, almost invariably contains vestigial functions. That said, its nice to see a major nail in the coffin of this particular icon of evolution.bFast_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

Bill, Exactly, when ever they are presented with contradictory evidence, they claim it as strong support for their theory. They will just revert to their 'suboptimal structural design' definition of 'vestigial organ', claiming function is irrelevant. Ironically, they will claim that they are being objective when in fact they are just resorting to a lame subjective "bad design" argument. I wish they would make it more clear what facts would in fact falsify or contradict their theory (the '29 evidences' paper on TO doesn't cut it). Their predictions, if you want to call them that, are so vague that I don't see how their theory can be realistically falsified. I hear them repeat the "rabbit in the Cambrian strata" occasionally as a potential way to falsify their theory. But even if we found such a fact, I'm sure they would quickly find a way to incorporate it into their theory.Meltin_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

As one colleague of mine put it:
Standard evo reversal: in response to a new theory of why the appendix plays an important role in health (as opposed to being a useless evolutionary remnant), here one commentator says, "It makes evolutionary sense" that the appendix serves as a reservoir of healthy bacteria. So it makes "sense" to be both a useless remnant AND to serve an essential purpose. Evolutionary "sense" is senseless.
William Dembski_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

"I maintain that we can know the designer through ID, and He is perfect " Silliness. Two words - "lower back" ...Scott_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Here is the link to the yahoo story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071005/ap_on_he_me/appendix_s_purpose;_ylt=AvGgR5cX3AwvbW.K6iVVHaSs0NUE This evidence is definitely going in my ammunition belt,,,I've been hit with this one by Darwinists too many times!!!bornagain77_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

This major discovery is also a blow to the people who have suggested here that the designer (God) might be imperfect. I maintain that we can know the designer through ID, and He is perfect (as the useful appendix thoroughly demonstrates).Nochange_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

But it would also defy explanation, as is stated above, that natural selection would "kept me on the payroll this long if I wasn’t doing something?" Unless there was some sort of positive selection pressure for it to be there, it wouldn't be - or it would be disappearing to the point where it is neutral (like the tail bone)and pose a risk, like the appendix.leo_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply