Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Vestigial organs, anyone? The humble appendix begs to differ

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Despite its name – which means “hanger on” – the human appendix works for a living, according to recent research (helping kill germs).

As British physicist David Tyler notes, despite the claim of evolutionary biologists from Darwin to the present day that the appendix is junk left over from evolution, the appendix actually has a function – and the current crop of evolutionary biologists try hard to avoid acknowledging that they were wrong about that.

He comments,

It might be hoped that Darwinian evolutionary biologists would acknowledge that errors have been made; that Darwin’s claim for the appendix being useless was a claim made from ignorance rather than knowledge; that their theory had coloured their understanding of the data; etc. But no – what we get is this response to the new research: “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.”In other words, whatever turns out to be the case, their theory got it right, even though their theory got it completely wrong. Or, as Tyler puts it

It should be remembered that functionality was the prediction of biologists with a creation or design mentality, and it was not the prediction of evolutionary biologists. On this occasion, the people with a design perspective were right and the Darwinians were wrong. Let’s remember this next time we hear creation or ID being decried as being unable to make any scientific predictions!

But who said science predictions had to be correct? All they have to be is … made by convinced Darwinists!

They are somewhat like a Gucci label, I guess. They confer or withhold status, NOT useful information about the design of life.

Comments
Tyke you stated: our ancestors had organs (e.g. gills) And where do you get your proof for this fanciful conjecture? Haeckel's Embryos? http://www.iconsofevolution.com/embedJonsArticles.php3?id=3071 of special note: But Haeckel's Biogenetic Law was discredited by embryologists in Darwin's lifetime (Bowler 1989); recent work has shown that Haeckel's drawings misrepresent the embryos they purport to show (Richardson et al. 1997); and Haeckel entirely omitted the earliest stages of development in which the various classes of vertebrates are morphologically very different (Elinson 1987). Biology teachers should be aware that Haeckel's drawings do not fit the facts. In its most famous example, the law teaches that "gill slits" in vertebrate embryos reveal their common aquatic ancestry. But human embryos do not really have gills or gill slits: like all vertebrate embryos at one stage in their development, they possess a series of "pharyngeal pouches," or tiny ridges in the neck region. In fish embryos these actually go on to form gills, but in other vertebrates they develop into totally unrelated structures such as the inner ear and parathyroid gland. The embryos of reptiles, birds and mammals never possess gills (Rager 1986). Jonathan Wells is a post-doctoral biologist in the Department of Molecular & Cell Biology,University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 and a fellow of The Discovery Institute, Seattle,bornagain77
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
tyke: "At some point before they vanished, they must have been vestigial organs." Not unless the the DNA was tweaked to make them disappear "overnight." If aliens were governing the development of life here, I can imagine them utilizing viruses to make such sudden changes, where frontloading might have been an inappropriate method.mike1962
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
The argument is NOT that (alleged) vestigials do not have a function. The argument is that (alleged) vestigials don't have the original function. That the human appendix now has the function it does shows the strength of evolutionary processes- that is evolution can take a part used for one thing and over X generations modify it and it will become used for something else. So there may have been a time when the appendix was totally useless. Then the explanation of why it hung around changes- that is the useless part rode a wave of other beneficial innovations. (useless does not mean detrimental) The problem with that is showing what the alleged original function was, as well as showing that some number of accumulated genetic accidents can account for the modifications.Joseph
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
This brief article, from over at OE, is very relevant to this discussion: http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/blog/troutmac/nipples_on_men_problem_for_intelligent_designScott
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
Again, key words: AS fully functional and AS useful. You understand the difference between a diminished role opposed to no role?
Of course I do, and vestigial does not mean "totally devoid of function". Unless you accept young-Earth creationism or some form of progressive creationism (species popping into existence fully formed) then it is undeniable that millions of years ago, our ancestors had organs (e.g. gills) that are no longer present in our bodies. At some point before they vanished, they must have been vestigial organs. Behe is a stanch supporter of ID, and accepts common descent (I didn't say he accepted natural selection). So he must agree that some organs have, over time, lost function to the point they have become vestigial, before disappearing.tyke
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Sorry... the text, beggining from Rudiments and ending in condition comes from http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/darwinc/index.htmdave557
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
If Bettawrekonize had read a little further on, he would have noticed Darwin and Theobald and I are all playing the same game of soccer Rudiments of various muscles have been observed in many parts of the human body; and not a few muscles, which are regularly present in some of the lower animals can occasionally be detected in man in a greatly reduced condition. Every one must have noticed the power which many animals, especially horses, possess of moving or twitching their skin; and this is effected by the panniculus carnosus. Remnants of this muscle in an efficient state are found in various parts of our bodies; for instance, the muscle on the forehead, by which the eyebrows are raised. Some few persons have the power of contracting the superficial muscles on their scalps; and these muscles are in a variable and partly rudimentary condition. How, does this differ from the state of the appendix?dave557
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
It may be worth pointing out that, although Darwin thought the appendix itself useless, he fully admitted the existence of partially useful rudiments:
Not one of the higher animals can be named which does not bear some part in a rudimentary condition; and man forms no exception to the rule. Rudimentary organs must be distinguished from those that are nascent; though in some cases the distinction is not eary. The former are either absolutely useless, such as the mammæ of male quadrupeds, or the incisor teeth of ruminants which never cut through the gums; or they are of such slight service to their present possessors, that we cannot suppose that they were developed under the conditions which now exist. Organs in this latter state are not strictly rudimentary, but they are tending in this direction.
So, the appendix still has functions: big deal. It's still a "rudimentary" organ in Darwin's terms, as are wisdom teeth and nipples on men.getawitness
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
So let me get this straight. Darwin said that these rudimentary organs are “useless, or nearly useless”. But, doesn’t that equate to a vestigial organ may or may not have a function? But you tell me I should take Darwin’s words as the gospel. What He wrote I or no scientists can challenge. No, that’s the difference between science and religion. Darwin was not wrong. A vestigial organ may or may not have a function. It is only a vestigial organ when its function is compared to a homologous organ in a related animal. So whether or not the appendix functions in humans, is does not function at the same physiological level as other organisms appendices. That’s not moving goalposts. Darwin originally stated that some features have diminished or no function.dave557
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
"Why on Earth would ID refute the presence of vestigial organs in the human body?" The idea of a vestigial (currently useless remnant of the past) organ could certainly be used to support the notion of a evolution as a blind process. One could argue that a front-loaded scenario should have been instituted with the foresight that would avoid the possibility of an organ that serves no purpose at all at a future evolutionary stage. A diminished role is very different than serving no role. "As I understand, some very prominent IDists, like Michael Behe, accept the theory of common descent." Key word: some. You stated it yourself. However, because Behe accepts common descent doesn't mean he accepts evolution via RM culled by NS. "If so, then it would seem highly unlikely that all the organs that ever existed in precursor species going back to the dawn of life are as fully functional or useful today as they once were." Again, key words: AS fully functional and AS useful. You understand the difference between a diminished role opposed to no role?Tedsenough
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
Why on Earth would ID refute the presence of vestigial organs in the human body?
The refutation is of vestigial organs as evidence for Darwinian evolution. If the Darwinists, beginning with Darwin himself, hadn't touted their supposed non-function as evidence for their side, they would not be such an issue. And if they were intellectually honest, they would admit it when they were wrong. But religious fanatics of any stripe very rarely if ever do that.dacook
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
Tyke, Good point,,and, in fact, cave dwelling fish with vestigial eyes actually conforms to Genetic Entropy (loss of information) and does evolutionists no good whatsoever as far as proving their fantasy.bornagain77
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
Why on Earth would ID refute the presence of vestigial organs in the human body? As I understand, some very prominent IDists, like Michael Behe, accept the theory of common descent. If so, then it would seem highly unlikely that all the organs that ever existed in precursor species going back to the dawn of life are as fully functional or useful today as they once were. There are cave-dwelling fish with vestigial eyes. Vestigial organs are a fact of life, and the fact that they exist is not a problem for ID. If it was, then ID would already be refuted.tyke
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
Dave557, since you pick and choose which of Darwin's statements are binding, could you please explain the process through which you determine which ones are relevant and which ones are not? Or is it solely based on which one's are currently shown to be incorrect? In your response, please try to be alittle more thoughtful opposed to your 'stupid' response to Bettawrekonize.Tedsenough
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
Naturalistic fluidity: we were never wrong – but we are right now. And we don't move the goal posts - we started out with them as wide as possible.Acquiesce
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
Bettawrekonize Darwin wrote what he wrote. Today we don't use his original definition. The point of that isn't that we are moving goal posts. Science is fluid, dynamic and in constant evolution. Please stop being so stupiddave557
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
Wasn't there some 'back' specialist who, through his belief in darwinism, recommended some strange cures, such as walking around hunched over like our supposed ancestors?Acquiesce
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
More quotes from Darwin. [quote] With respect to the alimentary canal, I have met with an account of only a single rudiment, namely the vermiform appendage of the caecum. The caecum is a branch or diverticulum of the intestine, ending in a cul-de-sac, and is extremely long in many of the lower vegetable-feeding mammals. In the marsupial koala it is actually more than thrice as long as the whole body.* It is sometimes produced into a long gradually-tapering point, and is sometimes constricted in parts. It appears as if, in consequence of changed diet or habits, the caecum had become much shortened in various animals, the vermiform appendage being left as a rudiment of the shortened part. That this appendage is a rudiment, we may infer from its small size, and from the evidence which Prof. Canestrini*(2) has collected of its variability in man. It is occasionally quite absent, or again is largely developed. The passage is sometimes completely closed for half or two-thirds of its length, with the terminal part consisting of a flattened solid expansion. In the orang this appendage is long and convoluted: in man it arises from the end of the short caecum, and is commonly from four to five inches in length, being only about the third of an inch in diameter. Not only is it useless, but it is sometimes the cause of death, of which fact I have lately heard two instances: this is due to small hard bodies, such as seeds, entering the passage, and causing inflammation.*(3) [/quote] http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-01.html So basically, he says that the appendix is useless.Bettawrekonize
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
No one missed the point, the point is that Darwin was wrong so evolutionists move goal posts to try and accommodate the fact that they were wrong. No one here is missing the point dave557, we get the point, Darwin was wrong so darwinists move goal posts, it's that simple.Bettawrekonize
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
dave557 (post 12) [quote] Dr. Theobald then goes on to say “these vestigial structures may have functions of some sort” and “vestiges can be functional, and speculative arguments against vestiges based upon their possible functions completely miss the point.” [/quote] Yes, Darwinists are always changing the definition of words. Lets go back to what Darwin originally said. [quote] Rudimentary organs, from being useless, will be disregarded by natural selection, and hence probably are variable. [/quote] http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-05.html [quote] Rudimentary organs are eminently variable; and this is partly intelligible, as they are useless, or nearly useless, and consequently are no longer subjected to natural selection. [/quote] http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/darwinc/index.htm Turns out they were much more useful than Darwin predicted.Bettawrekonize
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
Boy! You just can’t please everyone!! Why must ID be solely a proselytization tool for one religion? Does that mean all of science belongs to that religion? Would you be willing to share mechanics and electronics with infidels? Doesn’t the Designer send rain on the just and on the unjust? Where is there charity for all men? Has history taught us nothing? Absolutists of one religion would still kill unbelievers, and though Materialism killed its tens of millions in the 20th century, this does not excuse the inquisitions and pogroms of another great religion. ID differs from sectarian creationism in that its converts are a diverse breed who have been convinced by logic. It is not a cultural or social class phenomenon. Consider the churches. Those that represent a culture or social class will lack social and ethnic diversity, but those “cults” that challenge accepted beliefs (be they right or wrong) tend to attract a diverse crowd. And so it is with ID. ID questions authority on logical grounds. Though most ID proponents recognize the social and religious implications of this challenge, just as the hard-core atheists do, the thrust of their challenge is fact and reason. I sense that most ID proponents would abandon the fight if they thought the other side was right—this even though they might abhor the political, social, and cultural ramifications. Our elites don’t seem to care if you hold to stupid superstitions or weird conspiracy theories. I suppose the priesthood of past ages didn’t much care either if you believed in fairies and goblins and whatnot—what mattered was a challenge to core doctrines that were perceived as foundational to the priesthood’s power. If Darwinism were not pivotal to power nobody would care. Who cares if the plebs subscribe to fantasy or believe in lies? It’s when they challenge your authority that your neck stiffens. And if your power is rooted in a deception it stiffens all the more. ID wins on facts and logic. This is because the other side has as much passion as we do. They want what they want and we want what we want. It’s an impass broken only among those of us who really want to know the truth. And wanting to know requires a bit of humility—something that the absolutists on all sides tend to lack.Rude
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
"I wonder Ms O’Leary, Are there any more vestigial organs left that have not been discovered to have purpose?" How about the brain of a Darwinist. It once had a function: to understand life, but can no longer think rationally, and can only understand what it sees in front of its face.Peter
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Acquiesce: Indeed it did, it served as a great example of bad science.Borne
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Borne [21], By that you imply it once has some useful function :)Acquiesce
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
Collin, it doesn't matter at all if they accept ID, it does matter if they accept Christ. This is my entire point that I have been trying to make here and I have been banned and called a sockpuppet or not a good christian (See Kairosfocus' comments about not understanding the bible). Naturalism is no more wrong than any other religion than Christ. Emphasizing the wrong things to sinners is a sin. I am quite dismayed when theologians like Dr Dembski lose sight of the important part of the ID message: the Designer is Jesus and He Loves You and wants to forgive your sins, but you must first accept you are a sinner that needs salvation. If our theologians aren't interested in winning souls for Christ, we are in a bad way. And we don't need science to help us fix it.Lazarus
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
The only thing truly vestigial these days is Darwinism.Borne
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
I've suspected the appendix had an immune system function ever since medical school when I found out it was full of lymph tissue. The anatomy professor discounted this surmise at the time. Any body part can become infected to the point it has to be removed. This does not mean the part had no purpose.dacook
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
Lazarus, I mean what am I supposed to say to people when they accuse intelligent design theory of just being motivated by a religious agenda, especially when they can point to your post? ID is strictly Calvinist perhaps? Christian? Monotheist? Naturalism is wrong, but if we argue that it is God or nothing in ID, then fewer people will accept ID.Collin
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Scott, The yogurt must have living cultures in it. Some of the crap at the supermarket does not. Dannon is fine, if you have access to that.mike1962
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
Scott: "Anyway, I hope it wasn’t too important. " In this day and age one can easily re-infect onesself with the proper beneficial colonic bacteria. Just eat some yogurt every day for couple of weeks, and if she can't handle that, get some acidophilus capsules at your local health food store. (In the refrigerated section.)mike1962
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply