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
So I guess I was wrong when I argued to my family that ID is not a religious thing, but a scientific thing. Maybe I was wrong?Collin
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
My wife had an emergency appendectomy last week. The thing was completely obliterated. The surgeon had to remove what was left of it and then essentially pressure-wash her insides. Bad situation. Poor lady is sore as can be. Anyway, I hope it wasn't too important. :)Scott
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
jpark my point is that i disagree with your notion that 'true science will show the designer'. This is because we live in a fallen state. All that man can do is stumble around in this dark and smoky cave and put names on things and perhaps figure out how to use them to sin, but he can never discover the designer. We know who the designer is because He told us. Not because of some silly germs that no one has ever seen before, and we are doing wrong to emphasize these things over the Gospel!!! this is the most important thing in this world. and jpark if you know this too, then you are sinning against God by going along with a cause that Denies Him, even if in your heart you know it is true.Lazarus
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
Well, whether that is true or not, you are deflecting the issue. Again lol.dave557
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT
god = creationism = ID You can’t possibly separate the terms depending on one’s locations i.e. “’secular’ world or apologetics class’”. ==== naturalism = materialism = Darwinsim Dave557-- You can't possibly separate the terms depending on one's presuppositoinal bias, which generates the equation: nothing + time + chance = everything. Darwinists claim to be free of philosophical influences, which is patently false.toc
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
Again lol. Misrepresentation of facts and ideas. The post would have one believe that a vestigial organ has no function whatsoever. 'Junk' it seems would be the official definition by evolutionists. A quick cross reference of the topic led me to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html which reveals a different perspective. It appears a more accurate evolutionary definition would be “evolutionary vestiges are, technically, any diminished structure that previously had a greater physiological significance in an ancestor than at present.” 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.” So it seems, from what I can tell, that vestigial status has nothing whatsoever to do with an organs current function in an individual. The term vestigial can only be applied when comparing a feature to a homologous partner.dave557
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
What would be most interesting about the research is whether the scientists working on the appendix are ID supporters. It seems that you guys have just latched onto somebody else's research and claimed it as your owndave557
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT
Lol. god = creationism = ID You can't possibly separate the terms depending on one's locations i.e. "'secular' world or apologetics class'".dave557
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT
Eek. Please. Leave God out of ID. ...and yeah, there are profound metaphysical implications. So be it. Scott Minich. UTMOL That should be the extent of "God" and ID being mentioned in the same sentence in the "secular" world. In an apologetics class, different story, but ID must stand on its own merits and nothing else.Gods iPod
November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT
Even if certain organs were genuinely vestigial, they would be evidence of devolution, or decay, not evolution, or progress. Where are the emergent/incipient organs, which should be ubiquitous in all living things if Darwinian gradualism is the case?GilDodgen
November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
Hi Denyse, Off topic - How 'bout them 'Riders?Charlie
November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT
bornagain77, My foot doctor says toe nails serve no function. According to him the idea that they somehow protect the toe is illusory, and their only purpose is to get infected. I disagree, but I guess that would be another supposed vestigial part still on the list.13atman
November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT
@ Lazarus "I am desperately searching for someone here at UD that seems to understand that ID will fail if it does not have the blessing of God, and that is entirely predicated upon the obedience of those working on ID to the Word of God. Denying the word will only reap suffering and destruction." Look no further my friend - I agree with you (and I'm also a 5 Beautiful Point Calvinist at that :P) I also struggled with what you're going through too that's why I realized ID's main goal putting Science back in its right place ... SCIENCE. I believe God created the world and that true science will show designer. I also, believe atheists should even admit that the science by itself, points to a creator and that we should work within the ID paradigm. I share the Gospel when reaching unbelievers, and hopefully ID is good jumping point like where concrete predictions such as the appendix or junk DNA (see Behe vs Miller, but ultimately (ID) is a secular movement and I want it to be biology's reigning paradigm. That is why you can have a Catholic (O'Leary), a 5 pt Calvnist(me), a follower of Sun Myung Moon (Wells), and a Jew (Klinghoffer) hold hands. (sorta like on pro-life and traditional marriage) Why do I say this? B/c I think we should rely solely on the Gospel to win souls I mean look at the 4 aforementioned different religions with different paths to salvation, but use ID. We as Evangelicals must use the Gospel to win souls that is the crucial factor, though IDs help (cf. 1 Peter 3:15) in illuminating the truth doesn't hurt. :)jpark320
November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
Man, the puppets are theatrical. As to the OP, I remember reading some of the fallout commentary on the appendix discovery at pandasthumb. Along the lines of, 'Well, maybe the germ-killing ability was one of two functions the appendix served. And since there's not as much of a germ worry in the first world (which is why there's less appendicitis in less develope countries), it's now DOUBLY vestigal! Ha!'nullasalus
November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
God don't make no junk, BA. I hope you are paying attention to the way that folks that speak the Word are treated around here. If I had to hazard a guess, I might surmise that you are next my friend. This comment probably won't last long, since Solon was banned silently and no notice given to the rest of the board, it could just as easily have happened to you. One minute you are in the photo in the wall, the next minute the photo is retouched and you never existed. It is a bit orwellian for my calvinist tastes. I am wondering what is the point of ID if it means that I have to throw in lots with folks that I KNOW are wrong about the first principles of ID. How can that get us anywhere, particularly when we define 'where' to be saving souls for Christ? What good is it to lie with dogs only to pick up fleas? I am desperately searching for someone here at UD that seems to understand that ID will fail if it does not have the blessing of God, and that is entirely predicated upon the obedience of those working on ID to the Word of God. Denying the word will only reap suffering and destruction.Lazarus
November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
I found this quote: “The thyroid gland, pituitary gland, thymus, pineal gland, and coccyx, … once considered useless by evolutionists, are now known to have important functions. The list of 180 “vestigial” structures is practically down to zero. Unfortunately, earlier Darwinists assumed that if they were ignorant of an organ’s function, then it had no function.” Tornado in a Junkyard, the Relentless Myth of Darwinism by James Perloff I wonder Ms O'Leary, Are there any more vestigial organs left that have not been discovered to have purpose? As well, thanks to the work of ENCODE, It seems that the Human Genome is well on its way to finding 100% functionality of very impressive complexity,,,I wonder,,Do evolutionists even mention junk DNA anymore?bornagain77
November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply