Human tails does not prove evolution!

[JaeIsGod]

Just in: They are demonscum.

http://www.christianforums.com/t52911





Thought you guys might enjoy a bit of deluded rambling mixed with a good dosis of conspiracy theory. If not , well , your problem :D

[Heathen Dawn]

That jhessel is a complete nutter! How these people have made it into the 21st century... :eek:

[EGGO]

It's not even a real tail, it's just a flap of skin (saw it on Ripley's)

[Magus55]

Vestigial organs aren't proof of evolution. The appendix actually does have an important use, and isn't vestigial like evolutionists would like to think.

[Clutch]

Originally posted by Magus55
Vestigial organs aren't proof of evolution. The appendix actually does have an important use, and isn't vestigial like evolutionists would like to think. And those tails aren't vestigial, either, nosirree. They're crucial for balancing on tree-branches! Doesn't prove a thing about evolu -- Doh!

[pz]

Originally posted by Magus55
Vestigial organs aren't proof of evolution. This isn't mathematics. When anyone starts talking about "proof" of evolution, it's a dead giveaway that they are completely clueless about how science works.The appendix actually does have an important use, and isn't vestigial like evolutionists would like to think. Oh, please. The appendix is utterly useless -- it can be hacked out of people, and they suffer absolutely no detriment afterwards. I suspect you want to resurrect the silly canard that it is an organ of the immune system. It isn't. It's a vestigial cecum, a blind pouch off the digestive tract. It is secondarily packed with lymphatic tissue to counter the fact that it is a bit of bad 'design' that is a hotspot for infection.

I don't have an appendix, and I suspect many of the people reading this do not, either. Are you seriously going to argue that we're lacking some important function?

[Magus55]

Originally posted by pz
Oh, please. The appendix is utterly useless -- it can be hacked out of people, and they suffer absolutely no detriment afterwards. I suspect you want to resurrect the silly canard that it is an organ of the immune system. It isn't. It's a vestigial cecum, a blind pouch off the digestive tract. It is secondarily packed with lymphatic tissue to counter the fact that it is a bit of bad 'design' that is a hotspot for infection.

I don't have an appendix, and I suspect many of the people reading this do not, either. Are you seriously going to argue that we're lacking some important function? There is a difference between required, and having a purpose. The spleen isn't required either, guess that means its vestigial and useless? We can live on one kidney, so why do we have two? guess the second one is vestigial?

scientific america stated the Appendix had a useful purpose, especially in children. Its not like i'm getting that from a creationist site. Just because you don't need it, doesn't mean its useless.

[Veovis]

Oh, please. The appendix is utterly useless -- it can be hacked out of people, and they suffer absolutely no detriment afterwards.

Hacking the appendix out might cause a few adverse effects. Surgically removing it would probably cause fewer problems. ;):p

[snoiduspoitus]

Oh, please. The appendix is utterly useless -- it can be hacked out of people, and they suffer absolutely no detriment afterwards.

Well... I think the verdict is still out on that.

I had my appendix removed at the tender age of 17, and now everytime I simultaneously sneeze, cough, belch and fart, I shit my pants and then implode.

Don't try to tell me there's no connection.

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Magus55
Vestigial organs aren't proof of evolution. The appendix actually does have an important use, and isn't vestigial like evolutionists would like to think.

Magus,

In biology "vestigial" does not mean "without function." It means "without function or with reduced function" when compared to similar parts in other creatures. Therefore, it is impossible to dismisses the vestigeness of an organ by stateing that it does something.

[pz]

Originally posted by Magus55
There is a difference between required, and having a purpose. The spleen isn't required either, guess that means its vestigial and useless? We can live on one kidney, so why do we have two? guess the second one is vestigial?
We can measure distinct health effects with the loss of a spleen, and doctors do not remove it lightly. Kidneys are bilateral organs, and are paired for structural, not directly adaptive, reasons. These are not vestigial organs. That you think they are reasonable examples suggests that you do not know what "vestigial" means here.

The appendix is a relic that confers no advantage on those who possess it, and actually represents a detriment due to its aptitude for infection. It has entirely lost the function that its homologs have in related animals.

scientific america stated the Appendix had a useful purpose, especially in children. Its not like i'm getting that from a creationist site. Just because you don't need it, doesn't mean its useless. What is "scientific america"?

What is this "useful purpose"?

[Coragyps]

Magus, when was the last time you used your vomeronasal organ for anything?

[WinAce]

A common misconception among the lay public and media is that "vestigial" is equivalent to useless. Depending on the definition of "useful", this can be true or false, and varies on a case by case basis. However, the biological term, at least as it pertains to evolution, has always meant "reduced or rudimentary structure when compared with the same structure in another organism".

I think this confusion comes from the way biological "function" is quite specific and differs from the way we use it in common language, e.g. "usefulness". I'll expand on this below.

It could be argued that an inner tube in an aeroplane wing designed by modifying a car tire via evolutionary computer simulation has some "function", i.e. ties it together instead of nuts and bolts; but the fact that it's lacking its "proper purpose", as Darwin put it, in favor of some marginal application many other structures are more suited to or no application at all, makes it a bona-fide vestige.

Similarly, a broken radio in a car may prevent the dashboard above from collapsing; nevertheless, no one in their right mind would claim that made the radio any less broken.

For another example, fused wings might make a beetle's back harder and subsequently less prone to smushing; yet they're still vestigial wings that no longer serve what they're clearly best suited for. Finally, eyes on blind cave fish might be described as "functional" in that they keep their brains from leaking out their eye sockets; but they're still vestigial EYES.

TalkOrigins, as always, subtly rips creationists a few new belly holes in this well-researched article (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#morphological_vestiges), including pointing out that Scadding, whom anti-evolutionists love to quote as a supporter of the "vestigial = useless" concept, was quite wrong about the definition of "vestiges", which hasn't been significantly revised in more than a century.

Nevertheless, vestigial organs are now only an accessory line of evidence, not the main ones supporting evolution. They simply don't have the whiz-bang factor of stuff like fossils and ancient retroviral infection fragments shared in genomes of related species.

Vestiges just can't compete here, but they can be an independent test on common descent nevertheless. The standard phylogenetic tree makes a great number of predictions on which ones can be found and which are barred. Mammals, for example, will never have vestigial feathers in this scenario, as they diverged from the reptiles before birds. Neither will a new species of tropical amphibian be discovered that nurses its young. Sharks will never have vestigial reptilian teeth. And so on, on, and on...

So, where does that leave us? Simply put, there are a great many vestiges in the biosphere. Dandelions, which reproduce without fertilization, nevertheless produce vestigial flowers and pollen. Humans have vestigial wisdom teeth that don't even sprout in much of the population, much less help in any significant way, and that often create problems by using too much jaw space.

http://www.albanyoms.com/media/animations/3dwis.gif

Twenty-eight teeth are fully sufficient for the human jaw, with the extra four causing many a problem in dental history by erupting incorrectly due to our smaller jaws. But just for posterity, how many teeth did ancient fossil hominids possess? ;)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/jaws.gif

You may count them (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/jaws.html). That's 32, with the last ones being similarly oversized as our WT but nicely-fitting in such a massive jaw. Compare the Australopithecus africanus and Homo sapiens jaws in the lower part of the illustration, and take note that the first preceded the other in the fossil record.

Another example; snakes and whales can independently be assigned as descendants of leg-possessing animals based on independent evidence, such as anatomical analysis of their skulls and rib cages. In some species of both, a vestigial pelvis can be found. As has been discussed before, whales occasionally resurface with the actual digit-possessing hindlimbs (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1). Embryonic comparison confirms this as well (http://imiloa.wcc.hawaii.edu/krupp/BIOL101/present/lcture15/sld034.htm), as whales develop temporary hind limb buds.

Finally, (http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/) early fossil whales had real, bona-fide legs, latter ones used them progressively less, and the last ones had almost undetectible vestiges.

Is the independent confirmation of four fundamentally different lines of evidence yet another "coincidence" that common descent would predict but common descent-denial needs to explain away? ;)

[Porky Pine]

Hmmm....I've seen this same exact post over at creation talk. WinAce, do you go by another name over there?

[lpetrich]

Originally posted by Magus55
Vestigial organs aren't proof of evolution. The appendix actually does have an important use, and isn't vestigial like evolutionists would like to think. Whatever that "important use" is supposed to be.

And people with appendectomies seldom have long-term problems afterwards -- at least no problems that cannot reasonably be attributed to the operation itself. Consider the case of Jenna Bush (http://www.thefirsttwins.com/appendectomy.html), one of the President's twin daughters. That young lady seems like she's in very good health, doesn't she? :)

[WinAce]

Originally posted by Porky Pine
Hmmm....I've seen this same exact post over at creation talk. WinAce, do you go by another name over there?

Yes, I've posted that on a few different boards. I go by "Corleone Family Values" on CreationTalk. :p

You can probably identify my account without even knowing the username because the formatting, including color and underlining, will be identical to what I used elsewhere. Plagiarizers are usually too lazy to provide a link, much less reproduce every bit of formatting in an exceedingly long post without access to the VBulletin-formatted source code.

[scigirl]

I wrote this piece on human tails and evolution back in the days of Vanderzyden (anyone miss him? Our new creationists aren't anywhere near as fun).

Why creationists shouldn't be in scientific/medical fields:

From talkorigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2):

Anatomical atavisms are closely related conceptually to vestigial structures. An atavism is the reappearance of a lost character specific to a remote evolutionary ancestor and not observed in the parents or recent ancestors of the organism displaying the atavistic character. Atavisms have several essential features: (1) presence in adult stages of life, (2) absence in parents or recent ancestors, and (3) extreme rarity in a population.
What do avatisms have to do with human medicine? Plenty:
Primarily due to intense medical interest, humans are one of the best characterized species and many developmental anomalies are known. There are several human atavisms that reflect our common genetic heritage with other mammals. One of the most striking is the existence of the rare "true human tail" (also variously known as "coccygeal process," "coccygeal projection," "caudal appendage," and "vestigial tail"). More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails." Pseudo-tails are not true tails; they are simply lesions of various types coincidentally found in the caudal region of newborns, often associated with the spinal column, coccyx, and various malformations. In contrast, the true atavistic tail of humans develops from the most distal end of the embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus…and it is usually benign in nature. The true human tail is characterized by a complex arrangement of adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of longitudinally arranged striated muscle in the core, blood vessels, nerve fibres, nerve ganglion cells, and specialized pressure sensing nerve organs (Vater-Pacini corpuscles). It is covered by normal skin, replete with hair follicles, sweat glands, and sebaceous glands. True human tails range in length from about one inch to over 5 inches long (on a newborn baby), and they can move and contract. Although human tails usually lack skeletal structures (some medical articles have claimed that true tails never have vertebrae), several human tails have also been found with cartilage and up to five, well-developed, articulating vertebrae.
So what does a creationist think of these types of structures:
It should be noted here that the existence of true human tails is unfortunately quite shocking for many religiously motivated anti-evolutionists, such as Duane Gish, who has written an often-quoted article entitled "Evolution and the human tail" (Gish 1983; see also Menton 1994; ReMine 1982). Solely based on the particulars of a single case study (Ledley 1982), these authors have erroneously concluded that atavistic human tails are "nothing more than anomalous malformations not traceable to any imaginary ancestral state" (Gish 1983). However, their arguments are clearly directed against pseudo-tails, not true tails, since true human tails are complex structures which have muscle, blood vessels, occasional vertebrae and cartilage, they can move and contract, and they are occasionally inherited. Furthermore, Gish, Menton, and ReMine all argue that human vestigial tails are not true tails if they lack vertebrae - an erroneous claim since M. sylvanus is a primate whose fleshy tail also lacks vertebrae (Hill 1974, p. 616; Hooten 1947, p. 23).
In this case, because of Gish’s creationist bias, he mis-diagnosed a human, and he also did not do his homework!

How would a creationist function in a laboratory that was studying the cause and treatment of avatisms? First, the head of the lab would have to waste a bunch of time proving to them that the avatisms even existed, since their existence is “shocking for religiously motivated anti-evolutionists.” Then you would have to waste a bunch more time showing them the genetic mechanisms behind the avatism, and showing them how they related to the animals that still have tails, and the genes that we still have in our DNA, etc, etc. I would not hire Duane Gish to work in this particular lab because his creationism would clearly be a handicap to this type of study.

scigirl

[lpetrich]

Thanx for showing up here, scigirl. And since you are studying medicine, I wonder if you ever looked into the subject of appendectomies. I'd checked on some sites that discuss this operation, and none claimed that there were any side effects that were not complications of the operation itself. In fact, one site even claimed that surgeons sometimes remove healthy appendices as a preemptive measure when doing abdominal surgery!

[truelies]

Originally posted by scigirl


How would a creationist function in a laboratory that was studying the cause and treatment of avatisms? First, the head of the lab would have to waste a bunch of time proving to them that the avatisms even existed, since their existence is “shocking for religiously motivated anti-evolutionists.” Then you would have to waste a bunch more time showing them the genetic mechanisms behind the avatism, and showing them how they related to the animals that still have tails, and the genes that we still have in our DNA, etc, etc. I would not hire Duane Gish to work in this particular lab because his creationism would clearly be a handicap to this type of study.

scigirl

But then you seem to have a bias to the point where you cannot even imagine that darwinian evolution might not be true. You may well be just as blind in your own way as Gish is in his.

The eye will never see what the mind is not prepared to comprehend, IMHO.

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by truelies
But then you seem to have a bias to the point where you cannot even imagine that darwinian evolution might not be true. You may well be just as blind in your own way as Gish is in his.

The eye will never see what the mind is not prepared to comprehend, IMHO.

I can imagine it. I'm sure scigirl can too. I can also imagine the world coasting through space on the back of a turtle after being sneezed out of the nose of the great green arkleseizure. Does my subsequent refusal to seriously consider that possibility indicate a bias against it? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way. Am I biased against the turtle hypothesis or not, in your opinion?

[Darwin's Beagle]

Originally posted by Magus55
Vestigial organs aren't proof of evolution. The appendix actually does have an important use, and isn't vestigial like evolutionists would like to think.

Sigh ... Creationists ALWAYS say that the appendix having a function precludes it from being vestigial. But they are totally missing the point. I had an internet discussion with a creationist who claimed to have a Ph.D. and doing publishable research in psychology. Even though I pointed out MANY times that vestigial does NOT mean without a function, she never seemed to catch on. So I took another tact. I decided to grant, for the purposes of that discussion, to grant that the appendix is not vestigial. Instead I called it an evolutionary remnant from a past organ.

Here is a copy of my post:

Actually, I think there has been an agreement on the vestigial organs. For the purpose of this discussion I will use your definition that if a structure has a defined function, it is not vestigial. Therefore, I agreed with you that the appendix is NOT vestigial. The problem as I see it is that if you are going to define vestigial that way then whether or not an organ is vestigial is of peripheral importance to the REAL question. The real question is … is the organ an evolutionary remnant or not? Having a function does not preclude it from being an evolutionary remnant.

One of the BIG problems with creationists is that they find perceived faults with evolutionary theory and then conclude that creationism must be right. They do not even attempt to consider how their theory fits the facts. You have done the same thing. I think it very telling that even though in a previous post I presented a compelling case that the appendix is better explained by evolutionary theory than by special creation, you have ignored that, responding instead that since the appendix has a function it cannot be vestigial.

Let’s compare the two theories once again and see which one really fits the data. Evolutionary theory says the appendix is an evolutionary remnant of the cecum. Special creation says it is an organ designed with a specific purpose in mind. As we compare the evidence I will argue that evolutionary theory explains all the data while there are severe holes in the special creation theory. I will even argue that the FUNCTION is better explained by evolutionary theory than by special creation.

Let’s look at evolutionary theory first. Here is the evidence that the appendix is an evolutionary remnant of the cecum.

POSITION: The appendix is located in an expanded region of the colon between a small area where the ileum (the distal part of the small intestine) connects and where the colon curves upward to form the ascending colon. This is EXACTLY the same position where ALL cecums in every animal having them are found. No other structure is located in this place in any other animals.

HISTOLOGY: The appendix has an outer fibrous tunic, a middle muscular layer that contains patches of lymphatic tissue, and an inner epithelial layer. Down its length is a closed tube, the lumen. This is EXACTLY the same general plan as the cecum. In short, there is NOTHING in the appendix that is not also in the cecum.

SIZE: The appendix is much reduced from the cecum. This is adaptive. The PRIMARY function of the cecum is to act as a storehouse for cellulose digesting bacteria. We get the vast majority of our nutritional needs from other sources so if the appendix were as big as the cecum, it would likely be inhabited by other more harmful bacteria. Having the lumen as small as it is decreases the likelihood that food will lodge in it becoming a food source for the bacteria allowing them to proliferate. As an aside, a friend told me the other day that if the lumen were only a tiny bit smaller then dietary fiber would not be able to enter the appendix but bacteria still would. Under this scenario dietary fiber helps clean the appendix like a test tube brush helps clean test tubes. In other words if the lumen were only a little smaller the appendix would be MORE prone to infection. This may act as a fitness barrier preventing the appendix from being totally eliminated during the course of evolution. I do not know if this theory has been tested or not, however, so I do not put a whole lot of stock in it at this time.

FUNCTION: The appendix plays a role in immune surveillance. It has lymphatic tissue just like the cecum to perform this role. The role is important because the appendix is very susceptible to infection.

OBSERVATIONS THAT ARE A PROBLEM FOR THE THEORY: None!!

Now let’s look at the explanation for the appendix by the theory of special creation. Evidence for the theory:

FUNCTION: The appendix plays a role in immune surveillance. But this is also explained by evolutionary theory. There are no other supporting observations.

OBSERVATIONS THAT ARE A PROBLEM FOR THE THEORY:
1 – Why is the structure of the appendix homologous to that of the cecum? The only answers that come to mind are ad hoc answers along the line that of … that is the way God chose to do it, or the structure of the cecum just happens to be optimal for that of the appendix as well.

2 – If the appendix was DESIGNED to have a role in immune surveillance then one might reasonably suspect it would be the part of the colon that is LEAST susceptible to infection. It is not. The exact opposite is true. It is the part of the colon that is MOST susceptible to infection. Thus, it appears that the evolutionary idea that the immune surveillance function of the appendix is there to lessen the infection potential of a very susceptible organ.

3 – Why does the appendix have a lumen? It is the lumen that traps food particles allowing bacteria to proliferate and cause infections. The obvious thing to do if an intelligent designer wanted immune surveillance in the lining of the large intestine is to put it into the colon proper instead of into a structure that hangs off the proximal end. In fact, the gut does this already. But there is plenty of room to incorporate the lymphatic tissue of the appendix if a designer wanted. Again the only apparent answers to this are ad hoc … God chose to do it that way; perhaps there is something we do not know about the function of the appendix that makes it reasonable to do it that way, etc.

Thus, the appendix is WELL explained by evolutionary theory. Special creation relies solely on the fact that the appendix has a function, but even that function is BETTER explained by evolutionary theory than it is by special creation. In short, the appendix is excellent evidence for evolutionary theory and for common descent since it says that humans had ancestors with functional cecums.

Now let’s look at some more structures that evolutionary theory says are evolutionary remnants and see if they are indeed better explained by evolutionary theory or special creation.

Piloerector muscles:

Evolutionary theory says these are remnants of muscles from ancestors that were quite furry.

SUPPORTING OBSERVATIONS:
1 – The evolutionary remnant theory explains why we get goose bumps in the cold. It is an evolutionary left-over response from our furry ancestors. In the cold furry animals raise their hair. This traps a thicker layer of air and gives the animal more insulation. This response is non-functional in us, however.

2 – The evolutionary remnant theory explains why we get the feeling of the hair on the back of our neck raising up when we are scared or angry. Furry animals will try to make themselves look more imposing when faced with conflict. Expanding their fur is a common response and it makes the animal look bigger. The response is non-functional in us, however.

Your special creation theory says piloerector muscles are there to squeeze the oil glands at the base of the hair and may offer protection against bacterial infection.

SUPPORTING OBSERVATIONS:
None!

PROBLEMS FOR THE THEORY:
1 – Why do the piloerector muscles kick in during times of cold and possible physical conflict?

2 – Why are the oiliest parts of our skin those areas that do not have hair … the hands and forehead?

Embryonic Whale Teeth in Toothless Whales:

Evolutionary theory says these are remnants of functional teeth from toothed ancestors of whales.

SUPPORTING OBSEVATIONS;
1 - Fossils of early whales DID have teeth.

2 – The embryonic teeth LOOK just like teeth but are resorbed before birth.

Special Creation Theory might say that the embryonic teeth have a function in that they probably induce the structure of other important jaw structures. By that I mean if one were to go in and cut them out during development, structures that develop later may not come in at all or be grossly deformed.

SUPPORTING OBSERVATIONS:
None as of yet but I would be surprised if this is not the case.

PROBLEMS FOR THE THEORY:
1 – THEY ARE TEETH for crissakes!! Why make the sole function of TEETH be to induce the formation of other jaw structures? The teeth in toothed whales also probably induce jaw structures as well, but in these species they go on to develop into functional teeth.

The reason I include a brief discussion of these things is to emphasize that just because something has a function is no reason to exclude it from being an evolutionary remnant of a more developed structure in an ancestor species. Reduced structures can still have functions.

There are literally thousands of such structures known and the combined support for evolutionary theory AT THE EXPENSE OF SPECIAL CREATION is devastating. The only way around it as I see it is to deny the obvious.

There are TONS AND TONS more supporting data for evolutionary theory AT THE EXPENSE OF SPECIAL CREATION. This is especially true for common descent which is considered the “fact of evolution” I will begin to present some of this data in later posts.

I hope this clears up some of the problems you have understanding why the appendix is exquisite support for evolutionary theory and is evidence AGAINST special creation. I do not think I can present the data any more simply than this.

Regards,

Darwin's Beagle

[Coragyps]

Wow, DB - very nicely done, and very suitable for laymen. When I swipe it someday, I'll acknowledge the source. :) Thanks.

[Valentine Pontifex]

Darwin's Beagle,

That post could quite easily form the basis of a good article. Add few references, remove the "crissakes," etc. and it would be ready to be put up somewhere. If you wanted to beef it up a bit, it might even make a good T.O. FAQ.

[Calzaer]

Daaaamn..... I wish I had a tail. That would rock. I feel all deprived now. Why not me? Why?? Waaaaaah!

But seriously. Having a tail would be so cool. I've always wanted a tail.

[truelies]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
I can imagine it. I'm sure scigirl can too. I can also imagine the world coasting through space on the back of a turtle after being sneezed out of the nose of the great green arkleseizure. Does my subsequent refusal to seriously consider that possibility indicate a bias against it? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way. Am I biased against the turtle hypothesis or not, in your opinion?

Just pointing out here that darwinian evolution requires a rather generous amount of faith based selective viewing of the evidence to proclaim with a straight face as being in one to one correspondence with reality.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Just pointing out here that it doesn't.

Which part do you have a problem with? The obvious fact that evolution happens, the obvious fact that common descent HAS happened, or the theory that Darwinian evolution is solely responsible for the observed results of common descent?

I have yet to see any creationist explain why any aspect of evolution is even implausible, let alone false.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Aw, shit! I missed this, and now you’ve all gawn and said it all! :mad: ;)

So I’ll try a different tack. Let’s see Magus’s response.

Okay, so the appendix has a function. Some negligible function, of course, but a function. Its walls contain Peyer’s patches (aggregated lymphatic follicles), which, yes, are involved in the immune system. So it’s not ‘vestigial’.

However, these follicles are found throughout the small intestine, not just in the appendix. So they do not have to be in an appendix: the same amount of tissue could be produced by simply lengthening the gut a little.

In other words, the appendix’s function does not require it to have the form that it in fact has. The appendix is therefore overdesigned: it has too much design of the wrong kind. To do what (little) it does, it doesn’t need to be the shape it is.

Furthermore, its shape is dangerous. It is a great shape... to act as a pocket for bacteria to get trapped in, multiply, invade the gut wall and burst it. This can be lethal. And this is not rare: in the US, around 7% of people will experience appendicitis during their lives.

So, Magus, I’m curious... please tell me how a part of the immune system that often kills people is a good design?!

I contend that it is a very stupid design, and that, since you claim it was designed, that its designer was incredibly stupid.

Get that? Your ‘designer’ was clearly an idiot.

************************

I’ve noted this before, but it bears repeating: I think ‘vestigial’ is a dangerous word to use around creationists, because it implies a history to the feature, and that is specifically what they deny. Therefore, I think it is better to look at it from their own perspective, that of design.

“X does such-and-such, and its design lets it do so like this...” Fine. But ‘vestigial’ features are overdesigned to do the job they are credited with. You do not need to agree with the feature having a history to see that the design is inappropriate. And so the design hypothesis can be rejected, even if we don’t know what the actual cause is. (As it happens, evolution fills that ‘void’ rather well, but it is not necessary in order to refute the ‘designer hypothesis’.)

Thus the appendix’s function does not explain its shape -- a shape that makes it dangerous.

The coccyx does not need to be seen as a vestigial tail: to act as a muscle attachment structure, it does not need to form from separate bones that fuse; nor does it need an extensor coccygis muscle that cannot flex it since it is a fused lump; nor should it require apoptosis -- programmed cell death -- during development to remove an excess of the structure -- that is a waste of materials; nor does it need to be built by the same genes that in tailed mammals build the tail.

The human post-auricular muscles do not need to be considered vestigial in order to see that wiggling one’s ears is a fairly pointless piece of design.

The pelvis and hind limb pieces in whales do not have to be vestigial in order to see that being pelvis-shaped is irrelevant to their function -- even if one can be identified.

(This is Nick Humphrey’s Argument from Inappropriate Design, transposed from ESP to biology, btw.)

And so on. In short, play the creationists at their own game. “Sure, it was designed. By a total nutter.”

Cheers, Oolon

[Darwin's Beagle]

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid


Furthermore, its shape is dangerous. It is a great shape... to act as a pocket for bacteria to get trapped in, multiply, invade the gut wall and burst it. This can be lethal. And this is not rare: in the US, around 7% of people will experience appendicitis during their lives.

...

Thus the appendix’s function does not explain its shape -- a shape that makes it dangerous.

Cheers, Oolon

Actually, I think it is the other way around. The shape of the appendix explains its function. The shape as you noted above makes the appendix very susceptible to infection. The conserved immune function is evolution's attempt to mitagate this defect.

Regards,

Darwin's Beagle

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Darwin's Beagle
Actually, I think it is the other way around.
How so? Erm, if I’m understanding you, then of course, from the evolutionary perspective... which is precisely what I’m trying to avoid!
The shape of the appendix explains its function.
It’s function as a bacteria-trap, presumably? That is, not the function ascribed to it by creationists!
The shape as you noted above makes the appendix very susceptible to infection. The conserved immune function is evolution's attempt to mitagate this defect.
The immune function it provides is negligible, and could, as I’ve said, have been boosted by lengthening the gut. What about its shape is a requirement of its immune function? Nothing.

It seems that the appendix is actually maintained by evolution, to the extent that narrowing it any further makes it even more dangerous (and so natural-selectable). I also gather from Nesse and Williams that there’s evidence the appendix is getting shorter too. But if you’ve evidence that the appendix has its lymph follicles -- the same lymph follicles that are elsewhere in the gut too -- because it is a dangerous shape, then it’s the first I’ve heard of it, and I’d love to see that evidence!

Cheers, Oolon

[Darwin's Beagle]

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
It’s function as a bacteria-trap, presumably? That is, not the function ascribed to it by creationists!

Of course it isn't the function creationists ascribe to it, they point out that the appendix has an immune function. This is right. The appendix has a higher concentration of Peyer's patch lymphatic tissue than anyplace else in the whole intestinal tract. Why is that?

My point is that evolutionary theory explains the function of the appendix BETTER than does SPECIAL CREATION. I believe the immune function is an adaptation to the fact that it is an evolutionary remnant of a cecum as its shape suggests. Because of that it DOES trap bacteria which makes it very susceptible to infection. The high concentration of lymphatic tissue makes sense if it there to mitigate this problem. As you said 7% of the people come down with appendicitis in their life. It would be interesting to know what that percentage would be if the appendix did not have that high concentration of lymphatic tissue.


The immune function it provides is negligible, and could, as I’ve said, have been boosted by lengthening the gut. What about its shape is a requirement of its immune function? Nothing.

As the paragraph above says, I'm not so sure the immune function is negligible. I think the immune function of the appendix is there to protect the APPENDIX from infection. The evidence that it is negligible is that if the appendix is removed people do not suffer any higher rate of infection if the appendix were still there. But in this case the appendix itself (the part of the intestine that is MOST susceptible to infection despite all the immune cells).


It seems that the appendix is actually maintained by evolution, to the extent that narrowing it any further makes it even more dangerous (and so natural-selectable). I also gather from Nesse and Williams that there’s evidence the appendix is getting shorter too. But if you’ve evidence that the appendix has its lymph follicles -- the same lymph follicles that are elsewhere in the gut too -- because it is a dangerous shape, then it’s the first I’ve heard of it, and I’d love to see that evidence!

Cheers, Oolon

Doing a quick PubMed search would that be:
Nesse RM, Williams GC. (1998). Evolution and the origins of disease. Sci. Am 279(Nov)5:86-93. ?? I have been wanting to find that reference that says the appendix would be even more susceptible disease if the lumen were a bit smaller. That would be a fitness barrier to evolution eliminating it completely and would explain why it persists in so many populations of mammals.

The only evidence I have for suggesting that the immune function is there to protect the appendix from infection is my reasoning. Peyer's Patches are known to contain B-cells that are sensitive to gut pathogens. Gut pathogens are likely to be high in the appendix. Having a high concentration of Peyer's Patches in the appendix would likely be adaptive.

Regards,

Darwin's Beagle

[Oolon Colluphid]

DB, I agree with all you say, of course. My only qualm is that you're not looking at it from the creationist perspective.

I hdn't come across reference to there being a higher concentration of Peyer's patches in the appendix, but of course it would make sense, evolutionarily. I do like the idea that the creator gave it extra lymph tissue to protect it against its dangerous shape though! Which raises the question, what else is the appendix for? What else does it do that’s so important that it’s worth having, and hence was designed to do... a design that needed the extra lymph tissue to counteract its designed shape?

The answer, of course, is nothing. The appendix is a superfluous design, which requires further design to counteract its presence. So the extra Peyer’s patches are themselves unnecessary design (unnecessary, of course, from the design perspective, yeah?): they are an Elastoplast covering a designed-in wound. They patch up a poor design (pun intended).

Thanks for the Nesse and Williams ref, btw. I’ve seen it before, but not for a while. Did you know that they have written a whole book on this, Evolution and Healing: the new science of Darwinian medicine? That’s where I got the bit about the appendix being maintained by selection. I’ll have to check the refs in that book.

Cheers, Oolon

[scigirl]

Originally posted by truelies
Just pointing out here that darwinian evolution requires a rather generous amount of faith based selective viewing of the evidence to proclaim with a straight face as being in one to one correspondence with reality.
Um, nope.

Try reading a book on evolutionary science, or even perhaps taking a class.

Evolution has way way way way way way way way more proof that any religion has ever had. Ever. Not only that, but it has, read carefully, independent lines of evidence. Anyone who "doubts" evolution because it doesn't have "Evidence," and manages to also believe in deities/gods/heavens. . . yeah.

scigirl

[Coragyps]

The answer, of course, is nothing. The appendix is a superfluous design, which requires further design to counteract its presence.
Nah, the appendix has a function! It's there to help pay for Scigirl's second home in Aspen after she gets that M.D. and removes a bunch of them! :D

[scigirl]

Originally posted by Coragyps
Nah, the appendix has a function! It's there to help pay for Scigirl's second home in Aspen after she gets that M.D. and removes a bunch of them! :D
HA HA! Actually, I really don't think I'll do surgery. But yeah - the Great Intelligent Designer definitely had doctors in mind when he/she/it designed the human body.

scigirl

[mark24]

Hi all,

You are statistically more likely to get cancer (on a happy note) if you have had your caecum removed. Not a great leap in mortality, to be fair, but there you go. Presumably the same tissue in the rest of the gut has a similar function.

Mark

[truelies]

Originally posted by scigirl
Um, nope.

Try reading a book on evolutionary science, or even perhaps taking a class.

Evolution has way way way way way way way way more proof that any religion has ever had. Ever. Not only that, but it has, read carefully, independent lines of evidence. Anyone who "doubts" evolution because it doesn't have "Evidence," and manages to also believe in deities/gods/heavens. . . yeah.

scigirl

I have read many books on the topic and quite frankly the darwinian version of the philosophy is convincing only if a person starts out with the assumption of Carl Sagan's Cosmos that energy and matter acting randomly over time are all there is or ever can be. If one sticks to that assumption then the only possible explanation for us is something along the lines of darwin no matter how many oddities need to be explained away, swept under the rug or perhaps just bared from conversation by all right thinking people.

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by truelies
I have read many books on the topic and quite frankly the darwinian version of the philosophy is convincing only if a person starts out with the assumption of Carl Sagan's Cosmos that energy and matter acting randomly over time are all there is or ever can be. If one sticks to that assumption then the only possible explanation for us is something along the lines of darwin no matter how many oddities need to be explained away, swept under the rug or perhaps just bared from conversation by all right thinking people.

That's a very boring comment. You might want to actually support your assertions in some way, rather than just saying them many times. "Is not", you see, can be countered ad nauseum simply with "is too". There has to be a "because..." in there somewhere, and there's this thing called burden of proof...

[JonF]

Originally posted by truelies
If one sticks to that assumption then the only possible explanation for us is something along the lines of darwin no matter how many oddities need to be explained away, swept under the rug or perhaps just bared from conversation by all right thinking people.

It's easy to make such a vague claim. Please provide specific examples.

[Darwin's Beagle]

Originally posted by truelies
I have read many books on the topic and quite frankly the darwinian version of the philosophy is convincing only if a person starts out with the assumption of Carl Sagan's Cosmos that energy and matter acting randomly over time are all there is or ever can be. If one sticks to that assumption then the only possible explanation for us is something along the lines of darwin no matter how many oddities need to be explained away, swept under the rug or perhaps just bared from conversation by all right thinking people.

I am always underwhelmed by creationists feigning wisdom to cover ignorance. There has been several posts on this thread that present evidence that is not "explained away, swept under the rug or ... bared [sic] from conversation by" evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory explains them perfectly well. It is the theory of special creation that must "explain away" (using ad hoc explanations), "swept under the rug" (by denying the obvious) "or perhaps bar(r)ed from conversation" (see the ICR pledge members must sign). Why don't you take an example and give us a logical and testable creationist explanation?

Furthermore, worldwide there are more THEISTS that believe in evolution than in creationism. These people seem to make sense of Darwin without believing in philosophical naturalism (the idea that matter and energy is all there is).

Lastly, Darwinism DOESN'T make sense at all if you believe that matter and energy acts randomly. It makes sense if you believe that matter and energy act according to natural laws, however.

Regards,

Darwin's Beagle

[Happy Wonderer]

Originally posted by mark24
Hi all,

You are statistically more likely to get cancer (on a happy note) if you have had your caecum removed. Not a great leap in mortality, to be fair, but there you go. Presumably the same tissue in the rest of the gut has a similar function.

Mark

Hi Mark!

Since no one else has yet done so, let me be the first to utter the standard statistical warning correlation does not imply causation.

I do not know what study you are referring to, but you couldn't use this to imply that the caecum somehow prevents cancer (or lack of it causes cancer.) Consider the control group -- people with a working caecum. Unlike everybody in the treatment group, some in the control group have never had invasive surgery, spent time in hospitals, nor had major intestinal problems. Any one of those three factors could be a cause of the difference between the groups.

hw

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by truelies
I have read many books on the topic
Yeah, right. Name some.
and quite frankly the darwinian version of the philosophy
Darwinian philosophy, eh? How about addressing the evidence?
is convincing only if a person starts out with the assumption of Carl Sagan's Cosmos that energy and matter acting randomly over time are all there is or ever can be.
Total bollocks. Try speaking to some theistic evolutionists some time. We have a few here, why not ask them?

Matter and energy ‘just doin’ their thing’ is all there seems to be. It’s not like people haven’t looked for other stuff too. All we have to go on -- all the evidence -- is that matter and energy acting in their apparently normal ways can have certain effects.

And anyway, matter and energy are a few layers below Darwinian mechanisms. It is simply a fact that, given replication (inevitably not perfect) and finite resources for the replication, that you will get evolution. “Energy and matter acting randomly over time” doesn’t really come into it, philosophically or scientifically.

And note that evolution by natural selection is the exact opposite of ‘random’.
If one sticks to that assumption then the only possible explanation for us is something along the lines of darwin
This is why I doubt that you’ve read much about it -- or that your reading comprehension is suspect. (I don’t mean that nastily; I’ve encountered the reading-impaired before in these discussions, so it’s a possibility.) Because evolution -- or any science -- doesn’t deny gods at all. It just doesn’t require them.

It is merely an extension of common sense: did the money appear under your pillow from the Tooth Fairy, or from your parents? Did the bridge collapse because of stress weaknesses, or because gremlins were chopping away at it with little pickaxes? Is a disease caused by a parasite or by demons? Do the stars wheel across the sky because the Earth’s rotating, or because angels are pushing them around? There could be tooth fairies, gremlins, disease demons and astronomical angels, but they just aren’t required to explain what we see.

That way of looking at things has been, I hope you’ll admit, very successful. So successful, in fact, that it is now taken as the basis of all science: not that the supernatural is impossible, but that it is the explanation of last resort. Very last resort, because so far, it has proved unnecessary to invoke it. Natural processes -- that is, processes that are checkable -- do indeed seem capable of producing what we see.
no matter how many oddities need to be explained away, swept under the rug or perhaps just bared from conversation by all right thinking people.
Uh-huh. Name some. No, please, I insist. Put up or shut up.

TTFN, Oolon

[truelies]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
That's a very boring comment. You might want to actually support your assertions in some way, rather than just saying them many times. "Is not", you see, can be countered ad nauseum simply with "is too". There has to be a "because..." in there somewhere, and there's this thing called burden of proof...

Well damn DD I did not realise that I was under any obligation to entertain you. If its my turn this week someone should have let me know. I was simply responding in kind to one smug dismissive comment from an evolutionist.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by truelies
Well damn DD I did not realise that I was under any obligation to entertain you.
Just as well, since your entertainment value is negligible.

You are, however, under the obligation to back up your assertions. Scigirl most certainly can with hers.
I was simply responding in kind to one smug dismissive comment from an evolutionist.
What is smug or dismissive about pointing out that you are apparently unacquainted with the evidence for evolution -- made plain by your claim that it requires “a rather generous amount of faith based selective viewing” to be acceptible? How about reading a book or two on it, rather than the creationist claptrap you evidently have been?

So come on then. If we’re being “selective”, show us what we’re leaving out. Put up or shut up.

TTFN, Oolon

[scigirl]

Originally posted by truelies
I have read many books on the topic and quite frankly the darwinian version of the philosophy is convincing only if a person starts out with the assumption of Carl Sagan's Cosmos that energy and matter acting randomly over time are all there is or ever can be.
Huh?

What is darwinian philosophy?

I don't think that RM&NS (if that's what you mean by "darwin") can explain every single aspect of biology. I do, however, think that 1) evolution did indeed occur and 2) the mechanisms that we have proposed for it so far seem adequate enough to account for the majority of it, if not all. Also, it is clear to me that you are confusing evolutionary biology with some other scientific fields, namely physics. Don't.

no matter how many oddities need to be explained away, swept under the rug
Oh I see you discovered AIG (http://answersingenesis.org/).

This thread is about an oddity. An oddity that evolution explains quite nicely. An oddity that creationists either don't believe, or outright ignore.

or perhaps just bared from conversation by all right thinking people.
I consider myself a "left" thinker, actually. Especially when doing math problems.

scigirl

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by truelies
Well damn DD I did not realise that I was under any obligation to entertain you. If its my turn this week someone should have let me know. I was simply responding in kind to one smug dismissive comment from an evolutionist.

Hullo truelies.

You may notice that I wrote a small paragraph with just a tiny bit more than the single opening sentence you have deemed fit to comment on. If reading the rest is too much for you I'll summarise them into just one short sencence here:

Your assertions are worthless until you provide some sort of support for them.

That places their current value at zero, adjusted for international exchange rates. If you want to be taken seriously, I'm all ears for your supporting argumentation.

[truelies]

Originally posted by scigirl


Oh I see you discovered AIG (http://answersingenesis.org/).


scigirl

Sorry never heard of them.