December 3, 2002
Does the appendix serve a purpose in any animal? (N. Roberts, London, Scientific American)
Julie Pomerantz, wildlife veterinarian and program officer for the Wildlife Trust’s North American Conservation Medicine Initiative, offers the following explanation: [...]Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, there is a growing body of evidence indicating that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body's immune system. The appendix may be particularly important early in life because it achieves its greatest development shortly after birth and then regresses with age, eventually coming to resemble such other regions of GALT as the Peyer's patches in the small intestine. The immune response mediated by the appendix may also relate to such inflammatory conditions as ulcerative colitis. In adults, the appendix is best known for its tendency to become inflamed, necessitating surgical removal.
Wow, she's really groping. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 3, 2002 10:08 AM
Yeah, that's how you find things out. Look for evidence.
It wasn't so long ago that nobody could think of any
important function for a spleen. It took a while, but
eventually they figured it out.
Well, perhaps the appendix doesn't serve much (any?) purpose in modern animals, but isn't expensive enough for evolution to have yet eliminated it fully.
This is surely the most economical explaination?
Yes, mike, if we have the vestige it was economical to keep it; if we don't it wasn't--thus does the circular logic remain unbroken.
Posted by: oj at December 4, 2002 12:35 PMEr, yes, that was unclear. While it's a bit circular by itself (do fish use their appendix??). it seems more economical to say "We have useless appendixes because evolution is sloppy", rather than "Our omniscient creator gave us apparently useless appendixes for subtle theological reasons which I will detail in a later paper..." or "Well, God gave them to us, so they must be good for something despite all evidence to the contrary."
Useless organs are mildly problematic for evolutionary theory, but a much larger problem for creationism, surely?
Orrin argues inductively from first principles, and darwinists argue deductively from observation, and never the twain shall meet.
Horses have vestigial toes, but that observed fact does not set off the creationists like something in a human.
mike:
There we agree. Neither Creationists nor Evolutionists can explain much outside their little circles of faith and neither can admit that or the whole circle explodes.
Harry:
If they'd kept the toes maybe they'd have come up with the decimal system.
I am writing a review of a natural history of
Hawaii and having a bit of fun with the
creationists. Why, for example, did the creator
decide that these little islands needed 800
kinds of fruit flies?