Not many that enter into this debate, on either side, are able to admit to any error, no matter how small. I applaud you. I look forward to discussing other topics on other threads in the future. I just need to find/make the time to join in on an intersting discussion.

I’d have to look into the evidence related to the assertion that the appendix is a vestige of the cecum before making any more comments. But I’m not sure how anyone would show “definitely” that it isn’t…only that the case for this is weak and convergent evolution or some other explanation fits the evidence better.

This is an interesting point. Drawing lines and making definitions in biological systems is always very difficult. (What exactly is a species again?) My guess is that once the organ develops enough of it’s own functionality and loses it’s resemblance to it’s non-diminished form, then it is no longer called a vestige. You’re right, it’s a vague definition. But what in biology isn’t a vague definition? There are still debates over what it means to be alive for goodness sakes.

I’ve seen plenty of creationist papers that attempt refute the vestigial designation solely by providing the functions of the organ. In fact, your post at 28 is a prime example. You claim that the appendix is not vestigial by providing a list of it’s functions. What is that supposed to be proving? We all understand that vestigial organs can have functions. The appendix is still a rudimentary, diminished version of an organ in other animals, making it vestigial. If you can show that it isn’t, then supply that evidence.

While I believe that you understand that vestigial organs have functions, you seem to be furthering the misconception with comment #28.

The vermiform appendix is assumed to be a vestige of the cecum, an organ that was used to digest cellulose by humans’ herbivorous ancestors. Analogous organs in other animals similar to humans continue to perform that function, whereas other meat-eating animals may have similarly diminished appendices. Unfortunately the appendix does not exist in other domestic mammals. The modern functionality of the appendix used to be a controversial subject in the field of human physiology, although many scientists and physicians still believe that it has little or no function. The appendix serves an important role during development and among adults is involved primarily in immune functions. Researchers have also shown that the appendix is involved in the production of molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body.

In the supposed spirit of Wikipedia I tried to keep my modifications nonbiased. Now if I really wanted to bias that article I could have removed speculation related to ancestry…but I didn’t. Perhaps modifying the 4th sentence was going a bit too far since in a sense this subject is still “controversial”. But I really don’t see a reason to remove the 2 last sentences I added. Whatever. As usual the unstated rule at Wikipedia is “thou cannot even hint at contradicting Darwinism”.

Vestigial structures have lost their original main purpose, but they may retain lesser functionalities, or develop entirely new ones.

Was thinking about this a little further…in the light of the modern sense of NDE isn’t this part of the definition of vestigial now useless? After all, pretty much everything would have evolved by Indirect Darwinian Pathways (Co-Option) and thus would have “lost their original main purpose”. So does that make everything a vestigial organ?

In WikiPedia

The vermiform appendix is a vestige of the cecum, an organ that was used to digest cellulose by humans\\\’ herbivorous ancestors. Analogous organs in other animals similar to humans continue to perform that function, whereas other meat-eating animals may have similarly diminished appendices. The modern functionality of the appendix is still controversial in the field of human physiology, although most scientists and physicians believe that it has little or no function.

I just take issue with people arbitrarily assigning the label of vestigial when the evidence is limited or there is another perfectly good explanation (or the structure might retain its original function, evolved or not). I also edited the Wikipedia entry a little…let us see how long it lasts till the editors kill it.

I still regularly see people think vestigial organs are functionless. I’d really like that misconception to die.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial_organs

“Although the structures most commonly referred to as “vestigial” tend to be largely or entirely functionless, a vestigial structure need not necessarily be without use or function for the organism. Vestigial structures have lost their original main purpose, but they may retain lesser functionalities, or develop entirely new ones.[1] Thus, a “vestigial wing” need only be useless for flight to be vestigial; it may still serve some other purpose than that of a wing.”