The Appendix Finds A Job. Or Had One All the Time…

_{Paul Nelson

October 6, 2007

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Human appendix

“Yeah, so what. So I spend a lot of time at this one Starbucks, sure, when other organ systems are busy working. Venti dark roast, room for cream.”

“Doesn’t mean I don’t put in my time on the job.”

“Do you really think natural selection would have kept me on the payroll this long if I wasn’t doing something?”

Comments

Saw this updated Wikipedia entry and liked it:
Historical Interpretation: Vestigiality The most common explanation is that the appendix is a vestigial structure with no absolute purpose. In The Story of Evolution, Joseph McCabe argued thus: The vermiform appendage—in which some recent medical writers have vainly endeavoured to find a utility—is the shrunken remainder of a large and normal intestine of a remote ancestor. This interpretation of it would stand even if it were found to have a certain use in the human body. Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost. One potential ancestral purpose put forth by Darwin[3]: that the appendix was used for digesting leaves as primates. Over time, we have eaten fewer vegetables and have evolved, over millions of years, for this organ to be smaller to make room for our stomach. The appendix is more developed in Old World monkeys. The appendix is more developed in Old World monkeys.[4] [edit] Recent Interpretation: Immune Use Loren G. Martin[5], argues that the appendix has a function in fetuses and adults. Endocrine cells have been found in the appendix of 11 week old fetuses that contribute to "biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms." In adults, Martin argues that the appendix acts as a lymphatic organ. The appendix is experimentally verified as being rich in infection-fighting lymphoid cells, suggesting that it might play a role in the immune system. A. Zahid[6] suggests that it plays a role in both manufacturing hormones in fetal development as well as functioning to 'train' the immune system, exposing the body to antigens in order that it can produce antibodies. He notes that doctors in the last decade have stopped removing the appendix during other surgical procedures as a routine precaution, because it can be successfully transplanted into the urinary tract to rebuild a sphincter muscle and reconstruct a functional bladder. Researchers at Duke University are currently being lauded for having solved the mystery, after proposing that the appendix serves as a safe haven for useful bacteria when illness flushes them from the rest of the intestines, a function that would be useful in sparsely populated areas where people would be less likely to pass these germs to one another.[7] This would explain the strong immune activity and the apparent health of those without one in developed countries- potentially in combination with the possibility that strong antibiotics prevent us from using the appendix for the reason it developed.
I had previously tried to update this entry with our new knowledge of its function but it was quickly deleted in favor of "no known function" and Darwin, evolution, blah, blah, blah... Despite this new entry being very neutral and informative how long do you think it will be before a Darwinist edits that out?Patrick_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

(from the back of the classroom the scruffy-looking one raises his hand because he knows the answer to this. upon recognition the scruffy one stands and states) Dr Nelson, sir, The job the appendix does now is not its original function. It was co-opted for its present function by riding the wave of otherwise very healthy individuals who no longer required its original functionality. That it now has another function, unrelated to the first, is evidence for evolution's innovative capability. BTW we know what its original function is by studying what the appendix in "lesser evolved" organisms' does. Seeing that we know we evolved from similar types of "lesser evolved" organisms, it follows that our appendix evolved along with us. (the scruffy one sits down and removes his tongue from his cheek)Joseph_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

My take on all this is that biological systems display "Design Intelligence" rather than "Intelligent Design". Implicit in design intelligence is that the biological system is able to bring about what is necessary (genetic computations)and likewise what the system has is allways necessary..no prehistoric vestiges/by-products! There is some much to explore from this design intelligence perspective. Does anyone out there agree?Tina_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

So, to bring it back to our discussion, not only do we need to know the designer’s actual design objectives, but also whether he built in excess capacity beyound those objectives before we can say he/she/it failed. The structure of the questions and logic here are peculiar from anything but a human perspective. For example, if God did fail by creating humanity then the real question is why from God's perspective would God let a bunch of creatures exist that are bound to snivel at or condemn God incessantly. Another example, if God did let the possibility of failure in humans exist then humans can never be sure that they have grounds to sit in judgment on God for that given that they will be prone to failed reasoning with respect to God/Good. Or a mix of perspectives, from the perspective of humans if biotech engineers were to design an animal to use for their own purposes most people probably wouldn't grant that animal as much status as they grant themselves. Given a categorical difference in intelligence and ontological status the evidence shows that most people wouldn't have much concern if such animals were treated fairly, yet apparently the ontological difference between God and mankind is not viewed in the same way. That view only makes sense assuming a specifically Christian mythos in which God becomes a man and a metaphoric animal/Lamb. If the Christian view in which such links between God and man exist is discarded then on human terms a being like God can do whatever it wants in a more capricious way given that the ontological status between God and man is greater than that between man and animal (and on human terms man does pretty much what he pleases with animals).mynym_{October 9, 2007
October
10
Oct
9
09
2007
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Atom's comment at 52 reminds me of a construction defect case I tried several years ago. My client was accused of providing a fuse to a hydroelectric generation project that did not meet design specs. We put on a lot of testimony about the difference between published ratings and actual capacity, etc. and won the case. So, to bring it back to our discussion, not only do we need to know the designer's actual design objectives, but also whether he built in excess capacity beyound those objectives before we can say he/she/it failed.BarryA_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

Atom, you and your wife look perfectly designed. Thanks for the link. Congratulations!
Thank you. My wife's smile lit up when she saw that. :)Atom_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

isn’t it possible to create a fuse that ceases all conductivity during amp spikes yet does not have to be changed each time - like a breaker for instance, it think a better design than a fuse.
A breaker is a great example of an alternate design for a fuse. There are some things to consider however, one being cost. A fuse is considerably cheaper alternative to a breaker, and so factors into the design equation. Fuses are also extremely reliable, as they have no moving parts to wear out. The worst thing that happens to fuses when they wear out is they stop working. Since they're designed to do exactly that, a faulty fuse has no destructive consequences. It is ideal for certain applications. Automobiles still use fuses for many circuits.
It seems presumptuous to make the statement that we know nothing of God but that he is perfect, does it not?
I'm not one who will make the claim that we can know nothing of God. Even in nature there's evidence of the astounding amount of power and intellect required to create and sustain a universe such as ours. Anything short of a perfect balance of a staggering host of physical parameters would render the universe unfit for life.Apollos_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

Apollos, isn't it possible to create a fuse that ceases all conductivity during amp spikes yet does not have to be changed each time - like a breaker for instance, it think a better design than a fuse. But the fuse stuff doesn't matter. I guess this is my point: if we do not know the designers goal and constraint set than how can we make a claim that it is either perfect or imperfect? It seems presumptuous to make the statement that we know nothing of God but that he is perfect, does it not?leo_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Leo, It may not be possible to create, an unbreakable fuse and, at the same time, give free will to creatures who may want to break it.StephenB_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

But would not a perfect fuse be able to absorb the current and not break?
Not if you're a fuse manufacturer that wants to continue to sell fuses. It all depends on your design goals. When you find out the Designer's goal and constraint sets, please let me know, so we can analyze the situation objectively.Atom_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

leo, Since fuses are designed to cease all conductivity when current falls outside of designed tolerances, a "perfect" fuse as you attempt to define it wouldn't be perfect at all, but completely nonfunctional. Rather a perfect fuse would be one that never ever failed as long as current didn't exceed its designed tolerance. Once current exceeded its tolerance by even the slightest bit, it would cease function every single time. Defining perfection with regard to design would have to include the designated purpose, not any arbitrary definition for perfection such as lack of failure. If failure is part of the specification, and the fuse never failed, not only could it be defined as imperfect, it could be designated as completely nonfunctional and hence useless.Apollos_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

Atom, you and your wife look perfectly designed. Thanks for the link. Congratulations!idnet.com.au_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

But would not a perfect fuse be able to absorb the current and not break? I submit that current fuse design is not perfect.leo_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

A fuse is designed to “break”, that is its function is to stop an excessive current and it does this by breaking the circuit.
So "perfect" design does not logically entail permanent function.
So are you saying we were designed to fall?
No, I am saying we were designed with the capacity to choose. To fall was our choice.Atom_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

Atom, A fuse is designed to "break", that is its function is to stop an excessive current and it does this by breaking the circuit. So are you saying we were designed to fall? If you mean break as in not work as intended, than no, a perfect fuse can't break. Either way I don't see this as a good analogy. StephenB, So according to this, a perfect God thought it was important that his creations love him freely (fair enough) and to reach that end he thought it prudent that they be allowed to suffer (whether they loved him or not if one looks at history). In other words, "he" thinks his free worship is more important than the comfort of his people. That does not sound like a perfect God to me. Would we look to a mortal king with such reverence? would we worship one? would anyone be surprised that we don't? Again, let me stress that theology is certainly not an area I know much about (I've just bought my first book about/by Aquinas) so these are just first reactions.leo_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I was not agreeing with leo's question, I was posing another question to show there was no contradiction between a "perfect" creator and a "broken" creation (if the capacity to break was intentional and built in.) A perfect fuse does break and a creature created perfectly with free volition can indeed choose to "fall", without it reflecting negatively on the capability of the Designer in question.Atom_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

Leo: "If God was perfect and designed us perfectly, than how could we “fall”?" And again Atom: Can a creature designed to make its own choices possibly choose what its creator does not want..... If God was perfect and designed us perfectly, than how could we “fall”?" According to the Christian ethic, a perfect God decided to take a risk. He would create man with the capacity to make moral choices in an environment that permits both good and bad choices. If man was created to love God by necessity, the same way an animal must follow its instincts, then that love wouldn't mean anything. As one philosopher put it, "There is no charm in a 'yes' unless a 'no' is possible.StephenB_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

leo,
If God was perfect and designed us perfectly, than how could we “fall”?
Can a perfectly designed fuse break? Can a creature designed to make its own choices possibly choose what its creator does not want? Atom PS. I recently got back from my honeymoon, which is why I have been absent for a while. To read about my wedding and honeymoon, with pics, see my blog here.Atom_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

These type of arguments not only fail due to a lack of understanding of basic engineering but they also fail to prove the case that ID somehow invalidates religions. I didn't take the time to comment earlier but I was scratching my head when ReligionProf made this comment: “Would you conclude that the designer was inept for placing the wind and food pipes together? … was sadistic for creating insects that kill one another in the mating process? …The design argument is not only scientifically troubling - it leads to a very troubling view of God.” Exactly how is this observation incompatible with any of the major world religions? Christianity and Judaism: Genesis 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; So here we have God creating a defensive mechanism for inflicting pain as a punishment for sin. Even if you view Genesis symbolically the very beginning of the entire Bible provides evidence that God is quite capable of "creating insects that kill one another in the mating process." Islam and Allah via the Qur'an: [57.22] No evil befalls on the earth nor in your own souls, but it is in a book before We bring it into existence; surely that is easy to Allah [14.27]...Allah causes the unjust to go astray,and Allah does what He pleases.[4.78]Yet if a happy thing befalleth them they say: This is from Allah; and if an evil thing befalleth them they say: This is of thy doing (O Muhammad). Say (unto them): All is from Allah. Obviously Allah is perfectly capable of doing evil deeds, since he is said to create both good and evil. Hindiusim is easy: Shiva the Destroyer.Patrick_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

DaveScot, this is a well-put quoteable:
The “bad design equals no design argument” doesn’t seek to discredit ID as design detection. It seeks to discredit the Judeo-Christian God as the agency behind the design.
Thank you.bFast_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

DaveScot, I realize this doesn't matter and I assume if anything I am more under-informed in theology than you, but, my initial reaction would be: If God was perfect and designed us perfectly, than how could we "fall"?leo_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

BarryA The "bad design equals no design argument" doesn't seek to discredit ID as design detection. It seeks to discredit the Judeo-Christian God as the agency behind the design. It's not a scientific argument but rather a theological one and is quite amusing since it's coming from the supposed "real scientists". It's ineffective with me because a) even someone as under-informed as me in theology knows the bible explains this with the "fall of man". Humans screwed up by defying God and God left them to their own devices as a consequence. So from a Judeo-Christian theological standpoint the argument has no merit. and b) I have no a priori commitment to the Judeo-Christian God as the designer. I think it's possible but that's all so even if the argument could sway me in a theological sense it can't sway me in scientific sense as I'd just presume the designer is not the Judeo-Christian God. As far as I can determine the designer of organic life on earth just needs some advanced but quite material skills in biochemistry. Cosmological ID is a different story but the capability to create whole universes out of nothing is so beyond our current understanding of physics it's nothing but woolgathering to discuss it. The only scenario I know of that's possible under our current understanding is that the universe isn't real but is rather a really advanced computer simulation sort of like the plot in "The Matrix". So I focus on biological ID because, as far as I can tell, the creation of organic life as we know it on the planet earth doesn't require technology different in kind from human technology (just further developed).DaveScot_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

DaveScott, I wonder if your space shuttle example might not be useful in the "bad design equals no design" argument. Here's my thought: Space shuttles are subject to catastrophic failure at an alarming rate from very small causes (frozen o rings; detached heat tiles). An intelligent agent would not create a space shuttle that could fail because of such trivial defects. Therefore, an intelligent agent did not design the space shuttle. How is this argument different in principle from the "thus and so feature of an organism" does not appear to be what we would expect from an intelligent designer" that we hear so often.BarryA_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT}

True science is great. You got that right. Trouble is, among those posing as scientists nowadays, true science represents an Uncommon Dissent.jstanley01_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 Does this help http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=Nvg&q=%22The+genetic+code+could+well+be+optimized+to+a+greater+extent+than+anything+else+in+biology+and+yet+is+generally+regarded+as+the+biological+element+least+capable+of+evolving.%E2%80%9D&btnG=Search http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1502294 Kalin Vetsigian,* Carl Woese,†‡§ and Nigel Goldenfeld*‡¶Bettawrekonize_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

If ID doesn’t address common descent either positively or negatively, then Behe and Denton must hold their positive views based on something other than ID. Obviously. ID does not address common descent but proponents of ID can still accept common descent. Or not. Or just be open minded to its possibility. Or just be open minded to common descent not being what happened without taking a strong stand. True science is great.tribune7_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, Thank you for headsup on ENCODE. That Boston Globe story is a must-read for general-interest readers, like myself, who like to stay abreast of the cavils of science.jstanley01_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

If ID doesn't address common descent either positively or negatively, then Behe and Denton must hold their positive views based on something other than ID. Which is fine. I'm not trying to be difficult here. Just logical. I assume that bacterium and giraffes likewise came into existence because they were "intended to come into existence," just like humans -- which hardly makes human descent uncommon. What makes human beings uncommon isn't the fact that we were intended, but what we were intended for. Anyways, I'm sorry I brought this up. Since I hold a negative view of common descent, I love this website's name. Even though the good-looking and scholarly DaveScott is, of course, correct. In fact I'd say that, from a strictly scientific point of view, until time travel is perfected, ¿quien sabe?jstanley01_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

This topic reminds me of a recent article in that bastion of Darwinian scientism propaganda, New Scientist. It was entitled "Evolution's Greatest Mistakes" (Aug. 11-17 2007). It lists a number of systems where "things seem to have gone spectacularly wrong". Notice the phrase "seem to". They hedge their bets, and admit in some of the cases that the supposed bad design actually may have functional purposes. Just about every item cited in detail in the article is an example of the usual Darwinoid ploy of insisting they can have their cake and eat it too. An example of supposed bad design is described, so how could this be the creation of a Designer? It must be one of the inevitable mistakes of a blind RM & NS process. But look, it may actually have a necessary function in the organism, so of course this also confirms the Darwinian theory (then follows one of the typical "just so" stories to explain its origin). This then is also an example of the huge creative power of the random genetic change driven process. So Darwinism can explain anything and everything - it can't possibly be falsified. The whole article boils down to the argument that some features of life seem to be nonoptimal (mistakes), and this is explained in any of 3 ways: 1. It really is a mistake, so RM & NS did it - the inefficiency of mammalian sac-type lungs compared to the one-way bird lungs that allow some birds to fly as high as 35,000 feet - placing genes for 13 mitochondrial proteins inside the mitochondria where they can be damaged by the free radicals generated in oxidation - the blind spot, back to front wiring in the vertebrate eye (well debunked in these pages) - the appendix (debunked in this thread) - vulnerable brain cells and hearts - windpipe next to the gullet - the female pelvis - external testicles - feet 2. It isn't really a mistake, but actually has a function in allowing evolution itself to work, so RM & NS did it - 10 out of 14 DNA polymerases used in DNA copying make a lot of errors (promotes mutation) - aging (promotes evolution by killing off the previous generation after reproduction) - swapping parts of chromosomes during sexual recombination (generates diversity for evolution) 3. There is a possibility it isn't 1 or 2, isn't really a mistake, and actually has a biological function, so RM & NS did it - Supposed failings of RuBisCo, major plant enzyme which fixes CO2, but the protein may still be optimalmagnan_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

BornAgain77, thanks for the links. Michaels7, "What is interesting is that computer scientist, software people recognize this long ago." I think there is a reason why so many of us IDers on this site come out of the software world. What truly baffles me is that I have bumped into a couple of software developers who contend that NDE is correct. So far I haven't seen any such software developer who has presented a significant work history, however.bFast_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply