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?

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)

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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.