Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Vestigial organs, anyone? The humble appendix begs to differ

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Despite its name – which means “hanger on” – the human appendix works for a living, according to recent research (helping kill germs).

As British physicist David Tyler notes, despite the claim of evolutionary biologists from Darwin to the present day that the appendix is junk left over from evolution, the appendix actually has a function – and the current crop of evolutionary biologists try hard to avoid acknowledging that they were wrong about that.

He comments,

It might be hoped that Darwinian evolutionary biologists would acknowledge that errors have been made; that Darwin’s claim for the appendix being useless was a claim made from ignorance rather than knowledge; that their theory had coloured their understanding of the data; etc. But no – what we get is this response to the new research: “The idea “seems by far the most likely” explanation for the function of the appendix, said Brandeis University biochemistry professor Douglas Theobald. “It makes evolutionary sense.”In other words, whatever turns out to be the case, their theory got it right, even though their theory got it completely wrong. Or, as Tyler puts it

It should be remembered that functionality was the prediction of biologists with a creation or design mentality, and it was not the prediction of evolutionary biologists. On this occasion, the people with a design perspective were right and the Darwinians were wrong. Let’s remember this next time we hear creation or ID being decried as being unable to make any scientific predictions!

But who said science predictions had to be correct? All they have to be is … made by convinced Darwinists!

They are somewhat like a Gucci label, I guess. They confer or withhold status, NOT useful information about the design of life.

Comments
I just checked the spam filter this morning and did not see any comments by ellazimm that included external links.Patrick
November 30, 2007
November
11
Nov
30
30
2007
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
I manually skim the spam filter to look for valid posts. If the posts are very short I may sometimes miss them since much of the spam now resembles normal comments. Try posting them again?Patrick
November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
Elazimmm you stated: Bornagain77 (#67): Any sub-population that was developed from a subset of the parent population will have less diversity, that’s the basic reasoning why in humans there is more diversity amongst Africans than Europeans; Euopeans came from a relatively small subset of the whole African population. Not so much a loss of information but starting with less to begin with. Now this is very interesting for you to acknowledge a partial truth, you admit there was a loss in information, thus you admit for a starting point that younger races of humans have by all appearances devolved from the parent species,,,yet, in the conjecture part of you statement,(Not so much a loss of information but starting with less to begin with),to defend Darwinism, you "believe as a proven fact" that sometime in the future the magic of evolution will kick in and start generating meaningful information! You see Elazimm, that is the whole point of the debate, you will never ever demonstrate the generation of complex information by natural means! Your belief that it may happen is based on nothing else than your blind faith in Darwinism! For there is absolutely no proof in hard evidence that it can be done by the RV/NS scenario. I challenge you to provide just one example of adaption of a living species that can be proven to be the result of the generation of meaningful information and can not in fact be traced back to the true foundational principle of Genetic Entropy.bornagain77
November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
@ Lazarus (from post 15) What I meant to say was "science will show a designer" not "the Designer." I never said that anyone will be converted by ID and I emphatically agreed that it would only be Word that can do that. Besides, at best we will produce a deist like Prof. Flew who I hope in earnest will find Christ, I guess I wasn't too clear before, but I am a scientist and I want the best scientific data available. The best data clearly seem to indicate nature exhibits design. This is all secular, but it does point clearly to a designer. Now, being a good Van Tillian myself, i know that ppl might not see it clealry, but its just good to point out to others that the Biblical claim of God's creating the world, is infact clearly seen (whether they want to recognize it or not).jpark320
November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
72 Jehu- I misunderstood Acquiesce's post. The press release to which I linked said:
Data on these plants’ genetic relationship with other carnivorous plant species also showed, as Cameron had suspected, that snap-traps evolved from flypaper traps, not the other way around.
Based on that I thought that the underlying research might contradict Acquiesce's statement:
There is no evidence for their evolution in the fossil record – absolutely nothing. Also there are no hypothetical reconstructings conceptualizing functional continuums by which these complex capture mechanisms could have possibly evolved – nothing, nada, not a thing.
He has looked at the research and doesn't think it does. On a second review I can see that you are correct, the release does not speak, as Acquiesce did, to the issue of functional continuums.congregate
November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
I do on a regular basis, insectivorous plants are my speciality. BTW, I'm not against the idea of evolution, it may turn out to be correct, I am just critical of orthodox evolution. In my speciality, few (that I know) actually believe these mechanisms evolved gradually, as the orthodox theory would claim. But that doesn't mean I automatically assume these were created. I like to keep my options open. Genetic similarities, like I said before, are one thing and are suggestive of a common source. But this common source could be viewed very differently by people on either side of the debate. Only finding those intergrading forms, or reconstructing them hypothetically can provide the sort of evidence the theory requires. Rather than have his opponents demonstrate that complex systems cannot evolve step by step (impossibly demonstrating the negative), Darwin and his current followers should prove that complex systems can evolve gradually whilst retaining some function along the way. Thanks for your post.Acquiesce
November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
congregate, I don't undestand your point. Your post only refers to research that solves the issue of whether or not cerain genes from the waterwheel and the flytrap are homologous. It doesn't address any of the issues raised by Acquiesce.Jehu
November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
As we frequently see, even well-intentioned press releases and press or blog accounts frequently fail to accurately represent the underlying research. I hope if you are interested in this topic you have checked further into this.congregate
November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
I am aware of this. Genetic similarities, albeit interesting doesn't even come close to answering the points I made above. 1. There is no fossilized evidence for the evolution of their complex capture mechanisms. 2. There is no conceptualized functional contiuum which could potentially produce these capture mechanisms. Your link might be suggestive, but that's about all.Acquiesce
November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
Acquiesce 68, You may need to update your research on investigations into the history of insectivorous plants: Here is a link to a 2002 news release from the New York Botanical Garden suggesting that there has in fact been some work done on hypothetical reconstruction of the evolutionary heritage of insectivorous plants. For example:
Taken all together, the team’s results showed that Venus’ flytrap and waterwheel were each other’s closest relative, strongly supporting the idea that these plants have a common ancestor and that snap-traps evolved only once in the history of plants. Data on these plants’ genetic relationship with other carnivorous plant species also showed, as Cameron had suspected, that snap-traps evolved from flypaper traps, not the other way around.
congregate
November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
“Evolutionists’ data may not be complete but they do have data.” Not in respect to insectivorous plants. There is no evidence for their evolution in the fossil record – absolutely nothing. Also there are no hypothetical reconstructings conceptualizing functional continuums by which these complex capture mechanisms could have possibly evolved – nothing, nada, not a thing. And to make a bad situation worse, there is no logical reason why they did evolve – in terms of their fecundity and robustness they are weaker by far (due to their specialization) than general plants. In fact, the only reason we have to believe they did evolve is an prior acceptance of orthodox evolution – but that’s just circular reasoning isn’t it :)Acquiesce
November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
I woke up this morning and, still being groggy, when clearing the moderation queue I accidentally hit the delete button. Fortunately my browser had saved the responses from ellazimm, so here they are:
Nov 28, 2:12 AM magnan (#63): I am quite aware of Gould’s theory or punctuated equilibrium which he proposed as another evolutionary pathway not an argument against evolution. Remember the Cambrian explosion covers a period of 30 to 50 million years, a mere moment in geologic terms but quite a long time biologically. Using Gould is dangerous, he firmly believed and defended evolutionary theory and his comments came from that viewpoint. Bornagain77 (#67): Any sub-population that was developed from a subset of the parent population will have less diversity, that’s the basic reasoning why in humans there is more diversity amongst Africans than Europeans; Euopeans came from a relatively small subset of the whole African population. Not so much a loss of information but starting with less to begin with. Evolution is not predictable so saying would I think that such and such would have happened is not really the point. Some organisms are very well adapted to their environment and stay relatively stable for long periods of time while others change rapidly; there’s that pesky randomness to deal with as well. Again, improbable is not the same as impossible. Sub-species that are descendent from a subset of the parent species will have less diversity because they started with less. Chromosomes are pretty interesting actually. If common descent is true it’s pretty interesting that humans have 23 pairs and domestic cats have 19, fox 17, kangaroos 6, sheep 27, horse 32, dogs 39, and carp 52. Nov 28, 2:20 AM tyke (#80): I agree that the idea of intelligent intervention is theistically neutral but I for one would definitely try and find out when, where and how the intervention occurred. To me that is the most interesting part of the ID paradigm and to not explore it is puzzling. Nov 28, 7:59 AM Jerry (#61) said: “The last new species of any consequence on the planet with lots of novelty is man and that ranges anywhere from 100,000 years ago to sooner.” I’m sorry but I think I’m out of here. We don’t really even speak the same language. The idea that humans are the only species of consequence to have arisen in the last 100,000 years is way to elitist for my taste. Thank you to those who have taken the time to respond to some of my questions. I think I’ll just wait for ID to come up with some results documenting at least when (and hopefully how) intelligent intervention took place. Just trying to kick holes in other theories is not proof and, in the end, not very helpful to the ID movement. Let me know when you’ve got some data. Evolutionists’ data may not be complete but they do have data.
My response: Farewell. Let us know if you ever find any positive evidence for Darwinian mechanisms being capable of what they're proposed to be capable of.Patrick
November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
tyke: "I suppose it could have been done by tweaking previous species, but then, that’s still a form of common descent" Right. But then it would be common descent rather like different versions of a computer program, particularly like one that generates copies of itself, and can make limited changes to the new copied program. The source of "major" changes are due to intelligent insight from an external source.mike1962
November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
Tyke, Universal common descent is only evidenced via genetic and morphological similarities. However both can also be explained via common design and/ or convergence. I know that Dr Behe accepts UCD. And I also know that neither he, nor anyone else on this planet can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between allegedly cloesely related species such as humans and chimps. IOW no one knows whether or not such a transformation is even possible. There isn't any way to test the premise- at this point in time. To Bettawrekonize & Janice- please read comment 45. And to anyone else- scientific inferences can and do change. That is the nature of science. IOW if a prediction turns out to need a revision, good theories allow for that. Only dogma doesn't allow for change.Joseph
November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
tyke,
Wouldn’t progressive creation — the introduction of new species from scratch throughout history — have produced any number of incongruences that should be detectable in the fossil record.
What would you consider an incongruence in the fossil record?Jehu
November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT
dacook @ 21 When I was studying medicine (76 - 80) we were told that the appendix was part of the immune system - though it was acknowledged that its precise role in that system had not been determined. There were speculations about the manufacture of IgA antibodies. We were also told that people used to think of the appendix as vestigial but that that idea could no longer be supported. What's interesting to me is that people have been thinking of the appendix as vestigial (and functionless) for the last 30 odd years even though it was well known for all that time (at least by doctors) that the thing is full of lymphoid tissue. This idea of it being a reservoir for bacteria surprised me. When I saw the headline about the role of the appendix being discovered I thought maybe someone had elucidated its role as part of the immune system. But, no. Some completely new function is being ascribed to it. So that makes two (2) functional possibilities rather than none. So why has the general populace been allowed to think, for the last 30 years or more, that it had no function? And why has that changed now? Of course the latter question presumes that this research has been widely publicised, which I doubt. Certainly I've seen nothing about it in the news outlets that I read.Janice
November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT
Are you asserting that common descent is impossible? If so, then whatever mechanism brought about the current state of life on earth still has to look awfully like it. Wouldn't progressive creation -- the introduction of new species from scratch throughout history -- have produced any number of incongruences that should be detectable in the fossil record. (I suppose it could have been done by tweaking previous species, but then, that's still a form of common descent).tyke
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
ellazimm, You asked what is the new paradigm if there is one. The entire debate on evolution is about how does novelty arise in a population. Natural selection is a side show and can only operate on what is presented in a population in terms of novelty. No novelty, then very little change. So the change in evolutionary biology thinking that has taken place in the last 20 years is what mechanisms could generate novelty in the offspring of a population quickly. Allan MacNeill who is an evolutionary biologist and occasionally visits this blog has listed 47 mechanism for generating variation in the offspring of a population. This includes the simple mutation to one of the DNA nucleotides called a SNP or single nucleotide polymorphisms. So when MacNeill says Darwinism is dead, he means changes by gradual means of simple mutations or a couple mutations in the DNA are out because they can not explain what has happened in the fossil record. However, these 47 mechanisms are only models and there is no empirical evidence to support that any of them ever generated novelty. They remain hypotheses to be researched in the future. I don't think MacNeill believes that even these mechanisms could explain such things as eyes, wings, 4 chamber hearts, neural systems including brains, aviary oxygen delivery, consciousness, bat sonar, underwater mammal adaptations and many others. The list of major biological novelties is almost endless and each would have had hundreds if not thousands of intermediate steps to develop if a gradualism model was in force but I think MacNeill believes these 47 mechanisms will generate major changes in only a few generations of a population. Highly speculative and no evidence it ever happened. So how do these massively complex new systems arise? That is what is probably the source of MacNeill's admission that they are nowhere yet. But that is the new synthesis. No change in natural selection or genetic drift and basic genetics. The only game in town is the source of variation and it has to be massive in a few generation of a population so it won't show up in the fossil record. By the way if you think the fossil record supports gradualism then I suggest you supply some examples. Even the paleontologist know there are none. One of the techniques used to show that the current fossil record is representative is through sampling theory. Each new find is considered a new sample and if the fossils do not show anything different from previous samples and represent a range of times then probability theory will indicate the likelihood of new samples showing anything different. It is like the basic probability course example of taking balls out of the urn. If you continually pull out the same set of color balls the more samples you take then probability theory predicts that each new sample will be from this same set. Occasionally one gets a new color ball but so far the new finds only support the proposition that there are few new transitions to be found and these are often millions of years apart from other fossils in which they are supposedly a link for. The fossil record is the main way to prove or disprove gradualism. The other way is to look in the current world for any of MacNeill's 47 mechanisms at work. There are a few new species that can be pointed to but none have developed through any of MacNeill's processes. The new species are usually deterioration of the genome that allows the new species to survive in a new environment such as sub freezing antarctic waters. There is no evidence of any new systems or even new functional proteins developing and what's more there are no transitions evident. The last new species of any consequence on the planet with lots of novelty is man and that ranges anywhere from 100,000 years ago to sooner. Apparently homo sapiens culture changed very dramatically 10,000 years ago but this may be just due to discovery of farming. If this is wrong then present some findings for us here to examine.jerry
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT
Bettawrekonize, You're right. I'll go further: Let's discuss all science in terms of what was thought 150 years ago.getawitness
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
ellazimm (57) "Can we please discuss the modern version of evolutionary theory based on the latest research?" Translation Can we please discuss evolution after the goal posts were moved? We know evolutionary theory before the goal posts were moved is wrong, so we moved the goal posts and I would like to discuss what's wrong with the new goal posts. You know if new research were to destroy modern evolutionary theory, we would simply keep moving the goal posts and I would be saying this same thing over again.Bettawrekonize
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
And to many other posters: Can we please discuss the modern version of evolutionary theory based on the latest research? Of the proposed models which is supported by the known physical evidence?
Imagine if an ID proponent or creationist ever said something like this. "We once predicted one thing but that turned out to be false so now we're "predicting" something else insetead. Lets discuss the modern version of ID/Creationism and not what it originally predicted." How far do you suppose that will get them? I guess it's ok for Darwinism to make false predictions and modify them later but not ID right? The problem with your post is that you're basically admiting that if one alleged prediction or model of UCD is falsified then we must discard it and claim that UCD predicts something else instead. You are essentially admiting that UCD is unfalsifiable, if one prediction or model gets falsified we shouldn't throw away UCD; instead, we should discard the old predictions and, "discuss the modern version of evolutionary theory." IE: we should move the goal posts no matter what the evidence shows.Bettawrekonize
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
BTW, Betta. This is a ID site, not a young-Earth creationist site. Supposedly ID is a "big tent" in which creationists and non-creationists (in the classical meaning of the word) can reside. So lets not have all the discussions you get involved in devolve into a fight over Young-Earth Creationism, like I have seen happen with you in forums elsewhere.tyke
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Overwhelming speculation, but not evidence. There is a difference. Speculation != evidence.
Well, since I know you are a staunch young-Earth creationist and believe that the geological column was created by Noah's Flood in only a few months, I don't expect you to agree, but any cursory examination of the fossil record in the geological column will reveal enough evidence to convince all but the most religiously biased that sea-going life was present millions of years before anything above bacterial forms lived on land. Since you reject everything that modern science tells us related to the age of the Earth, I see little point in discussing this evidence further.tyke
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
dave557
Rudiments of various muscles have been observed in many parts of the human body; and not a few muscles, which are regularly present in some of the lower animals can occasionally be detected in man in a greatly reduced condition.
(I'm stil trying to figure out how to quote people). The notion that these alleged rudimentary muscles are from lower animals and evolved into a greatly reduced condition in man assumes evolution to be true, it's not itself evidence for evolution.Bettawrekonize
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
tyke I clearly stated that unless you are a young-Earth or progressive creationist, then given that there is overwhelming evidence that life started in Earth’s oceans, it stands to reason that our ancestors, via common descent, had gills. Overwhelming speculation, but not evidence. There is a difference. Speculation != evidence.Bettawrekonize
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
dave557 wrote [blockquote] So let me get this straight. Darwin said that these rudimentary organs are “useless, or nearly useless”. But, doesn’t that equate to a vestigial organ may or may not have a function? ... Darwin was not wrong. A vestigial organ may or may not have a function. [/blockquote] Darwin said that these organs would be useless or so close to useless that they are no longer subject to natural selection. It turns out that they are much more useful than he had originally predicted. There are situations where natural selection would favor them (ie: people living in poor conditions in the example of the appendix). Darwin was wrong.Bettawrekonize
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
tyke: "Since we cannot identify the designer, or the methods the designer used, we cannot rule out the presence of vestigial organs as part of purposeful design. I’m not sure why that is so hard to understand." I would agree. The "leg" bones in whales obvious are not used by whales to walk around. They would seem to have a diminished use. They may not be absolutely required, but their presence may yet give a bit of extra strength to the animal. So nothing is wasted. Nothing is useless. Perfectly compatible with any view, IMO. Although, if RV+NS were the source of life from goo to you, I would expect lots of odd things in the species that are not there.mike1962
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
Well Tyke, Seeing as I see no way for information to occur by random processes, and all beneficial adaptations, to new environments, can be proven to be caused by loss of information, is not the Theistic model of ID/Genetic Entropy the most correct model to fit the evidence in the fossil record and the incoming genetic data? Plus, Since the genome is most likely to be proven by further work of ENCODE to be virtually 100% poly-functional, of outstanding complexity, does not this evidence make any supposed supplemental addition of information to genomes just mere fanciful conjecture on your part. i.e. 100% poly-functionality will preclude any such scenario, since the genome will be proven to be poly-constrained in its ability to accept any type of new information, beneficial or not. Just some food for thought buddy.bornagain77
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
our ancestors had organs (e.g. gills) And where do you get your proof for this fanciful conjecture?
I clearly stated that unless you are a young-Earth or progressive creationist, then given that there is overwhelming evidence that life started in Earth's oceans, it stands to reason that our ancestors, via common descent, had gills. Ask Michael Behe. He does not argue against common descent, he simply objects to the mechanisms behind common descent as proposed by evolutionists. This is nothing to do with Haeckel. Since I suspect you are a creationist, I would expect you to disagree with me, but that doesn't mean that ID cannot accommodate the notion of vestigial organs. Since we cannot identify the designer, or the methods the designer used, we cannot rule out the presence of vestigial organs as part of purposeful design. I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand.tyke
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
Nascent structures would have been far more telling of evolution. However these would be unidentifiable due to the fact that any structure coming into existence would have (some) function – or it wouldn’t be selected.Acquiesce
November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply