11 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThere is a bibliography of Sir Charles Scott Sherrington's works at http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/2266.html but I find no "classic on the eye". Could you please cite the classic you are referring to and the source of the quote you used?
Did you ever wonder what happens to your tears that continually flow across your eyes? Dr William Paley wrote a classic titled Natural Theology in which he discusses the eye. "In order to keep the eye moist and clean-which qualities are necessary to its brightness and its use- a wash is constantly supplied by a secretion for the purpose; and the superfluo ...[text shortened]... "Behind the intricate mechanism of the human eye lie breathtaking glimpses of a Master Plan."
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarr<obnoxious apologist= on>
Did God also give us an appendix? If so, boy is he stupid!
Is it so hard to believe that HE included an appendix because it is logically necessary for the most perfect world? Since God is infinitely rational, HE chooses the most perfect world possible. Therefore the appendix is necessary for the best of all possible worlds. Just because you don't know what the appendix is for doesn't mean that the appendix has no useful function. Unless you think you know more that GOD?
<obnoxious apologist =off>
I actually feel some guilt for polluting the world with such a lousy post.
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerAnd the tonsils? Are these vital as well?
The appendix contains a high concentration of lymphoid follicles. These are highly specialized structures which are a part of the immune system. The clue to the appendix’s function is found in its strategic position right where the small bowel meets the large bowel or colon. The colon is loaded with bacteria which are useful there, but which must be kept a ...[text shortened]... dix has a very special purpose.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/appendix.asp
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerRead and learn: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html
The appendix contains a high concentration of lymphoid follicles. These are highly specialized structures which are a part of the immune system. The clue to the appendix’s function is found in its strategic position right where the small bowel meets the large bowel or colon. The colon is loaded with bacteria which are useful there, but which must be kept a ...[text shortened]... dix has a very special purpose.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/appendix.asp
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderMeldan, Why we believe in Creation, 225.
There is a bibliography of Sir Charles Scott Sherrington's works at http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/2266.html but I find no "classic on the eye". Could you please cite the classic you are referring to and the source of the quote you used?
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerI'm not an atheist, but do tend to believe with the TOE, although I realise it isn't anywhere near fully understood.
Let the atheist or the evolutionist tell us who bored the hole in the bone and laid a water pipe through it for the dispersion of our tears.
I get the feeling however, that even if/when a completely thorough explanation of this particular mechanism has been found, you would still insist that it was created that way by God?
Which somewhat reduces this thread to a tired regurgitation of the classic, "Ha! I know something they can't explain that can be explained by Creationism, so I'll quote it here, wait for them all to box themselves into a logic trap, and claim victory - thus proving that God MUST exist."
Wouldn't it be more enlightening and conducive to try and discuss a possible mechanism for how an eye might evolve? Or are you not really interested, as you're already convinced you know the answer?
If God created my eyes, I'd like to ask him why he made such a poor job - he's costing me a small fortune in contact lenses and spectacles.
11 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe problem isn't that the appendix has no function, but that the structure of the appendix is sub-optimal (and hence not evidence of a perfect creator). Check out Gould's 'The Panda's Thumb' for a nice presentation of this line of reasoning.
The appendix contains a high concentration of lymphoid follicles. These are highly specialized structures which are a part of the immune system. The clue to the appendix’s function is found in its strategic position right where the small ...[text shortened]... .
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/appendix.asp
From Talk Origins, on the appendix:
Throughout medical history many possible functions for the appendix have been offered, examined, and refuted, including exocrine, endocrine, and neuromuscular functions (Williams and Myers 1994, pp. 28-29). Today, a growing consensus of medical specialists holds that the most likely candidate for the function of the human appendix is as a part of the gastrointestinal immune system. Several reasonable arguments exist for suspecting that the appendix may have a function in immunity. Like the rest of the caecum in humans and other primates, the appendix is highly vascular, is lymphoid-rich, and produces immune system cells normally involved with the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT) (Fisher 2000; Nagler-Anderson 2001; Neiburger et al. 1976; Somekh et al. 2000; Spencer et al. 1985). Animal models, such as the rabbit and mouse, indicate that the appendix is involved in mammalian mucosal immune function, particularly the B and T lymphocyte immune response (Craig and Cebra 1975). Animal studies provide limited evidence that the appendix may function in proper development of the immune system in young juveniles (Dasso and Howell 1997; Dasso et al. 2000; Pospisil and Mage 1998).
However, contrary to what one is apt to read in anti-evolutionary literature, there is currently no evidence demonstrating that the appendix, as a separate organ, has a specific immune function in humans (Judge and Lichtenstein 2001; Dasso et al. 2000; Williams and Myers 1994, pp. 5, 26-29). To date, all experimental studies of the function of an appendix (other than routine human appendectomies) have been exclusively in rabbits and, to a lesser extent, rodents. Currently it is unclear whether the lymphoid tissue in the human appendix performs any specialized function apart from the much larger amount of lymphatic tissue already distributed throughout the gut. Most importantly with regard to vestigiality, there is no evidence from any mammal suggesting that the hominoid vermiform appendix performs functions above and beyond those of the lymphoid-rich caeca of other primates and mammals that lack distinct appendixes.
As mentioned above, important differences exist in nearly all respects between the human and rabbit appendixes (Dasso et al. 2000; Williams and Myers 1994, p. 57). The rabbit appendix, for instance, is very difficult to identify as separate from the rest of its voluminous caecum (see Figure 2). Unlike the human appendix, the rabbit's appendix is extremely large, relative to the colon, and is the seat of extensive cellulose degradation due to a specialized microflora. The large rabbit appendix houses half of its GALT lymphoid tissue, whereas the contribution of the human appendix to GALT is significantly less (Dasso et al. 2000). In humans the vast majority of GALT tissue is found in hundreds of Peyer's patches coating the small intestine and in nearly 10,000 similar patches found in the large intestine. Additionally, there are important differences in lymphoid follicular structure, in T-cell distribution, and in immunoglobulin density (Dasso et al. 2000). Furthermore, from systematic analysis we know that the rabbit, rodent, and human appendixes are convergent as outgrowths and constrictions of the caecum (Shoshani and McKenna 1998). It is thus very questionable to conclude from these animal studies that the human appendix has the same function as the other non-primate appendixes.
Of course, over a century of medical evidence has firmly shown that the removal of the human appendix after infancy has no obvious ill effects (apart from surgical complications, Williams and Myers 1994). Earlier reports of an association between appendectomy and certain types of cancer were artifactual (Andersen and Isager 1978; Gledovic and Radovanovic 1991; Mellemkjaer et al. 1998). In fact, congenital absence of the appendix also appears to have no discernable effect. From investigative laparoscopies for suspected appendicitis, many people have been found who completely lack an appendix from birth, apparently without any physiological detriment (Anyanwu 1994; Chevre et al. 2000; Collins 1955; Hei 2003; Host et al. 1972; Iuchtman 1993; Kalyshev et al. 1995; Manoil 1957; Pester 1965; Piquet et al. 1986; Ponomarenko and Novikova 1978; Rolff et al. 1992; Saave 1955; Shperber 1983; Tilson and Touloukian 1972; Williams and Myers 1994, p. 22).
In sum, an enormous amount of medical research has centered on the human appendix, but to date the specific function of the appendix, if any, is still unclear and controversial in human physiology (Williams and Myers 1994, pp. 5, 26-29).
The appendix is suboptimally designed
The human appendix is notorious for the life-threatening complications it can cause. Deadly infection of the appendix at a young age is common, and the lifetime risk of acute appendicitis is 7% (Addiss et al. 1990; Hardin 1999; Korner et al. 1997; Pieper and Kager 1982). The most common age for acute appendicitis is in prepubescent children, between 8 and 13 years of age. Before modern 20th-century surgical techniques were available, a case of acute appendicitis was usually fatal. Even today, appendicitis fatalities are significant (Blomqvist et al. 2001; Luckmann 1989).
The small entrance to this dead-end pocket makes the appendix difficult to clean out and prone to physical blockage, which ultimately is the cause of appendicitis (Liu and McFadden 1997). This peculiar structural layout is quite beneficial for a larger cellulose-fermenting caecum, but it is unclear why gut lymphoid tissue would need to be housed in a remote, dead-end tube with negligible surface area. In fact, 60% of appendicitis cases are due to lymphoid hyperplasia leading to occlusion of the interior of the appendix, indicating that the appendix is unusually prone to abnormal proliferation of its lymphoid tissue (Liu and McFadden 1997). Such an occurrence would be much less problematic if the interior of the appendix were not so small, confined, and inaccessible from the rest of the gut. In many other primates and mammals, the GALT lymphoid tissue appears to function without difficulty in a much more open, bulbous caecum with ample surface area.
Furthermore, there is mounting evidence that removing the appendix helps prevent ulcerative colitis, a nasty inflammatory disease of the colon (Andersson et al. 2001; Buergel et al. 2002; Judge and Lichtenstein 2001; Koutroubakis and Vlachonikolis 2000; Koutroubakis et al. 2002; Naganuma 2001; Rutgeerts 1994). This evidence suggests that the appendix is actually maladaptive, and that the lymphoid tissue contained in the appendix is prone to chronic pathological inflammatory states. If the appendix does have an important function that we have yet to find, it is a leading candidate for the worst designed organ in the human body. How nice if the appendix would just degenerate away after it is no longer needed, so it could never get infected and kill us needlessly. Any biological structure that supposedly ensures our livelihood by its functions, yet paradoxically and unnecessarily kills a large fraction of its bearers prematurely, is poorly designed indeed.
For time's sake, if you find a link to a site that argues against this, then just post the link. I will then find a link that refutes your link, and post it here. That way, we can just post link after link, and these links can run proxy for actual debate. Does this sound O.K to you, dj2becker?
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrIndeed, perhaps the appendix is just one example of evolution in action.
The problem isn't that the appendix has no function, but that the structure of the appendix is sub-optimal (and hence not evidence of a perfect creator). Check out Gould's 'The Panda's Thumb' for a nice presentation of this line of reasoning.
People whose genetic make-up pre-disposes them to being being more susceptible to appendicitis are more likely to die before they have a chance to pass on their genes.
Of course, drugs and medical surgery have pretty much stopped that particular route that evolution may have taken, along with various others!
11 Apr 05
The problem isn't that the appendix has no function, but that the structure of the appendix is sub-optimal (and hence not evidence of a perfect creator).
Either that or it is evidence of a creator that is bound by independently existing constraints. So who created those constraints and the space in which those constraints have meaning?
This gets back to an old thread I started in Debates about God and constrained optimization.
12 Apr 05
I love how theists always put the burden of proof on the skeptic. Here's the logic behind this: something cannot yet be fully explained by science. If it cannot be explained fully by science, then science will never uncover the truth, and therefore the only explanation must be that "God did it." Go back 500 years. How many people believed in germs? Did the absence of germ theory make it okay for people to, without any supporting evidence, claim that God struck down the wicked with justly deserved wrath in the form of disease? If you don't know the solution, you just fill the void with something you desperately want to believe.
God cannot be proven NOT to exist, therefore He MUST exist! Of course! And if you can't prove God isn't actually a gnome in my attic, then that must also be true.
12 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Malky NoreeThe knowledge of germ theory makes no difference. Now the fundamentalist just says that "God punished the wicked by sending his germs upon them". Hell, fundamelists claim that AIDS was sent by god to punish the promiscuous and the needle-sharers, even though we have some scientific understanding of how AIDS comes to pass.
Go back 500 years. How many people believed in germs? Did the absence of germ theory make it okay for people to, without any supporting evidence, claim that God struck down the wicked with justly deserved wrath in the form of disease? ...[text shortened]... st fill the void with something you desperately want to believe.
12 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrLinky bbar!! 😀
For time's sake, if you find a link to a site that argues against this, then just post the link. I will then find a link that refutes your link, and post it here. That way, we can just post link after link, and these links can run proxy for actual debate. ...