English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-09-15 15:45:40 · 20 answers · asked by Just! Some? *Dude* 5 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

The point is, we don't need it. Some of you will make up excuses for anything!

2007-09-15 15:54:15 · update #1

nobodyintexas---

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

2007-09-15 15:58:49 · update #2

andy h--

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

2007-09-15 15:59:41 · update #3

crimthann--

"Perhaps it was just to make us scratch our heads"

Priceless.

2007-09-15 16:02:14 · update #4

kyle--and you'll drink to that!!

2007-09-15 16:05:11 · update #5

foxtrot---close, but it was our evolutionary ancestors that needed it.....

I hope you all checked out the link above......mmmm....science.

2007-09-15 16:06:57 · update #6

patrone---wrong.

2007-09-15 16:07:24 · update #7

"Several reasonable arguments exist for suspecting that the appendix may have a function in immunity."

Suspecting that may.........still no proof though.

2007-09-15 16:10:17 · update #8

"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"

god bless yourself.

2007-09-15 16:18:43 · update #9

questioner-----the first claims the Encyclopedia Brittanica cannot be trusted so I quit just then....I'm supposed to believe a religion promotional site over a trusted encyclopedia that has no bias...........you have forfeited your integrity in my eyes.

2007-09-19 10:32:26 · update #10

20 answers

Because a table of contents was not enough.

2007-09-15 15:50:17 · answer #1 · answered by valcus43 6 · 2 0

Why do whales have phalanges bones? How come when we are in the womb we develop in the same pattern as we think evolution occurred? Guess God is just a trickster, huh?

2007-09-15 15:50:24 · answer #2 · answered by fifimsp3 5 · 0 0

so we could look up the supplementary information.
Because we were designed to eat plants as food, the appendix was for the digestion of leafy materials, but as humans have eaten less and less fresh plant foods, the appendix (just like an unused muscle) has shrunk.

2007-09-15 15:49:21 · answer #3 · answered by Tim 47 7 · 1 0

Why did evolution not wipe it out like it did the tail

It serves no purpose other than to kill us or make doctors rich

2007-09-15 16:07:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

People love to go to talkorigins, but they never take a look at the other side: http://www.trueorigin.org

And if you really care to know (which I doubt), take a look at these for the appendix...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n1/appendix

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v3/i1/appendix.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/vestigial.asp

And here is something from Dr. Brad Harrub:

In 1931, German scientist Alfred Wiedersheim even produced a list of 180 organs in the human body that were alleged to be vestigial or rudimentary (see Wiedersheim, 1931). Today, Wiedersheim’s list has been all but demolished—thanks to our advanced knowledge of human physiology. A review of the medical literature documents one of the last alleged vestigial organs in humans to be the vomeronasal organ (also referred to as Jacobson’s organ), which is found on the nasal septae. In the 1970s, this particular organ was regarded as vestigial, but recently was discovered to be more common than previously reported. A study conducted in 1998 found that physicians, using routine nasal examinations, identified the vomeronasal organ in only 16% of the people examined. Yet when nasal endoscopes were employed in the same procedure, the figure jumped to 76% (Gaafar, et al., 1998). Additionally there is now impressive evidence substantiating the fact that this organ has a specific sensory function in humans (Gaafar, et al., 1998; Berliner, et al., 1996). Even many of the so-called vestigial organs in animals (e.g., legs in the python, hip bones in the whale, etc.) are now known to have important functions.

Yet in spite of this kind of accumulating evidence, and the fading importance of vestigial structures, it nevertheless appears that the endless evolutionary quest for vestigial structures is going to continue to plague us—even into the twenty-first century. Mr. Quammen’s continued use of this tired old argument is proof aplenty of that.

But consider the problems for evolutionary theory that an appeal to so-called vestigial structures causes. As late as 1997, Encyclopaedia Britannica described the human appendix in the following manner: “The appendix does not serve any useful purpose as a digestive organ in humans, and it is believed to be gradually disappearing in the human species over evolutionary time” (see “Vestigial Organs,” p. 491). However, the importance of this alleged “vestigial organ” was being discussed in medical textbooks as long ago as 1976. As one scientist admitted: “The appendix is not generally credited with significant function; however, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism” (Bockus, 1976, p. 1135). More modern medical textbooks describe the appendix as a “well-developed lymphoid organ” (Moore, 1992, p. 205) whose “mucosa and submucosa…are dominated by lymphoid nodules” and whose “primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system” (Martini, 1995, p. 916). Yet even with this knowledge, the appendix still is mentioned in some evolutionary literature as being vestigial.

Such reasoning, however, results in utter confusion in evolutionary theory: Neither “old” nor “new” world monkeys possesses an appendix, which leads to the conclusion that they therefore must be more highly evolved than humans. One cannot help but wonder then, if, according to evolutionary theory, monkeys evolved from humans?

Another point that needs to be considered is this: Were it ever the case that man at one time possessed 180 vestigial organs (organs that once were functional), then in the distant past he would have had more functioning organs than he now has. In the past, he would have been developing the organs that he presently possesses, plus he would have had the 180 functional-but-now-vestigial organs. So the farther back we go in time, the more complex the organism becomes (see Wysong, 1976, pp. 398-399). Rather an interesting evolutionary twist, wouldn’t you say?

Those evolutionists who keep up with the scientific literature rarely discuss this issue any longer. Actually, when you consider that there are no evidences of the transitional stages between functioning organs and useless organs, then these so-called useless appendages would prove devolution, not evolution. Evolution is the rise of new, different, and functioning organs, not the wasting away of already-present, complex organs. Finally, then, creationists are forced to ask: Where are all of the nascent [new] organs?

Involved in all of this is the principle of progression versus regression. Here, information is the key. Evolution demands progression, and with it there must accompany an increase of new information. Regression can be described by the loss or corruption of genetic information. Harvard’s Ernst Mayr defined macroevolution as the “evolution above the species level; the evolution of higher taxa and the production of evolutionary novelties, such as new structures” (2001, p. 287). He included in his definition the requirement for the “production of evolutionary novelties, such as new structures.” Once again, the question becomes: Where are all of the new organs? This is where so-called evolutionary progression comes to a screeching halt. Vestigial organs document degeneration, which is a category of regression on a downhill slope, where information is being lost—not gained (see Wieland, 2001, p. 47). Organic evolution cannot be sustained using examples of “downhill” change. The basic tenets needed by evolutionists are not met, and thus vestigial organs cannot be touted as an example of the “factuality” of evolution.

Evolutionists may continue to promote this line of thinking (as David Quammen has done in National Geographic), but given time and additional research, the true function of each and every organ will undoubtedly become clear. R.L. Wysong was prompted to remark: “As man’s knowledge has increased the list of vestigial organs decreased. So what really was vestigial? Was it not man’s rudimentary knowledge of the intricacies of the body?” (p. 397). Dr. Wysong’s point is well made. It turns out that evolutionists actually have used the word “vestigial,” not to mean a “useless” organ, but instead to say, in reality, “we’re ignorant of what this organ’s function is at this point in time.” As our ignorance wanes, so, ironically, does the number of alleged vestigial organs. No proof of evolution here.

2007-09-19 10:01:40 · answer #5 · answered by Questioner 7 · 0 1

dont you know?
god runs a racket with doctors.

He gives you inflamed appendix, and the doctors cut it out of you. then the doctors and god split it 50/50

2007-09-15 15:53:36 · answer #6 · answered by Trid 5 · 1 0

Although I do not subscribe to the god theory, your appendix works similar to your tonsils. It is a filtering device.

2007-09-15 15:49:21 · answer #7 · answered by ♫ Bubastes, Cat Goddess♥ 7 · 2 1

To trick us and separate the faithful from the logical.

2007-09-15 16:32:51 · answer #8 · answered by Two quarters & a heart down 5 · 0 0

Evolution? What type are you taking about? Minor, Macro? Anyway the appendix fights infections.

2007-09-15 15:58:24 · answer #9 · answered by AEH101 3 · 0 3

Well, when you get right down to it, why did he give us (you name it)? The fact is he did and there was design to it. Perhaps we used it more in the past or will in the future. Perhaps it was just to make us scratch our heads our another test of faith.

2007-09-15 15:57:47 · answer #10 · answered by crimthann69 6 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers