Scientists: Appendix protects good germs

San Luis Obispo Tribune ^ | Oct. 05, 2007 | SETH BORENSTEIN

[neverdem]

[ValerieTexas]

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."

No, it makes intelligent design sense.

[VeritatisSplendor]

Well, it also makes evolutionary sense. Either way, it’s elegant. And it beats the rabbit method of re-establishing gut flora.

Mrs VS

[secretagent]

Rabbit method?

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Another “vestigial” organ found to play a vital role!

[GOPJ]

Finally - a study worth the money and time.

[FoxInSocks]

Two years ago, 321,000 Americans were hospitalized with appendicitis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

I feel special . . . I'm one of those 321,000. Got a cool 5-inch scar in the shape of a hockey stick.

[VeritatisSplendor]

Let's put it this way - contra Richard Adams, "silflay hraka" is not an insult, but a fact of life.

Mrs VS

[Yardstick]

Makes perfect sense. And I like “rebooting” analogy.

[Maelstorm]

I love when scientists use phrases like “It makes evolutionary sense”. What exactly is “evolutionary sense”. Does it mean that there has to be some hidden advantage to every biological function? Why is there such a need to say meaningless things about biological discoveries? How many times I’ve heard otherwise rational scientists discussing evolution as if it were some kind of persona or deity of sorts. Such and such creature began flying because it was chasing prey up trees as if some kind of magic were at work causing it to grow first strange scales, reduced limbs, and finally wings. I’m not saying such a process did not occur but I do wish they’d explain more fully the magical process that produced such a thing.

Evolutionary thinking has really become a limiting factor to discovery. It has forced a singular perspective that very well may not be true. Many still limit their ideas of evolution to natural selection which is clearly not the only driving force of adaptation. Sure adaptation occurs within a range of already existing genetic extremes but what becomes much more difficult to explain is the driver of vast morphological changes allowing organisms in a historical blink of an eye after vast catastrophes to differentiate and totally reclaim the Earth.

The fear of the idea of intelligent design reveals something about those who hold undirected evolution as sacrosanct and I don’t think it has as much to do with science as it does the need to deny any universal order with a particular reference to purpose.

They are limiting themselves to a reality so small...when they should be thinking of a universe of infinite order with intelligences as big as the universe or bigger. I think that the idea that such intelligences could have played a role in creation and actually have a stake in our progress makes them afraid just as the ideas of good and evil do. They ask with much indigence “Why a God would be concerned with little ole us.” and assert that “Gods would be too busy to look down on us ant like specks of nothing”.

If we are to use ourselves as an example we being the only representatives of sentient life we can possible use as a model we can quickly see how empty such questions are. As human beings we frequently find ourselves concerned about animals far less interesting and capable than ourselves. I am also certain that if we were to discover an ant with the capability of splitting atoms I’m sure we would also be very interested in it. The idea that matters of size governs interest is false. The very extremes those who claim to be shepherds of scientific thought go in feigning ignorance of the obvious by making statements suitable only for convincing ignorant masses and the already convinced shows a certain dishonesty.

They are smart enough to see the limits of their own reasoning and also where their reasoning and research becomes nothing more than blind faith.

[GOP Poet]

God don’t make no junk. :-)

[TigersEye]

That use is not needed in a modern industrialized society, Parker said. If a person's gut flora dies, they can usually repopulate it easily with germs they pick up from other people, he said. But before dense populations in modern times and during epidemics of cholera that affected a whole region, it wasn't as easy to grow back that bacteria and the appendix came in handy.

The 'rebooting intestinal flora' theory makes sense. The logic above is really shaky. Embarrassing even.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

God don’t make no junk.

Oh no? Then how does He explain this?

[stefanbatory]

food for many species...the also help to break down carcasses and return them to the soil...among other things...

[Ronin]

Explain mosquitoes.

[Lancey Howard]

"So what you're saying is, I'm invincible!"

"....invincible."

[Fire_on_High]

LOL I’m too much of a geek...didn’t even have to stop and think. Not that I’ve read the cover off “Watership Down” or anything....

[Hot Tabasco]

Oh no? Then how does He explain this?

He doesn't have to, He also gave us this:

[Raycpa]

If true, it also would have been more necessary after Adam and Eve were exiled and after Noah and his children repopulated the earth.

[Raycpa]

I'll see your bet and raise