How can creationists explain the human appendix?

[Mr. Pedantic]

God also put a heart in the middle of our chest that could go into cardiac arrest at any moment and kill us. He also put a brain in our skulls that could have an aneurysm at any moment and kill us. He also put miles of veins and arteries that could clog at any time and kill us. He also put intestines in us that could rupture and kill us at any time. He also put limbs that could get stuck in doors and ripped from our bodies causing us extreme pain at any moment. He also gave us a mouth that could swallow harmful stuff at any moment and kill us. He also gave us eardrums that have limitations on them so that if we heard a noise that was greater than our natural threshold, those eardrums could rupture and cause us great amounts of pain and loss of equilibrium. He also...

These things actually help you. Whereas the only apparent purpose of the appendix is to sustain the population of the world's general surgeons.

Also, your examples weaken your argument, because they are so obviously flawed in construction nobody in their right mind would make them the way they are. They show some brilliance in design, but mostly they show how crappy an engineer evolution is.

Yes, I know my argument is ridiculous, but then so is yours. I only said all those things to show you that there are hypothetically many parts of our bodies that could kill us at any moment, and yet we don't complain about them because we understand their utility. We don't fully understand the appendix, but that hardly makes it a "vestigial organ" because we don't understand it. If that were the case, why do we have two kidneys, two lungs, six extra fingers (T Rex only had two on each hand and he seemed to do okay), and other body parts unecessary to live? We understand their usefulness.

People that don't have appendices, either through appendicectomy or through congenital absence, suffer no ill effects. Most embryos that won't grow a heart likely don't even implant in the uterus.

 

[Audacious]

If God didn't create the universe because the Big Bang did it. If God didn't create the earth because the principles of motion did it. If God didn't create man because descent with modification by means of natural selection did it then what exactly did God create 'In the Beginning'?

Have a nice day
Mark

I'm of the opinion that God designed and created the Big Bang / the events around it and subsequent to it. It explains certain things pretty well, like the existence of higher maths (trig, calculus, etc, though there are probably forms of math that we can't even imagine) since God would have to use them in order to execute such a thing (though probably not with calculations as we think of them). So, God caused everything to happen with a particular design, and also particularly designed evolution so the earth could function without constant and direct intervention whenever a species was in trouble.

Just because you don't, yet, have developed your perceptive skills, doesn't mean millions of things do not have a purpose.

(Who cares what doctors spout. They're not the definitive authority on anything
as consequences in following them daily sadly demonstrates.)

Your challenge: develop your God-granted perception, to better glimpse why God did, what He wisely does

Doctors: People who spend decades studying the human body with the ultimate goal of helping others. Medicine: A field of study incorporating the scientific method and using it to improve and invent medical procedures.

Since science proves itself right (or at least proves itself to have a 99% chance of being right), I'd say the words of doctors mean quite a lot. For example, I'd say they're the definitive word on the science of medicine.

I'm quite fond of the helicopter example:

A terrible storm came into a town and local officials sent out an emergency warning that the riverbanks would soon overflow and flood the nearby homes. They ordered everyone in the town to evacuate immediately.

A faithful Christian man heard the warning and decided to stay, saying to himself, “I will trust God and if I am in danger, then God will send a divine miracle to save me.”

The neighbors came by his house and said to him, “We’re leaving and there is room for you in our car, please come with us!” But the man declined. “I have faith that God will save me.”

As the man stood on his porch watching the water rise up the steps, a man in a canoe paddled by and called to him, “Hurry and come into my canoe, the waters are rising quickly!” But the man again said, “No thanks, God will save me.”

The floodwaters rose higher pouring water into his living room and the man had to retreat to the second floor. A police motorboat came by and saw him at the window. “We will come up and rescue you!” they shouted. But the man refused, waving them off saying, “Use your time to save someone else! I have faith that God will save me!”

The flood waters rose higher and higher and the man had to climb up to his rooftop.

A helicopter spotted him and dropped a rope ladder. A rescue officer came down the ladder and pleaded with the man, "Grab my hand and I will pull you up!" But the man STILL refused, folding his arms tightly to his body. “No thank you! God will save me!”

Shortly after, the house broke up and the floodwaters swept the man away and he drowned.

When in Heaven, the man stood before God and asked, “I put all of my faith in You. Why didn’t You come and save me?”

And God said, “Son, I sent you a warning. I sent you a car. I sent you a canoe. I sent you a motorboat. I sent you a helicopter. What more were you looking for?”

God gives us knowledge of medicine so we can use it, the same way He gives us the ability to observe the world around us in a clear fashion. If anything, I'd say doctors are God's appointed experts on the human body - unless you'd want a pastor or someone to remove a bullet for you, though I don't recommend it.

Yea, scientist and doctor really aren't authorities on knowledge and truth. In the bible, Christ healed a woman with a condition of the blood, but she went to many doctors who didn't know the problem, and made her condition worse. It still happens today.

That's very different; it was two thousand years ago with almost infinitely inferior medicine - at that point I'm not even sure it qualified as a science. Of course, sometimes doctors don't know what to do (we haven't documented, cured or prevented every problem), but a lot of the time those end up also being solved (eventually) by doctors, so.

Of course you should go to Christ in your problems and afflictions, but that doesn't mean you don't see a doctor for a medicinal question or a lawyer if you're getting sued. You just go to the lawyer and God.

If you have faith in God, why trouble yourself with such things? Faith means being comfortable with not having the answer to every question under the sun. If God knows, I don't need to.

Is this a genuine question or are you trying to make a point? If you're trying to make a point, you're appealing to ignorance because (1) you can't prove the answer of 'because faith, that's why!' and (2) you can answer pretty much every question with 'faith in God'.

If you're not trying to make some kind of point, myself and many others are interested in the world around us and try to discover what truths we can about it. There's a reason science, philosophy, math, etc exist, and it's not because God didn't want us to search for the truth (even if He is the ultimate truth).

Yes, I know my argument is ridiculous, but then so is yours. I only said all those things to show you that there are hypothetically many parts of our bodies that could kill us at any moment, and yet we don't complain about them because we understand their utility. We don't fully understand the appendix, but that hardly makes it a "vestigial organ" because we don't understand it. If that were the case, why do we have two kidneys, two lungs, six extra fingers (T Rex only had two on each hand and he seemed to do okay), and other body parts unecessary to live? We understand their usefulness.

Exactly - there is an obvious use for almost every part of our body, the exception being the few vestigial organs such as the appendix. If there's no evidence to believe it does anything and no repercussions when the appendix is removed, all evidence then points to a lack of function.

The only thing the appendix functions to do is give is appendicitis and occasionally kill those of us without optimal medical care. Everything else has an obvious purpose.

(Again: "Faith in God" is not an obvious reason for us to have an appendix. According to this reasoning we shouldn't think anything about anything because it can all be answered with faith.).

James

 

[Keachian]

progmonk, you have totally mis-represented my post.
A feat of which you seem to be also sadly proud.

In order to understand, are U still able to ask questions...
or is that beyond you now too?

Well considering the fact that Papias and 1234321 also seem to have "mis-represented" your post, I think maybe you haven't made your point very well.

Let's see ask questions of someone who seemingly has no grasp on history and is ready to blame everything on advances in medicine, or should I ask questions of people who have studied in these respective fields and really have no investment in "keeping me sick"... gee that's a bit of a tough decision don't you think?

 

[Smidlee]

Plus, Smidlee, it is common for make the mistake that "vestigial" means "useless". That's false.

I didn't claim it was useless, the OP did.

 

[sk8Joyful]

.

 

[good brother]

Also, your examples weaken your argument, because they are so obviously flawed in construction nobody in their right mind would make them the way they are. They show some brilliance in design, but mostly they show how crappy an engineer evolution is.

If there are so many apparent flaws in the design of the human body, why don't you make a better one? Start from scratch with no materials and your own designs (no copying current designs and making changes where you think they are needed) and make a better human. My bet is you can't. And why not? Not because you're not smart, you seem like a very smart individual. It's because, even though you would be applying a great deal of intelligence to your new design, it would still not turn out as beautiful as what we have now. And you know why? Because we didn't evolve through blind chance and random mutation. We were created by Someone who is far superior to you or me.

In Christ, GB

 

[BobRyan]

The only explanation that makes sense is for the appendix to be a vestigial organ that has become useless through evolution (note that evolution does not imply improvement -- just change).

This is a joke ... right??

Or is this another one of those "amoeba turns into horse given a few zillion generations, time, and chance on mount improbable" stories?

Try this --

That's No Vestigial Organ, That's My Appendix: Scientific American Podcast

Welcome to 2009.

When it comes to thinking up reasons to believe in evolutionism -- ignorance is bliss -- it is the only way that evolution-ism works.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Keachian]

If there are so many apparent flaws in the design of the human body, why don't you make a better one? Start from scratch with no materials and your own designs (no copying current designs and making changes where you think they are needed) and make a better human. My bet is you can't. And why not? Not because you're not smart, you seem like a very smart individual. It's because, even though you would be applying a great deal of intelligence to your new design, it would still not turn out as beautiful as what we have now. And you know why? Because we didn't evolve through blind chance and random mutation. We were created by Someone who is far superior to you or me.

In Christ, GB

God was sitting in heaven one day when a scientist said to Him,

"God, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing - in other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."

"Oh, is that so? Tell Me..." replies God.

"Well," says the scientist, "we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man."

"Well, that's very interesting...show Me."

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil into the shape of a man.

"No, no, no..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt.

It's a funny joke but hardly a fair challenge

 

[good brother]

God was sitting in heaven one day when a scientist said to Him,

"God, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing - in other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."

"Oh, is that so? Tell Me..." replies God.

"Well," says the scientist, "we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man."

"Well, that's very interesting...show Me."

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil into the shape of a man.

"No, no, no..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt.

It's a funny joke but hardly a fair challenge

That is one of my favorite jokes. Thank you for sharing it again.

In Christ, GB

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

If there are so many apparent flaws in the design of the human body, why don't you make a better one? Start from scratch with no materials and your own designs (no copying current designs and making changes where you think they are needed) and make a better human. My bet is you can't. And why not? Not because you're not smart, you seem like a very smart individual. It's because, even though you would be applying a great deal of intelligence to your new design, it would still not turn out as beautiful as what we have now. And you know why? Because we didn't evolve through blind chance and random mutation. We were created by Someone who is far superior to you or me.

In Christ, GB

Not only is it conceptually impossible for me to start this task at the point you describe, I don't really need to. We already have a human body. Why should I act stupid and just ignore something that already works? Works relatively poorly, but works nonetheless.

But some improvements:

1) Get rid of the appendix - that may be obvious already.
2) Get rid of the recurrent pharyngeal nerves, and instead have a pair of 'normal' pharyngeal nerves emerging from the brain and traveling directly to the pharynx.
3) While we're at it, this nerve shouldn't have a vagus root anyway. It should probably come from the spinal accessory nerve.
4) Get rid of PGPs. If the universe really is only 6,000 years old, I see no need for PGPs creating problems with drug metabolism.
5) Get rid of anxiety disorders, phobias, depressive disorders, etc. No point for these either. Same with lactose intolerance and breast cancer.
6) Increase the parallelism of the vasculature - so that every myocyte is supplied by at least 2 coronary arteries.
7) Disseminate the spleen, and remove it.
8) Disseminate the liver, and (partially) remove it.
9) Re-tune the immune system so that its existence is not predicated on the assumption that we're all going to be infested with parasites.
10) Scales, or some kind of trauma/infection protection, instead of skin.
11) Parallelize the genito-urinary tract.
12) Lower the normal range of serum uric acid - there are other antioxidants to counterbalance its function.
13) Disseminate and parallelize all afferent and efferent pathways communicating with the brain.
14) Create a water ATPase.
15) Improve the renal regulation of blood pressure. Signals should be both extrinsic and intrinsic; that would remove the problems of hepatorenal syndrome and greatly reduce incidence of renal impairment.

These are just off the top of my head, but I could see these making a huge improvement in human health. Much fewer heart attacks and strokes, no more psychiatric disorders, no more paralysis, no more spleen ruptures, no more cirrhosis, no more autoimmune disorders, no more kidney stones, no more gout, no more random bleeds from warfarin or dabigatran...you get the picture.

 

[good brother]

Not only is it conceptually impossible for me to start this task at the point you describe, I don't really need to. We already have a human body. Why should I act stupid and just ignore something that already works? Works relatively poorly, but works nonetheless.

Thank God car companies don't subscribe to your thinking. "Well, we already have a car that goes forward, why make any improvements?" Thank God bakers and chefs don't subscribe either. "Well, we have a food that's edible, why should we make it taste good?" Thank God kindergartners aren't allowed to subscribe to you belief. "Well, we have completed kindergarten, why should we move on to first grade?" And on and on down the list....

But some improvements:

1) Get rid of the appendix - that may be obvious already.

People can live without a limb or two, does that mean we should get rid of anything anyone can live without?

2) Get rid of the recurrent pharyngeal nerves, and instead have a pair of 'normal' pharyngeal nerves emerging from the brain and traveling directly to the pharynx.

Try that on yourself first.

3) While we're at it, this nerve shouldn't have a vagus root anyway. It should probably come from the spinal accessory nerve.

Maybe we could get a USB port too to "inject" more feeling.

4) Get rid of PGPs. If the universe really is only 6,000 years old, I see no need for PGPs creating problems with drug metabolism.
5) Get rid of anxiety disorders, phobias, depressive disorders, etc. No point for these either. Same with lactose intolerance and breast cancer.

I grouped these together because both deal with outside forces being applied to the human body. That's hardly the body's fault. That would be kin to getting rid of cars because they cause people to die sometimes in accidents.

6) Increase the parallelism of the vasculature - so that every myocyte is supplied by at least 2 coronary arteries.
7) Disseminate the spleen, and remove it.
8) Disseminate the liver, and (partially) remove it.

I'd have to refer to my comment from post #2 (Try that all on yourself first...)

9) Re-tune the immune system so that its existence is not predicated on the assumption that we're all going to be infested with parasites.

How would your body be able to prepare for that which it has not dealt with? That's like forming an army for the existence of not going to battle with any other force.

10) Scales, or some kind of trauma/infection protection, instead of skin.

We have a wonderful water proof suit that looks good on so many people and you want to give us all scales? What would all the racist haters judge people on if we all had scales?

11) Parallelize the genito-urinary tract.
12) Lower the normal range of serum uric acid.
13) Disseminate and parallelize all afferent and efferent pathways communicating with the brain.

Refer to comment in conjunction with posts #2, 6, 7, and 8.

These are just off the top of my head, but I could see these making a huge improvement in human health.

With those major changes, why wouldn't you just start over with a whole new design?

GB

 

[Keachian]

Thank God car companies don't subscribe to your thinking. "Well, we already have a car that goes forward, why make any improvements?" Thank God bakers and chefs don't subscribe either. "Well, we have a food that's edible, why should we make it taste good?" Thank God kindergartners aren't allowed to subscribe to you belief. "Well, we have completed kindergarten, why should we move on to first grade?" And on and on down the list....

Um all of those aren't anything new but rather building on what has come before, ergo not applicable

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Thank God car companies don't subscribe to your thinking. "Well, we already have a car that goes forward, why make any improvements?" Thank God bakers and chefs don't subscribe either. "Well, we have a food that's edible, why should we make it taste good?" Thank God kindergartners aren't allowed to subscribe to you belief. "Well, we have completed kindergarten, why should we move on to first grade?" And on and on down the list....

Improving your reading comprehension may help.

People can live without a limb or two, does that mean we should get rid of anything anyone can live without?

Limbs are obviously important, far more important than an appendix. Are you being difficult on purpose?

Try that on yourself first.

Maybe we could get a USB port too to "inject" more feeling.

You don't really understand what I'm proposing here, do you? Cause it shows.

I grouped these together because both deal with outside forces being applied to the human body. That's hardly the body's fault. That would be kin to getting rid of cars because they cause people to die sometimes in accidents.

Nope. Because these stimuli aren't common anymore, and when they do arise, the pathological human response is no longer appropriate. But of course, God already knew that...right? So depressed people are depressed because God wanted them to be?

I'd have to refer to my comment from post #2 (Try that all on yourself first...)

I thought you wanted me to tell you what I'd do to the human body, not what I'd do to mine. But if you were wondering, sure. If I could do my body and life over from scratch, I don't see why not.

How would your body be able to prepare for that which it has not dealt with? That's like forming an army for the existence of not going to battle with any other force.

Because we aren't constantly host to a chronic parasitic infection. And therefore, things like Crohn's disease result. Crohn's is a nasty disease to live with, I'd rather spare people the torment of living with it if possible. But if you don't want to, that's fine. As long as you don't have it, right?

We have a wonderful water proof suit that looks good on so many people and you want to give us all scales? What would all the racist haters judge people on if we all had scales?

So...the only thing I can say to this is, you like racism?

Refer to comment in conjunction with posts #2, 6, 7, and 8.

See above.

With those major changes, why wouldn't you just start over with a whole new design?

GB

Because it's conceptually impossible. I'm only human. I just hold God to a higher standard because he's a higher being.

 

[Papias]

Smidlee wrote:

I didn't claim it was useless, the OP did.

No, but you tried to use the fact that some use may exist to argue against it being a clear remnant of evolution, which was the OP's main point. Do you understand that finding some use is not evidence against either evolution nor even vestigiality?

Sk8, even though it was pointed out more than once that many of your points were false, I haven't seen you admit this. Sk8, do you agree that crime actually did exist before 1900 (etc.)?

Good brother, do you understand what a pharyngeal nerve is?


In Christ-

Papias

 

[good brother]

Um all of those aren't anything new but rather building on what has come before, ergo not applicable

According to evolutionistic thought (which many subscribe to, although I am not one of those many) we aren't anything new but rather building on what has come before, ergo very applicable.

GB

 

[Smidlee]

Smidlee wrote:



No, but you tried to use the fact that some use may exist to argue against it being a clear remnant of evolution, which was the OP's main point. Do you understand that finding some use is not evidence against either evolution nor even vestigiality?

Nope. I simple tried to point out it has a use which you seem to agree. Where we probably disagree would be the belief the appendix came from a mythological ape-like creature that had two children; one went to Harvard the other went ape.

P.S Any organ having a use doesn't falsify evolution then any organ doesn't have a known use isn't evidence for evolution either. Evolutionist love to claim "A is true" is evidence of evolution but "A is false" is not evidence against the theory. It's impossible for evolution to lose. I love to gamble with those rules: Heads I win, Tails flip the coin again.
Any prediction evolutionist make and is found true is evidence of evolution. Any prediction found false then evolutionist just comes up with a new story.

 

[Keachian]

According to evolutionistic thought (which many subscribe to, although I am not one of those many) we aren't anything new but rather building on what has come before, ergo very applicable.

GB

You said that you didn't want things that built on what had gone before, and then you listed the design of cars, learning, and cookery as examples of such things claiming that they don't build on what has been before, so I'm rather confused because now you seem to be reversing on your position and agreeing with me.

 

[Leggomyegolas]

We have a wonderful water proof suit that looks good on so many people and you want to give us all scales? What would all the racist haters judge people on if we all had scales?

Oh, don't worry. They'd think of something. Maybe the shape of the scales, or whether they're blue/green or green/blue, depending on the angle of sunlight.

 

[Papias]

Nope. I simple tried to point out it has a use which you seem to agree.

It has a possible and diminutive use compared to the original function.

Where we probably disagree would be the belief the appendix came from a mythological ape-like creature that had two children; one went to Harvard the other went ape.

Right. You'd agree with that, and I wouldn't.



P

.S Any organ having a use doesn't falsify evolution then any organ doesn't have a known use isn't evidence for evolution either. Evolutionist love to claim "A is true" is evidence of evolution but "A is false" is not evidence against the theory. It's impossible for evolution to lose. I love to gamble with those rules: Heads I win, Tails flip the coin again.
Any prediction evolutionist make and is found true is evidence of evolution. Any prediction found false then evolutionist just comes up with a new story.

No, what happens is that scientists point out the many vestigial organs. "Vestigial" means that it has a diminished, lost, or changed use. Creationists try to change the meaning of "vestigial" to "no use", and then argue against that straw man that they made themselves. It's a classic straw man argument.

Pointing out to you that a straw man is being used is not "a new story".

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

The classic Darwinian argument of vestigial organs never stands up to close scrutiny.

According to the researchers, the appendix's job is to "reboot" the digestive system when that happens with the bacteria safely harbored in the appendix.

What does the appendix do? finally an answer!​

Serious Darwinians have all but abandoned this line of argumentation. It seems reserved for the uninformed, you'll chase it in circles for a while and when the actual purpose of the organ emerges they simply move on to something else.