Live Science: The Appendix: Useful and in Fact Promising

[Jac3510]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/200 ... tpromising

The body's appendix has long been thought of as nothing more than a worthless evolutionary artifact, good for nothing save a potentially lethal case of inflammation.

Now researchers suggest the appendix is a lot more than a useless remnant. Not only was it recently proposed to actually possess a critical function, but scientists now find it appears in nature a lot more often than before thought. And it's possible some of this organ's ancient uses could be recruited by physicians to help the human body fight disease more effectively.

In a way, the idea that the appendix is an organ whose time has passed has itself become a concept whose time is over.

"Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks," said researcher William Parker, an immunologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C. "Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a 'vestigial organ.'"

Slimy sac

The vermiform appendix is a slimy dead-end sac that hangs between the small and large intestines. No less than Charles Darwin first suggested that the appendix was a vestigial organ from an ancestor that ate leaves, theorizing that it was the evolutionary remains of a larger structure, called a cecum, which once was used by now-extinct predecessors for digesting food.

"Everybody likely knows at least one person who had to get their appendix taken out - slightly more than 1 in 20 people do - and they see there are no ill effects, and this suggests that you don't need it," Parker said.

However, Parker and his colleagues recently suggested that the appendix still served as a vital safehouse where good bacteria could lie in wait until they were needed to repopulate the gut after a nasty case of diarrhea. Past studies had also found the appendix can help make, direct and train white blood cells.

Now, in the first investigation of the appendix over the ages, Parker explained they discovered that it has been around much longer than anyone had suspected, hinting that it plays a critical function.

"The appendix has been around for at least 80 million years, much longer than we would estimate if Darwin's ideas about the appendix were correct," Parker said.

Moreover, the appendix appears in nature much more often than previously acknowledged. It has evolved at least twice, once among Australian marsupials such as the wombat and another time among rats, lemmings, meadow voles, Cape dune mole-rats and other rodents, as well as humans and certain primates.

"When species are divided into groups called 'families,' we find that more than 70 percent of all primate and rodent groups contain species with an appendix," Parker said.

Several living species, including several lemurs, certain rodents and the scaly-tailed flying squirrel, still have an appendix attached to a large cecum, which is used in digestion. Darwin had thought appendices appeared in only a small handful of animals.

"We're not saying that Darwin's idea of evolution is wrong - that would be absurd, as we're using his ideas on evolution to do this work," Parker told LiveScience. "It's just that Darwin simply didn't have the information we have now."

He added, "If Darwin had been aware of the species that have an appendix attached to a large cecum, and if he had known about the widespread nature of the appendix, he probably would not have thought of the appendix as a vestige of evolution."

What causes appendicitis?

Darwin was also not aware that appendicitis, or a potentially deadly inflammation of the appendix, is not due to a faulty appendix, but rather to cultural changes associated with industrialized society and improved sanitation, Parker said.

"Those changes left our immune systems with too little work and too much time their hands - a recipe for trouble," he said. "Darwin had no way of knowing that the function of the appendix could be rendered obsolete by cultural changes that included widespread use of sewer systems and clean drinking water."

Now that scientists are uncovering the normal function of the appendix, Parker notes a critical question to ask is whether anything can be done to prevent appendicitis. He suggests it might be possible to devise ways to incite our immune systems today in much the same manner that they were challenged back in the Stone Age.

"If modern medicine could figure out a way to do that, we would see far fewer cases of allergies, autoimmune disease, and appendicitis," Parker said.

The scientists detailed their findings online August 12 in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology.

Yet another vestigal organ turns out to be not so vestigal after all . . .

[hopefulcynic]

A vestigial organ is not necessarily useless. It just has a different and unrelated function compared to homologous organs.

A good example would be the eyes of the blind cave fish. You could argue that the eyes act like skin, preventing the external environment from entering the inside of the fish. However, this "function" does not mean that the eyes are not still vestigial.

[Gman]

Thank you Jac... More evidence that it was designed for a purpose. What blind chance evolution seems to be lacking is creating any new information. Subtracting information is easy, but adding anything new? Nearly impossible...

[IgoFan]

Yet another vestigal organ turns out to be not so vestigal after all . . .

Your trumpeting of this peer-reviewed evolution article is ironic, given that you seem to mistakenly perceive the article's statement about whether the appendix is vestigal, as evidence against evolution.

As hopefulcynic correctly points out with examples, "A vestigal organ is not necessarily useless." That the authors may have confused the meaning of vestigal is unfortunate, because anti-evolutionists are sure to blow the supposed "controversy" way out of proportion, e.g., this thread.

More likely though, the authors may have claimed that the appendix is not vestigal because the article also mentions that [an appendix] has evolved at least twice. If so (and that's still an IF), then the human appendix obviously cannot be vestigal to a non-existent common ancestor of all appendixes.

"We're not saying that Darwin's idea of evolution is wrong - that would be absurd, as we're using his ideas on evolution to do this work," Parker told LiveScience.

Maybe much more revealing here is why you didn't comment on this far more important sentence from your own post. Cherry picking without a ladder again, eh?

[Cross.eyed]

Now.... if anyone could find what the purpose are of nipples on a man??

[cslewislover]

Now.... if anyone could find what the purpose are of nipples on a man??

They're just decorative, right? How weird would a guy look without them? Ha ha, I know you're being funny. Could lead to a lot of strange discussion, lol.

I had appendicitis last year, and read up on it some. I remember reading that removed appendixes had a lot of a certain type of bacteria. I can't remember now if it used that bacteria for good, or it couldn't handle that much bad bacteria. Lol, I should look that up again.

[Jac3510]

Evolutionists are cute when they try to defend a lost cause . . . :

A vestigial organ is not necessarily useless. It just has a different and unrelated function compared to homologous organs.

You do realize that this is circular reasoning, right? Tell me, how do you define homologous? There are two possibilities. The first (which is the original view) is to say that structures are homologous if they have similar form or structure. The second, which is how it is used today, is to say that they are homologous if they are known to come from a common ancestor.

The reason for the change is obvious enough. There are plenty of homologous organs that are not related evolutionarily speaking. The octopus and human eye are just one example. The appendix, apparently, is another. Now, we all know that convergence (be it structural or molecular) is no evidence for evolution. It actually counts against your position. In fact, original studies in homology were used with reference to common designs employed by a common designer, much as cars are designed today by different companies.

Thus, to avoid calling the octopus and human eye homologous, evolutionists chose to define it in terms of common ancestry. That is, structures can only be called homologous if you already know of their common descent. Now, the human and octopus are are not homologous!

The circularity is funny. You claim homology as evidence for evolution, but you can't know something is homologous unless you already know it has evolved. Classic example of question begging.

The moment, then, you try to compare the appendix (which, according to the article, is homologous in the original sense, which supports Design, not evolution) to homologous organs (in the Darwinian sense), you are comparing it to a meaningless phrase. It's just gobldeegoop. Dribble.

Beyond that, it's also rather entertaining to watch you throw biology textbook writers under the bus. Perhaps they have been misusing the phrase. It only shows their own blatant dishonesty. As the article points out, and I can attest to from personal experience, highschool and college bio textbooks call the appendix vestigial. Like Darwin, they use that as evidence for evolution (another common example are the spots on the whale where legs apparently once existed).

Finally, you are just being disingenuous if you deny that evolutionists have no long made much of the apparent uselessness of the appendix. It's been cited as everything from vestigial to evidence of "bad design." Much like "junk DNA", you now try to backtrack and say, "You idiots just don't understand what we REALLY mean" when it turns out that there is a function. The sad, if not entertaining, aspect of this entire thing is your backpedaling.

A good example would be the eyes of the blind cave fish. You could argue that the eyes act like skin, preventing the external environment from entering the inside of the fish. However, this "function" does not mean that the eyes are not still vestigial.

Are you not aware that blind cave fish get their site back after spending a few generations in the light? I would never argue that the eye functions as skin. I would say that it functions as an eye. They have just spent enough generations in the darkness that their need for them decreased. I'm all for adaptation. Fine. No big deal. Like Darwin finches, though, I expect them to readapt when the situations change, and I don't expect the eye to become something else, i.e., skin, any more than I expect a fish to become anything other than a fish.

As it relates to the appendix, you must not have read the article very closely. The appendix has the same function it has always had. It just hasn't been a needed function since the advent of sanitation. There's nothing vestigial about it.

Your trumpeting of this peer-reviewed evolution article is ironic, given that you seem to mistakenly perceive the article's statement about whether the appendix is vestigal, as evidence against evolution.

In and of itself, it isn't evidence against evolution. It is, however, yet another example of supposed vestigial organs, which are a great argument in favor of evolution, turning out to be not so vestigial after all. One of the common predictions of ID theorists is just that, that as we continue our research, we will find out that the only reason we classify things as "vestigial" is our lack of knowledge of their function. I mark this up as another confirmed prediction of ID, and another failed prediction of Darwinism.

I also mark this up as ANOTHER example of convergence, in this case structural, which DOES count against evolution.

As hopefulcynic correctly points out with examples, "A vestigal organ is not necessarily useless." That the authors may have confused the meaning of vestigal is unfortunate, because anti-evolutionists are sure to blow the supposed "controversy" way out of proportion, e.g., this thread.

Yes, the authors and biology textbooks and Darwin himself all misunderstood the term and inappropriately called the appendix vestigial. They should all call you and hc, since you both understand Darwinism SO MUCH BETTER than they do.

Do let the backpedaling continue. It is rather entertaining.

More likely though, the authors may have claimed that the appendix is not vestigal because the article also mentions that [an appendix] has evolved at least twice. If so (and that's still an IF), then the human appendix obviously cannot be vestigal to a non-existent common ancestor of all appendixes.

And there goes the circular reasoning I already pointed out to HC. It's only vestigial if it has a common-ancestor, and thus, vestigial organs are evidence of evolution. If we are allowed that kind of reasoning, then I can easily proof Christianity is true. The Bible is can't lie because it is God's Word. The Bible says God exists. Therefore, God exists. WEHOO FOR CIRCULAR REASONING!

Maybe much more revealing here is why you didn't comment on this far more important sentence from your own post. Cherry picking without a ladder again, eh?

No, what is more revealing is the fact that the authors felt the need to protect against the obvious implications, which are implications you are just denying even exist in the first place. They know that their work requires a correction of biology textbooks because biology textbooks have wrongly used the appendix as an example of a vestigial organ and thus evidence for evolution. They are arguing that it is NOT vestigial (which is the point I am making! Score one for ID), but that it doesn't have to count against evolution. And why doesn't it have to? Because they used evolutionary reasoning in their defense? Because it isn't homologous in the evolutionary circular sense of the word? It hardly needs worth commenting on. That's a matter of worldview.

At this point, the appendix is like every other example of homology is the classic sense of the word. It is a common structure in non-related species. It is either evidence of a common design employed in different organisms, or it is evidence of convergence.

The argument against evolution, again, is not that it isn't vestigial. That's now admitted. The argument is that this is another false example of vestigial organisms and in biology textbooks and at the same time another confirmed prediction of ID. It is also yet another example of structural convergence, which provides yet still another confirmed prediction of ID.

Forgive me if what I take to be "revealing" is your reliance on circular reasoning to defend the indefensible.

[IgoFan]

Are you not aware that blind cave fish get their site[sic] back after spending a few generations in the light?

Really?! (Looks like someone has been reading science from only creationist material again.)

No wonder you are confused about how evolutionary biologists investigated blind cave fish, discovering a fundamentally different set of facts. They manually bred different populations of blind cave fish from different caves to produce offspring with partial vision. Each blind cave fish population had a different broken gene controlling vision development. Mating a male and female from the different populations produced some offspring that did not inherit a broken gene from either parent. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 120911.htm

I would never argue that the eye functions as skin. I would say that it functions as an eye.

Really? A blind eye functions as an eye?! Really?!

And I haven't done the research, but I'd strongly suspect that the those blind cave fish also had, over many generations, mutations that produced a thickening (probably not transparent) over their vestigal blind eyes, e.g., so as to lessen the possibility of infection/injury.

In blind cave fish, I would call that function skin. What would you call it? Ears?

[Jac3510]

Really?! (Looks like someone has been reading science from only creationist material again.)

No wonder you are confused about how evolutionary biologists investigated blind cave fish, discovering a fundamentally different set of facts. They manually bred different populations of blind cave fish from different caves to produce offspring with partial vision. Each blind cave fish population had a different broken gene controlling vision development. Mating a male and female from the different populations produced some offspring that did not inherit a broken gene from either parent. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 120911.htm

I'm reading this and looking for something I wasn't already aware of. Let me read it again. I must have missed it . . .

Sorry. Let me read it again. And links. After all, I'd hate to be biased by all the creationist literature I read. I mean, really, confusion is an awful thing . . .

*sigh* No. Still nothing new. Then how about we point out the obvious problem. THE BLIND CAVE FISH IS ONLY BLIND BECAUSE IT'S GENES FOR VISION ARE BROKEN!

Repeat: BROKEN

BROKEN

Your assumptions would be entertaining if they weren't so depressing. Tell me, where did I say that blind fish had evolved back into seeing fish naturally? Let me put it more simply so that this little point doesn't go over your head. Where did I say that humans had no part in the restoration of these animal's sight? Let me give you a hint. I didn't.

The blind fish situation is just the same as the four-winged fruit fly. Fruit flies have been "evolved" that have an extra pair of wings. And, before you go assuming again, yes, I know that this was done in the lab. Of course, what isn't so popularly reported is the addition of the second pair really isn't an addition at all. It's a SUBTRACTION of information. The same thing is going on with the blind fish. A subtraction of information has led to a loss of eye sight. Natural selection (which I have no problem with) didn't kill off these mutants because a loss of sight wouldn't have any benefit or harm one way or the other. So they lost their sight. Fine. But guess what? When you cross breed them with other fish that DO have the non-broken genes, good old fashioned Mendelian genetics predicts, rightly so, that some of them will get their sight back.

And this is proof of evolution how? All it shows is that information can be lost. Sounds pretty consistent with that second law, doesn't it? Now, if we can get back to the POINT of what I said, which you so conveniently ignored in your exuberance at the thought of attacking a non-evolutionists understanding of evolution (btw, do you realize that the ENTIRE defense for evolution is based on the True Scottsman fallacy?!?), the fact that it may have one use in one way doesn't negate its original use, which, in the case of the blind fish, comes right back out the moment its genes are FIXED.

The argument that the eye has really become skin is stupid to the highest degree. An eye that SEES acts a skin. Whether or not it can see has no bearing on whether or not it is made of a material that keeps stuff from entering the body.

Really? A blind eye functions as an eye?! Really?!

And I haven't done the research, but I'd strongly suspect that the those blind cave fish also had, over many generations, mutations that produced a thickening (probably not transparent) over their vestigal blind eyes, e.g., so as to lessen the possibility of infection/injury.

In blind cave fish, I would call that function skin. What would you call it? Ears?

Of course it functions as an eye. Take a modern blind person. Their genes are broken so that they can't see. Some of their eyes look pretty funny, too! (a side affect of broken genes, no less) Does that mean that their eyes aren't really eyes? Does that mean that they are just functioning as skin? No wonder you have trouble following basic logic.

I'm going to tell you a secret. Things have multiple functions. A table's primary function is to sit things on. But because of what it is, I can get under it during an earthquake and be protected. A broken camera makes a great paperweight. Just because the eye doesn't see doesn't mean that it stops existing. One of the things an eyeball does is keep stuff out of the body. That's what happens when you stop up a hole. Repair it, though, and it will get its functionality back.

For all your arguments about me not understanding evolution, you don't have a very good grasp on it yourself. It's based on circular reasoning. It's irrational. You say we cherry pick evidence, and yet you want to waste time misdirecting the conversation to an analogy. The blind fish was brought up as a comparison to the appendix. You want to argue about that now, instead, when my points were related to the circularity of homologous reasoning and the confirmed prediction of ID against the disconfirmed predictions of Darwinism inherent in structural and molecular convergence.

But perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe your not confused. Maybe you are just dishonest, and this is why I have a very difficult time taking you seriously at all.

[Jac3510]

On a more personal note, Igo, I thought about editing my above post. I've decided not to, and I want to explain why.

To me, the evolution debate is symptomatic of a larger problem. Frankly, the mechanism my which life exists as it does is about as important as the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. That's the reason I don't often both to engage in the debate. The only extent to which I care about it is the extent to which people use it to (mis)read the Bible. Heck, I'd rather call the Bible mistaken than to try to harmonize it with evolution at the price of rejecting the most obvious principles in Scripture. But that is in-family fighting. By that, I mean it is a debate between Christians.

Why, then, should I bother talking about this with non-Christians? I have about as much interest in convincing non-Christians that evolution is true as I do of convincing them that they ought to go to church on Sunday or worship God or that homosexuality is wrong. Paul has an interesting comment on this in 1 Corinthians 5:12, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" Where this is important is in matters of public policy, and that, and only that, is where my concern is. Why? Because we don't live in a vacuum, and your views on evolution have a direct impact on me, my wife, and my child. The impact comes through government policy.

What I want you to see, and what I'm afraid you never will, is that your position is not based on science. It is based on philosophy. You have a particular philosophical worldview that you seek to IMPOSE on others in the public realm. The hypocrisy is that you become angry when others try to do the same. The arguments that are important are the philosophical ones. Evolution has been an immensely influential idea to western culture, which, I would hasten to add, did not originate with Darwin, but with Greek philosophers. Because of that, it needs to be understood, appreciated, and debated. It's influence on science needs to be understood, appreciated, and debated. But it does not need to be equated with science, which is what your camp has done. The rhetoric above is intended to demonstrate that.

Thus, my somewhat sarcastic tone. Half of my point is that this isn't really a discussion about science as at all. You won't let it be. It's about philosophy. How, then, can I take seriously your claims to science when you aren't practicing it? If I can't take it seriously, it's neigh impossible to respond without some measure of sarcasm or bemusement. Shy of that, we'd have to have a coldly analytical philosophical discussion, and that good conversation does not make.

I'm not denying that there is no science in this. Obviously, I originally posted the article because the science that has been done needs to be understood against the backdrop of now overthrown interpretations. But the implications are not purely scientific. They are philosophical and religious as well. I'm honest enough to admit that. Forgive me, but I have trouble believing you are. Call it guilt by association, but I've had very few evolutionists do so.

[IgoFan]

Your original post only said that blind fish get their sight back by spending a few generations in the light, which completely misrepresents what really happened, and more importantly makes NO sense in light of how biology works here.

Exposure to light has nothing to do with it. "A few generations" has nothing to do with it. Your version wasn't even close.

I'm happy to see that your subsequent post now corrects the important details, which were in my response's hyperlink to the scientific investigation.

The argument that the eye has really become skin is stupid to the highest degree.

More misrepresentations; no wonder you think I'm stupid. Re-read what I said. I hypothesized a non-transparent thickening over the vestigal blind eyes. And I said that would function as skin, not "the eye has really become skin".

Of course it functions as an eye. Take a modern blind person. Their genes are broken so that they can't see. Some of their eyes look pretty funny, too! (a side affect of broken genes, no less) Does that mean that their eyes aren't really eyes?

Misrepresents my position again. To understand what I'm saying, ask 100 people if a blind eye still functions as an eye. Let me know how that turns out, especially the parts just after when you call almost all of them stupid for saying "No." (BTW, I haven't cared what anyone has called me since I was 6 years old. But purposely or uncaringly misrepresent science and I care.)

"Functions AS something" is quite different from "has A function" or "used to function as something" or "could be fixed to function as something".

The blind fish was brought up as a comparison to the appendix. You want to argue about that now, instead, when my points were related to the circularity of homologous reasoning and the confirmed prediction of ID against the disconfirmed predictions of Darwinism inherent in structural and molecular convergence.

You have numerous misconceptions of science in the posts in this thread, but I had to start somewhere.

If you won't acknowledge either your original misrepresentation of the science with the blind cave fish, or at least my point (whether you agree or not) about why a blind eye doesn't still function as an eye, then what hope do I have of pointing out your misconception of common descent being based on circular reasoning?

As I've said elsewhere here, with a forum named Evidence for God from Science, I would think that conscientiously trying to faithfully represent science would be and should be of utmost importance.

[Jac3510]

For someone who wants to complain about being purposefully misrepresented, it's rather hypocritical of you to complain that I'm calling you stupid. I said the idea was stupid, which I see no need to recant. As I went on to say in the second post, if you are honest with yourself, you will admit that most atheists hold to evolution not because the science backs it up, but because it is philosophically necessary. And while most Christians are probably too PC to come out and call atheists stupid (much as many atheists are too PC to come out and call theists stupid, although this is beginning to change on both sides), I don't have a problem saying as much.

Atheism is stupid. The definition of stupid is to be dull or to lack sense, especially as it relates to meaning. This is precisely what atheism does. It dulls you to proper thinking. You find yourselves making absurd, dishonest statements in defense of evolution. You appeal to homology as evidence of evolution. You argue that with more research, we may someday discover the pathway for chemical evolution, implying that the problem is that we don't know enough, when in actuality, the problem is that we know too much. You claim that good and evil can have real, objective meaning apart from theism. Or, recognizing that it can't, you claim that good and evil really don't exist. You then live a schizophrenic life, acting as if God exists by borrowing from theists all that you need to have a meaningful life (i.e., love, meaning, purpose, moral accountability, rationalism, etc.) but deny those things' basis. And those of you who have had any philosophical training realize that materialism necessarily leads to absolute epistemological skepticism, and thus you make the stupid claim, "There is no way to know absolute truth," which is, of course, self-defeating.

The necessary result of atheism is pure stupidity.

Now, does that make YOU stupid? No. You say stupid things. My wife assures me that I say them myself, far more often that I realize. And I have little reason to hope that a day will ever go by when I don't. But this is an area in which the stupidity I promote is less blatant than the atheist's, and the reason is simple: when I say stupid things about God/evolution, etc., it is only because I have thought too highly of myself and believed I was saying something that was true when it was not. But the position I begin with is fundamentally (and indeed, is in principle capable of being) true. Against this, your position is fundamentally not true. You are defending a non-sense from the beginning. Are we, then, surprised when we hear the great lengths you will go to defend the indefensible?

So much for stupidity. So much for misrepresentations. I never called you stupid. I'm sorry if you are offended that I think your ideas are, but there is a clear distinction between the idea and the person (which it would take a stupid person not to see).

Now, on to actual content . . .

Your original post only said that blind fish get their sight back by spending a few generations in the light, which completely misrepresents what really happened, and more importantly makes NO sense in light of how biology works here.

Exposure to light has nothing to do with it. "A few generations" has nothing to do with it. Your version wasn't even close.

I'm happy to see that your subsequent post now corrects the important details, which were in my response's hyperlink to the scientific investigation.

It doesn't misrepresent the position. It was a generally true principle. Not explaining the details of the mechanism doesn't make something not true. You misread (and thus misrepresented) my position when you assumed a connotation I didn't intend, namely, that by one or two generations in the wild these fish naturally got their eyesight back. Why would you ASSUME I meant that? Perhaps because you fundamentally ASSUME that no creationist REALLY understands evolution? Like I said, it's the whole true-Scottsman fallacy you people are so famous for . . .

The only thing here you perhaps have any room to honestly complain about is the phrase "in the light." Now, I'll not be so disingenuous to claim that scientific work is done "in the light." What I will say is that I (perhaps stupidly) expected an honest discussion between two people who assume a rather basic understanding in one another. I didn't know that you were the professor and I was the mere student. What I meant, and what I thought was rather clearly the meaning, was that descendants of blind fish can easily regain their ability to see in a relatively short period of time given the proper circumstances.

In any case, this still says nothing about the original argument I made. Blind fish have lost their sight because they have lost information. Nothing new was created. The genes that lead to seeing are broken and can be repaired. That hardly makes the case for the blind fish eye being a vestigial organ, and thus certainly provides no new context against which to place the human appendix.

More misrepresentations; no wonder you think I'm stupid. Re-read what I said. I hypothesized a non-transparent thickening over the vestigal blind eyes. And I said that would function as skin, not "the eye has really become skin".

And as my comment above noted, the eyes are not vestigial. Thus, if you want me to be more precise, Professor, it is absurd to claim that "the vestigial eye now functions as skin." It functions as skin in the same way that a seeing eye does.

As far as any "non-transparent thickening" over the eye, we would have to look at that in detail, wouldn't we? It depends on the genetic structure of not just the eye, but the of structures that surround it. Given the fact that cross breading can restore sight, it seems the cross breading would remove such a non-transparent layer; but that would imply that the layer is directly related to the genes relating to eye's ability to see (I assume we both believe that if you cut away the layer, there would not be working eyes beneath!).

Misrepresents my position again. To understand what I'm saying, ask 100 people if a blind eye still functions as an eye. Let me know how that turns out, especially the parts just after when you call almost all of them stupid for saying "No." (BTW, I haven't cared what anyone has called me since I was 6 years old. But purposely or uncaringly misrepresent science and I care.)

"Functions AS something" is quite different from "has A function" or "used to function as something" or "could be fixed to function as something".

You are equating "function as" with "functioning properly." Let me make a rather important distinction here I think you may be missing. There is a difference in what something is and what something does. If what something does changes what it IS, then if it stops doing that, then it stops BEING what it was. But if that is true, then nothing in this world is broken.

A car engine has a function. If it breaks down--if it stops functioning as it was designed--it doesn't suddenly stop being a car engine. You can't equate a thing's function with what a thing IS (in old philosophical terms, with a thing's "essence"). An eye is an eye, whether it is in a human or a fish, whether working or not. It may be broken, but it is still an eye.

Now, you correctly note that to function as something is not the same as to have a function. I don't think you've considered what this means for your own example. Look again at the words you said that got this response you were complaining about:

• Really? A blind eye functions as an eye?! Really?!
  
  And I haven't done the research, but I'd strongly suspect that the those blind cave fish also had, over many generations, mutations that produced a thickening (probably not transparent) over their vestigal blind eyes, e.g., so as to lessen the possibility of infection/injury.
  
  In blind cave fish, I would call that function skin. What would you call it? Ears?

Yes, a blind eye functions as an eye. It is just broken. It tells us nothing to say "A blind eye functions as a seeing eye." That's obviously absurd, as it contradicts itself. But as an EYE, it is what it is. We can say that it is trying to function as a working eye, which is evidenced from the fact that its ability to work properly can be restored.

Look, I see the point you are trying to make in context of the broader picture. You are trying to say that just like the eye of a blind fish no longer fulfills its original function (to see), but rather fulfills an unrelated function (to keep out bacteria/to protect the internal organs); as for that reason it can be called vestigial; so also can the human appendix be called vestigial, since the human appendix no longer acts in accordance with its original function.

What I am trying to tell you is that this point is wrong on multiple levels. A working eye and a blind eye (complete with a think, non-transparent surface) BOTH have the same function as does skin. Your point is trivial here. But more, that the blind eye can be restored proves that what it still IS is actually an eye, which means the only reason it isn't fulfilling its intended function is because it is BROKEN. That hardly renders it vestigial. It just means it is broken and needs to be repaired. Finally, none of this is even a good comparison to the appendix in the first place, because the appendix isn't fulfilling some other function than it was originally designed (or evolved) to do. It isn't even broken. It just so happens that modern science is doing for the appendix what the appendix naturally does, which leaves the appendix nothing to do. If you put humans back in a pre-science environment, it seems the appendix has a function after all, which completely goes against the original Darwinian understanding of the appendix in the first place. So the appendix isn't vestigial by any definition of the word. In fact, the very fact that it is still trying to accomplish its function is precisely the reason we get appendicitis!

So, the bottom line is that the comparison between the blind fish eye and the human appendix is worthless. To the extent it is a worthwhile discussion is to the extent to which the blind fish can regain its sight, showing that original functionality was not permanently lost (in a distantly analogous way to which the original functionality of the human appendix was not permanently lost), but could be restored (as it can in the appendix' case) by putting it in the right environment (hence, by simplification to "in the light").

The proper comparison between the blind fish and human appendix lies only in the fact that the blind fish's eyes are broken, whereas the human appendix can't accomplish its original purpose because there is no environment in which to accomplish it, so in a sense, you could say it is "broken," too. Both can be restored. Neither are evidence for Darwinian evolution.

You have numerous misconceptions of science in the posts in this thread, but I had to start somewhere.

No, you assumed I had misconceptions and read into my words ideas that were not there.

If you won't acknowledge either your original misrepresentation of the science with the blind cave fish, or at least my point (whether you agree or not) about why a blind eye doesn't still function as an eye, then what hope do I have of pointing out your misconception of common descent being based on circular reasoning?

If you won't acknowledge either your original misrepresentation of my position on the blind cave fish, or at least my point (whether you agree or not) about why a blind eye's having a broken function as an eye, then what hope do I have that you will ever see that arguments for common descent based on homology are a textbook example of circular reasoning?

Igo, I clearly see that you a blind fish eye is not a working, seeing eye. That is trivial. It is simply true by definition. It is inherent in the meaning of the word "blind." Forgive me if I thought you were more philosophically sophisticated than that. But it is still functioning as an eye in precisely the same sense that a broke car engine is still functioning as a car engine. It is just broken and needs to be repaired.

As I've said elsewhere here, with a forum named Evidence for God from Science, I would think that conscientiously trying to faithfully represent science would be and should be of utmost importance.

We do. But like everyone who commits the True-Scotsman fallacy, you assume that everyone who disagrees must misunderstand science. You come to the table with an assumption of our stupidity from the outset, which is your fundamental problem. You ASSUME, like you have done repeatedly in this thread, that we don't understand what we are talking about, when, sadly, it seems the opposite is true. This is why I made the second follow up post before. This isn't a scientific problem, Igo. It is a philosophical one. In fact, the whole argument that we don't understand what science really is is actually a philosophical statement. WHAT science is is a question for philosophy, not science. Because you fundamentally misunderstand science, you have trouble grasping that, and then go on to make inaccurate claims about both science and philosophy. That will always happen when you confuse the subject matter of two fields.

Stick around and have an open mind for a change. You may very well come to see the error in your thinking.

God bless

[IgoFan]

Perhaps because you fundamentally ASSUME that no creationist REALLY understands evolution?

I conclude from evidence, which is what science does. Creationist writings, like your statement below, are evidence for a lack of understanding about evolution.

Are you not aware that blind cave fish get their site[sic] back after spending a few generations in the light?
[...]
You misread (and thus misrepresented) my position when you assumed a connotation I didn't intend, namely, that by one or two generations in the wild these fish naturally got their eyesight back. Why would you ASSUME I meant that?

People get a suntan after spending time in the sunlight. What causes a suntan? Spending time in the sunlight. How do blind cave fish get their sight back? By spending a few generations in the light.

(And curiously note above how you changed "a few" to "one or two" AFTER I posted the hyperlink to the science article.)

Anyway, a couple days ago, I asked some engineers and even a mathematician, who happened to be nearby, about your original sentence above. To a man, everyone concluded an implication of cause and effect.

The only thing here you perhaps have any room to honestly complain about is the phrase "in the light."

That must have been excruciating to write. I applaud your courage.

[...] a blind eye functions as an eye.

I also asked my panel of nerds about this one. Everyone was bewildered, because the obvious meaning of the sentence made no sense to them either. At a minimum, everyone agreed that, even within a higher level context, the sentence needed rewriting.

[Jac3510]

Igo, I already acknowledged my original statement was unclear and could be read incorrectly. Why are you so excited about a single mistatement?

Regarding the further need for clarification on the eye issue, I don't know how I can be any clearer this what I already said:

Igo, I clearly see that you [are saying] a blind fish eye is not a working, seeing eye. That is trivial. It is simply true by definition. It is inherent in the meaning of the word "blind." Forgive me if I thought you were more philosophically sophisticated than that. But it is still functioning as an eye in precisely the same sense that a broke car engine is still functioning as a car engine. It is just broken and needs to be repaired.

For all your interest in semantics, I'm trying to get you to deeper issues.

Concerning the blind fish, again, the bottom line for me is, as I said:

So, the bottom line is that the comparison between the blind fish eye and the human appendix is worthless. To the extent it is a worthwhile discussion is to the extent to which the blind fish can regain its sight, showing that original functionality was not permanently lost (in a distantly analogous way to which the original functionality of the human appendix was not permanently lost), but could be restored (as it can in the appendix' case) by putting it in the right environment (hence, by simplification to "in the light").

Do note, while you reread that, the explanation of the phrase "in the light'" that you so heavily objected to. I'm only making the same point now I have been making from the very beginning, before you felt the need to question my understanding of basic science.

Concerning the OP, it is evident that the appendix is not vestigial as Darwinists (including biology textbooks) have long claimed. Perhaps rather than taking me to task over an unclear statement, you should be agreeing with me that the biology books are wrong and taking them to task over disseminating false information. Your defense of their statements, though, by appealing to the blind fish (actually, HC's defense, but you've seemed to take over the mantle there as of late) implies to me that you understand the basic circularity in the reasoning surrounding homology.

[jlay]

you should be agreeing with me that the biology books are wrong and taking them to task over disseminating false information.

I don't see that happening. This is classic "move the goal posts" trickery.
-"The appendix is vestigal."
No, it is not vestigal because it does have a function.
-"Vestigal doesn't mean without function. It can relate to functioning differently."
But there is a reasonable explanation as to why it is functioning differently.
-"You don't understand science."