94
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 64:
Line 64: + + + + + +
→Human appendix
:::Explaining how a person born without a non-vestigial organ can suffer no ill effects takes no imagination at all, because the question is a non-sequitur. Having no use is not the same thing as having a supplementary or backup use. If a car's spare tyre is missing but the road tyres don't go flat, the spare will not be missed, but it does not follow that the spare tyre therefore has no use.
:::Explaining how a person born without a non-vestigial organ can suffer no ill effects takes no imagination at all, because the question is a non-sequitur. Having no use is not the same thing as having a supplementary or backup use. If a car's spare tyre is missing but the road tyres don't go flat, the spare will not be missed, but it does not follow that the spare tyre therefore has no use.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:23, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:23, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::::I think the point of the entire page is that there is no proven function of the appendix and that most of the references on the page somehow support that conclusion, if only tangentially for some.
::::The NEJM is one of, if not THE, foremost medical journal in the world. The journal itself doesn't take any positions on issues such as evolution that I am aware of, as with most peer-reviewed journals, whether an article is accepted or not depends on evaluation of the paper by many peers and editors. From your spelling it seems like you are from the UK so you might be more familiar with Lancet. Think of NEJM as the American equivalent.
::::That one paper doesn't seem to be available online unless you pay, but there are many others to choose from on the subject.
::::That is true that I can't argue that one paper is wrong just because another contradicts it. My point, however, was that the definitive nature of the statement you added about the appendix in development was unjustified. By your logic it seems that I should add a directly contradictory statement right after yours and cite the reference I found. I don't think that would make for a very good encyclopedia article though. It is much better to put everything in uncertain terms than to have adjacent contradictory statements.
::::Your last point would be completely valid except for the fact that you are arguing for a role of the appendix in development, not as a backup to something. I would at the very least expect these people who are born without appendices to have GI problems due to the immune system attacking their gut flora that the appendix supposedly exposed them to during development, but it seems from the available evidence that they don't. In general, developmental defects are quite serious. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 16:27, 30 May 2007 (EDT)