nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 70:
Line 70: + + + + + + +
→Human appendix: On the NEMJ and on the role of the appendix.
::::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.
::::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)
::::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)
:::::The point of the page is to refute the creationist claim (which is itself based on claims from non-creationists) that the appendix is not vestigial, and it attempts this in a variety of ways, only a small portion of which is to actually attempt to show that it has no function.
:::::Most such journals don't explicitly state that they take a position on evolution, but I would be ''very'' surprised if you could get a statement out of them that they are undecided on whether or not evolution is true. And [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/21/2277?query=TOC this article] shows them taking an anti-creationist and anti-ID stance.
:::::I'm an Aussie, by the way, as you could have seen from my user page.
:::::You say that you can't argue that one paper is wrong because another contradicts it, but my point was that the other ''doesn't'' contradict it. One paper claiming that the appendix has a function is not contradicted by another one that couldn't find a function with a non-exhaustive search. My definitive statement was therefore justified.
:::::Your last point about my last point seems to assume that a role in development is mutually exclusive to a role as a backup. Why would that be the case? Why couldn't it be a backup role in development (or even a primary role in development with something else being the backup)?
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:47, 30 May 2007 (EDT)