94
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 77:
Line 77: + + + +
→Human appendix
:::::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)?
:::::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)
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:47, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::I understand what you are saying about the talkorigins page, but it is not incumbent on me to prove that there is no function of the appendix, it is incumbent upon you to prove definitively that there is if you want to include a conclusive statement about its function. I don't think that the references you cited allow you to make that claim, especially since I can't find any record of them which would be the first step toward seeing if they reliable sources and if they have since been replicated. In the same vein, it is possible that the Donath paper actually did replicate the experiments in the papers you cited but we can't be sure. If that was the case, it would cast serious doubt on the original papers. Because we can't even find the papers, I think the conclusive statement is unjustified.
::::::I'm not sure who the "them" would be at the NEJM. As far as I know it's just a collection of editors. I am sure that the majority of them believe in evolution because the majority of scientists do, but they are trained to evaluate papers objectively based on the strength of the evidence they present without bringing personal biases into it. As I said before, the NEJM is one of the most highly respected sources that exists in science. If we don't consider it reliable, then nothing is.
::::::I guess you could be right about the backup thing, redundancy is very common in humans and animals, but I just don't think there is close to enough evidence to say so definitively at this point. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 05:45, 31 May 2007 (EDT)