94
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 87:
Line 87: + + + + +
→Human appendix
:::::::I wasn't claiming that we can definitively say that that the appendix is a backup system. The point there was that it ''could'' be, so your claim that its absence has no ill effects is therefore not evidence that it has no function.
:::::::I wasn't claiming that we can definitively say that that the appendix is a backup system. The point there was that it ''could'' be, so your claim that its absence has no ill effects is therefore not evidence that it has no function.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:55, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:55, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::As I said before, without knowing exactly what the evidence in those missing papers says, we simply can't include a definitive statement on the function of the appendix. It would be as if I claimed to have papers proving that God's favorite music was NWA and you asked to see them and I said no. Nobody should believe any claim that can't produce evidence to back it up. Even if the papers in question do support a developmental role for the appendix, the statement that is currently in the article would still be much more appropriate. Many scientific "facts" once thought to be irrefutable were later shown to be incorrect which is why no good scientists will claim something to be absolutely true without mountains of proof, and even then they are always open to new evidence and explanations.
::::::::By the way, that glover piece you cited actually has a ton of references that I missed before because there are two reference sections, one of which is much smaller than the other. I will check some of them when I have more time.
::::::::I think if the science behind ID was as rigorous as the standard the NEJM is used to, they would be open to publishing papers on it. The problem is that it is very difficult, I would argue near impossible, to prove that all other explanations besides an intelligent creator are insufficient, therefore the conclusions of the papers are not justified by the evidence they provide.
::::::::You're right that the appendix could be a redundant structure, my logic was faulty on that point. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 12:00, 31 May 2007 (EDT)