Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The appendix, spare part?

Rate this topic


RationalBiker

Recommended Posts

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appen...ref=mpstoryview

It's 2007 and some Duke researchers believe they finally understand the purpose of the appendix. Briefly, it appears to produce "good" bacteria used by the stomach for protection against some diseases. They go on to say that it is largely unnecessary in a modern, industrialized society and that if it gets inflammed it should still be removed.

That one took a while to figure out don'cha think? :D

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neat.

Though I dont think this is the first time that someone has postulated a [vaguely] similar theory. I heard some scientists reckon it used to be used to help digest all sorts of weird things humans used to eat way back (including apparently grass...though I doubt that one). I think this theory makes more sense though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neat.

Though I dont think this is the first time that someone has postulated a [vaguely] similar theory. I heard some scientists reckon it used to be used to help digest all sorts of weird things humans used to eat way back (including apparently grass...though I doubt that one). I think this theory makes more sense though.

Is the health of people who have had their appendix removed compromised? Are they any the worse off for it? Except for the risk with the surgical removal, the lack of an appendix as such does not seem to be a problem.

I have found one use for the appendix. I use it as a counter example to people who preach Intelligent Design. That and the lumbar region of the spine.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, firstly I have not found any proof that what I had initially heard is definetly the case. Secondly, no I dont think anyone would get [very] sick if the theory was true and the appendix was removed, possibly because we tend to eat a lot less strange things.

Ha, yeah interesting use of the appendix. Though I don't see it having much effect, as your opponents could give a semi-plausible reason for it, and until now, I do not think you had any definite way to refute at least some of their claims.

Of course now, it seems your counter example might not be much good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neat.

Though I dont think this is the first time that someone has postulated a [vaguely] similar theory. I heard some scientists reckon it used to be used to help digest all sorts of weird things humans used to eat way back (including apparently grass...though I doubt that one). I think this theory makes more sense though.

Hominids do not have herbivore dentation. Our hominid ancestors ate meat which they scavenged (at first) and later hunted.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hominids do not have herbivore dentation. Our hominid ancestors ate meat which they scavenged (at first) and later hunted.

Bob Kolker

It could nevertheless be vestigial from before we were hominids. Though I agree it seems unlikely.

YOu have plenty more ammo available to argue against intelligent design--such as asking why the heck the rods and cones in the retina point away from the pupil! This leads to our blind spot, and also causes mammals to have that reflective layer in the eye that makes their eyes "glow" at night. That is there as evolution's kludge-fix to the original "misdesign".

Octupi have a correctly "designed" eye and don't have this problam

I also wonder why the heck "God" would put both hearing and balance in the same tiny organ--so that if it malfunctions, both senses are taken out. (I have precisely that problem in my left ear.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also wonder why the heck "God" would put both hearing and balance in the same tiny organ--so that if it malfunctions, both senses are taken out. (I have precisely that problem in my left ear.)

Who are WE to question his grand design? B)

Interesting theory, but it does sound like things I have heard about before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hominids do not have herbivore dentation. Our hominid ancestors ate meat which they scavenged (at first) and later hunted.

Bob Kolker

I'm going to go with the Duke researchers' conclusion of it being but a vestigial remnant of some previous organ or structure (also called the vermiform appendix because it resembles a worm...tequila anyone), having a digestive function, and write it off as part of the evolutionary progress that became unnecessary to people over time, though I feel that more research should be conducted to determine whether or not it still plays an active role in the digestive processes of our infancy/child/ pre-pubescent/teen years before we write it off entirely and our obstetricians begin removing it as part and parcel of our births...just in case.

As such, everyone appears to be correct in their perception of it's (once) necessity and I'm also finding it hard to perceive how you could launch a persuasive argument against the lumbar area of the spine (care to enlighten me?), but then, I'm also missing Mr. D'Ippolito's inability of differentiating between the superiority of our eyes' composition, as compared to that of animals, based on the rod and conical configuration of the retina...obviously, the more that one can see, the more that can be seen...limiting the induction of light limits the ability to distinguish between the shades, tones and colors of our various environs, likewise, the balancing organ of our bodies being both centrally located and in close proximity of our main processing unit (the brain) is just as reasonable in the design of human physiology...that it is sometimes plagued by the ailments of it's shared area of control with that of another of our sensory organs (the ears) is a necessary inconvenience as it's all relative to location, location, location with the head retaining the prime real estate. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but then, I'm also missing Mr. D'Ippolito's inability of differentiating between the superiority of our eyes' composition, as compared to that of animals, based on the rod and conical configuration of the retina...obviously, the more that one can see, the more that can be seen...limiting the induction of light limits the ability to distinguish between the shades, tones and colors of our various environs, likewise, the balancing organ of our bodies being both centrally located and in close proximity of our main processing unit (the brain) is just as reasonable in the design of human physiology...that it is sometimes plagued by the ailments of it's shared area of control with that of another of our sensory organs (the ears) is a necessary inconvenience as it's all relative to location, location, location with the head retaining the prime real estate. :thumbsup:

I'm a bit confused by this. I think you are trying to disagree with me.

On the first point, you seem to be agreeing with me that the eyes are less efficient than they could be. An octopus's eyes do not suffer from the design flaw I mentioned. Obviously vertebrate eyes work "well enough" to function and let us either catch or avoid being lunch, but there is an *obvious* handicap built into the "design."

On the second, even "deciding" to pack balance and hearing into the skull does not mean they "need" to both be in the cochlea. A good designer would have made them separate but both in the skull. Obviously there wasn't a good designer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit confused by this. I think you are trying to disagree with me.
Yes.

On the first point, you seem to be agreeing with me that the eyes are less efficient than they could be. An octopus's eyes do not suffer from the design flaw I mentioned. Obviously vertebrate eyes work "well enough" to function and let us either catch or avoid being lunch, but there is an *obvious* handicap built into the "design."
Actually, I was disagreeing with your observation and was attempting to point out the benefits of conical inversion in our retinas as opposed to other mammals, i.e., our ability to not only perceive color, but also the various shades thereof, a faculty that lower-based mammals are incapable of due to environmental necessity on their evolutionary development...it's all relative.

On the second, even "deciding" to pack balance and hearing into the skull does not mean they "need" to both be in the cochlea. A good designer would have made them separate but both in the skull. Obviously there wasn't a good designer.
Interesting...and just where would you have located our balancing organs in our skulls other than their centrally situated locations, had you the opportunity to create man?

After all, your ear also plays a contributory role with the organ for your body-balance. The balance-organ in the inner ear controls every muscle of your body. The muscles communicate with the nerve of the balance-organ via the spinal chord. The nerve of the balance-organ collaborates with the nerve of the hearing-organ. Your body-consciousness is based in the ear: Tension and relaxation, too much effort or too little with the muscles, posture, movements - all are controlled by the ear as the control-organ. It is a cybernetic circle: Brain (command) - muscle (action) - ear (control) - brain (correction of the command).

When you break it (the inner ear/balancing organs) down to it's individual components, the genius of it's placement is readily apparent. As you know, balance, or one' s sense of equilibrium, is controlled through the what is referred to as the "vestibular system" that is contained in the inner ear and shares the temporal bone space with the cochlea. These organs also share the same fluid that is in the cochlea (which is very important to the system's functionality, as I'll cover below).

The functioning of the vestibular system depends on information from many systems, hearing as well as vision and muscle feedback. The vestibular system consists of three semicircular canals , the utricle , and the saccule . Each of the semicircular canals lies anatomically in a different plane, each plane at a right angle to each other. Thus, each deals with different movement: up and down, side to side, and tilting from one side to the other. All contain sensory hair cells that are activated by movement of inner ear fluid (endolymph). As the head moves, hair cells in the semicircular canals send nerve impulses to the brain by way of the vestibular portion of the acoustic nerve (cranial nerve). These nerve impulses are processed in the stem of the brain and in the brain's cerebellum.

The ends of the semicircular canals connect with the utricle, and the utricle connects with the saccule. While the semicircular canals provide information about movement of the head, the sensory hair cells of the utricle and saccule provide information to the brain (again through the vestibular portion of the acoustic nerve) about head position when it is not moving.

After ingesting this information, I'm certain you'll be able to realize the necessity of our balancing organ's location (location, location, location) within our craniums, due to it's sensory input requirements and it's proximity to the nervous systems' processing station, the cerebellum, and perhaps clue you in to the reason why extra fluid buildup in the canal throws everything, well, off balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

Actually, I was disagreeing with your observation and was attempting to point out the benefits of conical inversion in our retinas as opposed to other mammals, i.e., our ability to not only perceive color, but also the various shades thereof, a faculty that lower-based mammals are incapable of due to environmental necessity on their evolutionary development...it's all relative.

I fear you misunderstood me. Are you aware that the rods and cones point towards the back of the eye, and they are behind the part of the optic nerve that they communicate with? This has nothing to do with our having color vision. All mammals have their rods and cones pointing away from the light, including the color blind ones. This is why we have no rods and cones in our blind spots.

Interesting...and just where would you have located our balancing organs in our skulls other than their centrally situated locations, had you the opportunity to create man?

Oh, I'd definitely put it in the cranium, just not in the exact same organ as the hearing! It could even be next door, but the way it is now, if one builds up fluid, they both do because they are the same organ.

After all, your ear also plays a contributory role with the organ for your body-balance. The balance-organ in the inner ear controls every muscle of your body. The muscles communicate with the nerve of the balance-organ via the spinal chord. The nerve of the balance-organ collaborates with the nerve of the hearing-organ. Your body-consciousness is based in the ear: Tension and relaxation, too much effort or too little with the muscles, posture, movements - all are controlled by the ear as the control-organ. It is a cybernetic circle: Brain (command) - muscle (action) - ear (control) - brain (correction of the command).

When you break it (the inner ear/balancing organs) down to it's individual components, the genius of it's placement is readily apparent. As you know, balance, or one' s sense of equilibrium, is controlled through the what is referred to as the "vestibular system" that is contained in the inner ear and shares the temporal bone space with the cochlea. These organs also share the same fluid that is in the cochlea (which is very important to the system's functionality, as I'll cover below).

The functioning of the vestibular system depends on information from many systems, hearing as well as vision and muscle feedback. The vestibular system consists of three semicircular canals , the utricle , and the saccule . Each of the semicircular canals lies anatomically in a different plane, each plane at a right angle to each other. Thus, each deals with different movement: up and down, side to side, and tilting from one side to the other. All contain sensory hair cells that are activated by movement of inner ear fluid (endolymph). As the head moves, hair cells in the semicircular canals send nerve impulses to the brain by way of the vestibular portion of the acoustic nerve (cranial nerve). These nerve impulses are processed in the stem of the brain and in the brain's cerebellum.

The ends of the semicircular canals connect with the utricle, and the utricle connects with the saccule. While the semicircular canals provide information about movement of the head, the sensory hair cells of the utricle and saccule provide information to the brain (again through the vestibular portion of the acoustic nerve) about head position when it is not moving.

After ingesting this information, I'm certain you'll be able to realize the necessity of our balancing organ's location (location, location, location) within our craniums, due to it's sensory input requirements and it's proximity to the nervous systems' processing station, the cerebellum, and perhaps clue you in to the reason why extra fluid buildup in the canal throws everything, well, off balance.

None of which explains why it has to use the SAME fluid reservoir as the hearing. Just explains that it does, which is my point. It's a design that certainly WORKS, but it is suboptimal from a reliability standpoint and therefore proof that it wasn't designed by an intelligent designer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit confused by this. I think you are trying to disagree with me.On the first point, you seem to be agreeing with me that the eyes are less efficient than they could be. An octopus's eyes do not suffer from the design flaw I mentioned. Obviously vertebrate eyes work "well enough" to function and let us either catch or avoid being lunch, but there is an *obvious* handicap built into the "design."

I appreciate your use of scare quotes, however they have me somewhat confused also. I do not want to mischaracterize what you are saying, so please correct any misconceptions implied by my questions.

In order to be consistent with your use of scare quotes wouldn't you also need them here: "less efficient", "could be", "design flaw", "handicap", "built into"?

None of which explains why it has to use the SAME fluid reservoir as the hearing. Just explains that it does, which is my point. It's a design that certainly WORKS, but it is suboptimal from a reliability standpoint and therefore proof that it wasn't designed by an intelligent designer.

...Well...in today's vernacular...I suppose...but, to be precise, it doesn't mean it was designed by an unintelligent designer either.

Evolution is a process that works on existing organisms as a whole. The organisms with the best set of adaptations are best suited to survive and pass on their genes.

To colloquialize: evolution is a tinkerer without a goal, not a designer. From a survival standpoint, given the starting conditions, by definition, organism's are optimally suited for their environment.

Edited by Marc K.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate your use of scare quotes, however they have me somewhat confused also. I do not want to mischaracterize what you are saying, so please correct any misconceptions implied by my questions.

In order to be consistent with your use of scare quotes wouldn't you also need them here: "less efficient", "could be", "design flaw", "handicap", "built into"?

I never really cared for the term "scare quotes" because all the quotes mean (unless being misused by some idiot who thinks they are there to add emphasis) is to add a "so called" to the term being quoted. Nothing scary about it. Anyhow, let me see if I can untangle this.

Less efficient and could be: The eye works worse than it would if the rods and cones actually pointed towards the pupil instead of being behind the nerve that they are connected to. No reason to put quotes around that, it's less efficient than it could be, period. One need not assume that it was designed with a purpose in mind, to realize that.

design flaw I should have quoted "design" since it is not a design, that's my whole point. Flaw I could go either way on, depending on whether you think a flaw would involve a value judgement on a design. Good catch.

handicap I see no reason to quote. The way the rods and cones are set up does make our vision less sensitive than it would otherwise be, hence it's a handicap. Unless of course one considers a handicap to be an unusual condition for an individual in a species, in which case I flat out used the wrong word here.

built into possibly clumsy phrasing on my part. I was simply trying to make the point that IF this were a conscious design, the designer would have been, in essence putting something dumb and counter-productive and sub-optimal in.

...Well...in today's vernacular...I suppose...but, to be precise, it doesn't mean it was designed by an unintelligent designer either.

True! I got on this subject by trying to present additional counterexamples (over and above the lower back and appendix) to those who claim that there is an intelligent designer. A claim that should be easily demolished by mentioning 2 or 3 kludgey things found in the human body.

Evolution is a process that works on existing organisms as a whole. The organisms with the best set of adaptations are best suited to survive and pass on their genes.

Yes, precisely. Only a process like this could result in something like this--that works, works well enough to offer an advantage over creatures with no eyes--but that anyone with foresight and design sense would have done differently.

To colloquialize: evolution is a tinkerer without a goal, not a designer. From a survival standpoint, given the starting conditions, by definition, organism's are optimally suited for their environment.

I won't go that far as to say the organism is optimal. I think in this particular case, at some point back in our evolutionary past, some change happened that offered an improvement to the organism that had it. That organism prospered, had many descendants, even though it was not the best possible change that could have happened. Ever since, that organism's descendants have had eyesight that was good, but not as good as it could have been with the correct change. Evolution will bring out the better over the worse but it's entirely possible to be stuck with the legacy of a wrong turn (from the standpoint of something working the best it possibly could), in this case an eye that is not as efficient as it could have been.

An intelligent being, interfering with the process of evolution, could have gone into the reptile genome about 200,000,000 years ago and basically tuned up the way reptile retinas were laid out. Since this didn't happen, we are stuck with what happened to happen.

BTW I get all of this re: the eye from here: Human Eye

Now it's time for me to go out on a limb: What I *do* see here *does* resemble the way I sometimes see software develop. An old established product will sometimes have a new feature added to it. The tendency is to make the smallest change possible that will accomplish this. Sometimes that leads to a lot of what is known as "dead code" and sometimes adding the feature makes it possible for much of the rest of the program to do the things it does better--but it will be left the old way, because the more code is changed, the more risk there is that something that used to work will now break. As a result of this, sweeping improvements to an established software product--particularly in things that are under the hood--rarely happen. The result, many years down the road, is a product that looks like one massive pile of kludges and inconsistencies, and someone looking it over says, "why didn't they just call that utility function (or method) here instead of reinventing the wheel?" when it may very well be that the code in question was written first.

Evolution tends to make minimal changes that cause an improvement, not the best changes, anc certainly not the most sweeping. If we were "optimal" (that's quoting you, not a "so-called" or a scare) we wouldn't have lower back issues due to trying to adapt a design meant for all-fours to bipedalism, our sinuses wouldn't drain into our lungs, causing all manner of grief, our eyes would be better, AND there wouldn't be a single point of failure that wipes out two of our senses. And many, many more, particularly related to the fact that we (okay, all of us except that neanderthal who used to live next to me) are bipeds working with a so-called "design" that is kludged onto a "design" that works far better for quadrupeds. All is evidence we do not have an intelligent design but did develop incrementally, a la natural selection and evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...that it is sometimes plagued by the ailments of it's shared area of control with that of another of our sensory organs (the ears) is a necessary inconvenience as it's all relative to location, location, location with the head retaining the prime real estate. :)

I think it's safe to say that the "necessary inconvenience" (LOL on the scary quotes btw) bit is a self-assumed inconvenience at best. The all-powerful by definition has no necessary inconveniences, lest he not be all powerful...yada yada yada ad nauseum. Really though, he could have simply imbued us with an innate, supernatural sense of balance entirely separate from the ear (and who says we really need those anyway...he could have changed the nature of sound itself!). This would not have been out of his scope of power. Trying to pick apart the design or lack thereof is akin to this: :dough: . Granted, those who advocate design, often insist on such arguments, (since they usually won't address the fundamental theological/philosophical/ethical difficulties), but they really are beside the point in light of the omnipotence argument, reworked definitions of this concept aside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Steve (may I call you Steve?) it is extremely important that we be very precise in our usage here because philosophic principles are involved.

I have noticed that whenever evolution is mentioned a common misconception occurs because of fallacious thinking. It is to think of evolution as having or setting a goal; which is an example of the fallacy of reification. This was discussed in an excellent thread called "Ultimate Value" in the Ethics Forum. Bowzer gives an excellent explanation in that thread here:

I think you understood my point well, Mark. To clarify, reification is "regarding or treating an abstraction as if it had concrete or material existence." In this case, the abstraction is "species propagation" and it is being treated as if it was a concrete in nature acting physically on organisms.

What really exists in nature are individual organisms and they live and die in accordance with their actions. Man has observed that, over time, the successfulness of some species relative to others leads to the propagation of organisms of the successful species while the unsuccessful ones die off. But this is a man-made observation, not a physical mechanism in nature. For this reason, "species propagation" cannot be a value to a living organism.

Depending on what is being discussed it can be difficult to elucidate using words that don't connote conscious behavior. In fact after rereading my response to you I see that I am guilty also, so let me correct myself first before commenting on what you have said.

Evolution is a process that works on existing organisms as a whole.

To be precise, evolution is an observed phenomenon operating in insentient nature. "Survival of the fittest" is the process or mechanism of evolution but this too is a man-made observation. The only process that occurs in reality is living organisms pursuing values.

To colloquialize: evolution is a tinkerer without a goal, not a designer.

I was trying to be colloquial but I may have just confused the issue. The word "tinkerer" connotes a consciousness but even if one is able to dismiss that as taking literary license one is still left with the impression that evolution is somehow working on individual organisms, this is not true. To reemphasize what Bowzer has said:

"Man has observed that, over time, the successfulness of some species relative to others leads to the propagation of organisms of the successful species while the unsuccessful ones die off. But this is a man-made observation, not a physical mechanism in nature. " -- Bowzer

Now on to you. And please, I am not trying to pick on you or to nitpick the wording. Instead, I am trying to be precise so as not to leave the wrong impression with ourselves or anyone else who may read this.

Evolution tends to make minimal changes that cause an improvement, not the best changes, anc certainly not the most sweeping.

As alluded to above: evolution doesn't make or cause changes. Individual organisms are stuck with their nature, given that nature they either survive or don't. They either succeed at achieving their values and live and reproduce or they don't and die.

If we were "optimal" [...] we wouldn't have lower back issues due to trying to adapt a design meant for all-fours to bipedalism, our sinuses wouldn't drain into our lungs, causing all manner of grief, our eyes would be better, AND [...]

It might also be nice to have our skeleton on the outside ... but then we wouldn't be human. As I said before:

From a survival standpoint, given the starting conditions, by definition, organism's are optimally suited for their environment.

This is spot on and notice all of the qualifiers. "From a survival standpoint", meaning: "from the standpoint of the individual and its ability to survive". "[G]iven the starting conditions", meaning: "given our natures, which as an individual is set". It is observed that each species is ideally suited to exploit the environment into which the individuals are born. If the environment changes very quickly (in geologic terms) there may be enough variation within a species to allow for survival of the individuals with the best set of variables and those individuals will continue to exist. If the environment changes too quickly, every individual may die and the species will face extinction.

Because of this, I would take exception with the following as I understand it:

Ever since, that organism's descendants have had eyesight that was good, but not as good as it could have been with the correct change. Evolution will bring out the better over the worse but it's entirely possible to be stuck with the legacy of a wrong turn (from the standpoint of something working the best it possibly could), in this case an eye that is not as efficient as it could have been.

Any variation that allows an individual to survive better than the others is the correct change for that individual at that time; it wasn't the wrong turn at that time.

And the phrase "could have been different" only applies to things that are open to human volition.

I hope that clears-up my position but feel free to inquire further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fear you misunderstood me.
You know, I do believe that I am misunderstanding you as it appears that the actual intent of your inquiries, as opposed to any medical inquisitiveness, is to devise some off-handed way of constructing an argument against the "intelligent design" concept/feel me out on my position on the matter...a topic of another thread here. Suffice it to say that, right or wrong, it is my understanding that things are the way that they are for a purpose and there is an underlying, scientifically demonstrable and proven, inherent design to all that exists in this world. Perhaps you could clarify your reasoning for this line of questioning to save us all the confusion prompted by misunderstanding?

Oh, I'd definitely put it in the cranium, just not in the exact same organ as the hearing! It could even be next door, but the way it is now, if one builds up fluid, they both do because they are the same organ.

None of which explains why it has to use the SAME fluid reservoir as the hearing. Just explains that it does, which is my point.

I thought that the information I provided detailed how the two are intrinsic to one another's operation"?" Ancillary components/parts of the whole that contribute equally to one another's benefit?

Following this rationale, it's not at all that hard to conclude that a shared reservoir was the most economical choice, as well as the best method of applying the concept of avoiding the duplication of effort, from a purely physiological perspective.

It's a design that certainly WORKS, but it is suboptimal from a reliability standpoint and therefore proof that it wasn't designed by an intelligent designer.
The intelligence of the design seems pretty obvious to me in it's efficiency alone in that there's no duplication of effort, not to mention that the addition of aural input, in combination with the three planes of balance perception (up-down, left-right & tilt), lends a fourth dimension to the overall sensory interpretation of the organ, thereby constructing a complete sensory composite (in four(4) dimensions)- of our world and our surroundings at any given moment.

Very ingenious indeed that an organ so minute can accomplish so much for it's rather diminutive size and it's position in the dense depths of our craniums...it's a very impressive accomplishment when you think about it.

Edited by -archimedes-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's safe to say that the "necessary inconvenience" (LOL on the scary quotes btw) bit is a self-assumed inconvenience at best. The all-powerful by definition has no necessary inconveniences, lest he not be all powerful...yada yada yada ad nauseum. Really though, he could have simply imbued us with an innate, supernatural sense of balance entirely separate from the ear (and who says we really need those anyway...he could have changed the nature of sound itself!). This would not have been out of his scope of power. Trying to pick apart the design or lack thereof is akin to this: :huh: . Granted, those who advocate design, often insist on such arguments, (since they usually won't address the fundamental theological/philosophical/ethical difficulties), but they really are beside the point in light of the omnipotence argument, reworked definitions of this concept aside.

Yeah, I'm not getting the whole "scary quotes" contention myself...if you're quoting someone, you're quoting them, and the long approved and practiced literary method of doing so is with the use of quotation (hence the derivative term quote) marks ("*").

Anyway, I agree with you're position that it is a "self-assumed inconvenience", albeit one that is self-imposed, as I'm aware that the human body, as a matter of routine/part of a built-in failsafe mechanism, sends any number of definitive signals when a part of it is ailing prior to it's actually failing the owner...it is but for the person to decide, to chose, to treat the symptoms before they escalate to an incapacitating level, i.e., if there's a hole in your foot, it didn't just magically appear one day, it is there because you shot yourself in it.

Hmm...that all would seem to be even more so supportive of the I.D. contention, wouldn't it?! I mean, not only is there a system for hearing/balance, there is also a failsafe sub-system in place that, if one were to merely troubleshoot it (much like the running of diagnostics on an automobile), would readily resolve the issue (ailment) before it managed to escalate to a self-unmanageable level...genius I tell you, genius. :)

Edited by -archimedes-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suffice it to say that, right or wrong, it is my understanding that things are the way that they are for a purpose and there is an underlying, scientifically demonstrable and proven, inherent design to all that exists in this world. Perhaps you could clarify your reasoning for this line of questioning to save us all the confusion prompted by misunderstanding?

I thought that the information I provided detailed how the two are intrinsic to one another's operation"?" Ancillary components/parts of the whole that contribute equally to one another's benefit?

First, all of us are not misunderstanding him so speak only for your misunderstanding. Second, there is only proof of existence, not design which implies a designer - something else that has not been proven. Whether or not there is any "purpose" for all things that exist is also up for grabs as well. Yes, many things have been demonstrated to have a function as part of a larger whole, like the heart for pumping blood through a mammal's body, but that is not evidence of purpose or design. Purpose is another word that comes loaded with implications that you are trying to smuggle into a package deal.

Also, there is nothing off-handed about his attempts to argue against intelligent design. Perhaps more misunderstanding on your part because he was quite frank about it in this post when he said this;

YOu have plenty more ammo available to argue against intelligent design--

I think that's pretty obvious. If you have a position on the matter that entails arguing in support of ID, fine, but don't clutter up my thread with it. Start your own thread in the Debate sub-forum if you wish to continue arguing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I do believe that I am misunderstanding you as it appears that the actual intent of your inquiries, as opposed to any medical inquisitiveness, is to devise some off-handed way of constructing an argument against the "intelligent design" concept/feel me out on my position on the matter...a topic of another thread here. Suffice it to say that, right or wrong, it is my understanding that things are the way that they are for a purpose and there is an underlying, scientifically demonstrable and proven, inherent design to all that exists in this world. Perhaps you could clarify your reasoning for this line of questioning to save us all the confusion prompted by misunderstanding?

I thought that the information I provided detailed how the two are intrinsic to one another's operation"?" Ancillary components/parts of the whole that contribute equally to one another's benefit?

Perhaps you are confusing -design- with -order-. The world has an order and structure to it. It can be observed and measured. That does not prove it was designed by a designing entity with intent or even by accident. That is equivalent to attributing intelligence to a mechanical potato sorter. The cosmos can be as stupid and devoid of purpose as a bag of rocks and still have an order and a structure.

Bob Kolker

Edited by Robert J. Kolker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, all of us are not misunderstanding him so speak only for your misunderstanding. Second, there is only proof of existence, not design which implies a designer - something else that has not been proven. Whether or not there is any "purpose" for all things that exist is also up for grabs as well. Yes, many things have been demonstrated to have a function as part of a larger whole, like the heart for pumping blood through a mammal's body, but that is not evidence of purpose or design. Purpose is another word that comes loaded with implications that you are trying to smuggle into a package deal.

Also, there is nothing off-handed about his attempts to argue against intelligent design. Perhaps more misunderstanding on your part because he was quite frank about it in this post when he said this;

I think that's pretty obvious. If you have a position on the matter that entails arguing in support of ID, fine, but don't clutter up my thread with it. Start your own thread in the Debate sub-forum if you wish to continue arguing about it.

Alright then, apologies all around as the intent of my post was not to convey an overall misunderstanding of the poster's (who is strangely absent from this rebuttal on his position) position inclusive of all of the members here, only my own.

It, likewise, also wasn't my intent to "smuggle" any other meaning, connotation, interpretation, etc., etc., of the word "purpose" into a "package deal" statement other than the strictly literal definition commonly associated with the word in the context in which I have used it as it is not my intent here to mince words with anyone on this (I'm learning) quite literal forum, especially not with a forum's Moderator.

But...one could easily conclude that everything in this life does have/serve an undeniable/unavoidable purpose...if you, too, have recently found this as inherently obvious as I do, despite whatever doctrine you may prescribe to, perhaps it's time that you revisited those precepts"?"

By way of further explanation (to use your example), of the various components of our bodies that make up/contribute to the human hearts' functionality, do you see anyone of which we could do without yet still enjoy the same level of performance/continue living in it's absence? Then, if not, would that observation alone not intuit a specific purpose for each component in and of itself...or would it?

Regardless, I am not attempting to "argue" with anyone, only provide constructive, intelligent input on this or that topic in any given discussion from my own perspective/understanding of the world as I relate to it (and as it relates to me) as I'm given to the understanding that the intellectual considers it a necessary preoccupation to look at all sides of a topic under discussion in order to draw the most informed of conclusions...to do otherwise is to cheat oneself of attaining a fuller world/life view...IMHO.

Edited by -archimedes-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you are confusing -design- with -order-. The world has an order and structure to it. It can be observed and measured. That does not prove it was designed by a designing entity with intent or even by accident.
Nor does it "prove" otherwise, but does not it's characteristic "order" intuit some level/form of design if by no other means than it's "structure" alone? Also, is not "design" but a synonym for "order", and vice-versa?
That is equivalent to attributing intelligence to a mechanical potato sorter.
It took intelligence on someone's part to devise the mechanics of the sorter, yes? If for no other reason than so that the sorter could be devoid of intelligence (hired labor) and still perform it's job?
The cosmos can be as stupid and devoid of purpose as a bag of rocks and still have an order and a structure.
True, very true as it is becoming more and more so now that we are able to perceive order even out of the unlikeliness of chaos.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...