From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Evolution (was women in church)
Date: 13 May 1999 23:05:01 GMT

Able <> wrote:
> On 13 May 1999 01:32:08 GMT, Chris Ho-Stuart <>
> wrote:
[snip]
> >So do we all; but let's not forget that the medical profession
> >itself still has one hell of a lot to learn about the body.
>
>  This is why I find it so amazing that people will accept 
> evolution so readily. When we do not go a fraction to understanding
> the body. I think man is arrogant in the extreme over evolution.

We can disagree on that one. That we have a lot to learn does not
make irrelevant what we have learned. If we forget evolution for a
bit, perhaps you might accept that, despite the incompleteness of our
understanding, we do actually have a pretty good idea about some of
the basic mechanisms and stages involved in reproduction -- gamete
formation, meiosis, implantation, cleavage through to gastrulation.

What we have yet to learn will build on and illuminate this picture.

Likewise: the support for evolution is well established, and it
does not depend on fine details of interactions in the human body.

The only substantive reason for doubting evolution which you
have given is that it is in conflict with the biblical witness
as you understand it.

In general terms, you (apparently) support taking this biblical
witness as more reliable than the conclusions of science. The
argument that we really don't know much is pretty much a blanket
statement which could apply to any understanding we derive
from scientific methodology.

I cannot refute that; there is no common ground to form a basis
for discussion.

I will, however, continue to refute fallacious arguments which
attempt to use a scientific or evidential basis for rejecting
evolution, or geology, or astronomy.

If your reason for doubting the conclusions of mainstream science
are based on faith in a particular understanding of the bible;
fine. If you consider that there are actually good scientific
reasons for doubting fundamentals of mainstream science, by all
means we can have a look at them; but I will consider them on
scientific merits.

>Given recent threads, I'm sure you'll understand a little
> >confusion on my part as to what you are actually arguing.
>
> Yes I am confused too.
>
> >Is the appendix a problem for evolutionary theory, or is
> >that just a weak argument presented to tease others? Is
> >the appendix more, or less, dangerous in the past? Was past
> >diet more, or less, suited to the appendix? Are circumstances
> >in the past a premise, or a conclusion, of your arguments? Etc.
>
> I agree that it was a tease , but some interesting thoughts
>  came from it, and hopefully it will not be a complete waste of time.

I'm with you here.

> >In any case, the above extract provides some solid information,
> >and would have been a good response to the thread sometime ago.
> >
> >For people who like references, Able's information was probably
> >cut and pasted from the following web page:
> >    http://kidshealth.org/parent/common/appendicitis.html
> >
> >In general sources on appendicitis (including the page Able
> >uses), there is some other relevant information, such as
> >
1) It is difficult to diagnose appendicitis, and it
> >
is often confused with other problems.
> >
2) If untreated, appedicitis can lead to death, usually
> >
from peritonitis due to rupture of the appendix.
> >
> >However, it as well to bear in mind a few points. The body does
> >have its own defenses. It is sometimes able to isolate the appendix
> >with other tissues. Even if peritonitis occurs, the body will
> >defend itself, and death is far from inevitable. Death from
> >peritonitis is more likely in older patients, I believe.
>
>  You are correct here Chris, without doubt.
> But your timeframe is  wrong.

I am certainly open to evidence on this one. In particular, I
also have been trying to get mortality figures for those parts
of the world where surgery is not readily available. It is not
easy.

> >None of this should be taken as refuting the seriousness of
> >appendicitis. If suspected, it should be immediately reported,
> >since the best treatment is appendectomy. A ruptured appendix
> >can occur at any age, and the consequences can be deadly.
> >
> >The point is that appendicitis is a relatively minor cause of
> >infant or child death, even for those without ready access to
> >surgery.
>
>  I am not sure if we can extrapolate that back successfully in time.
> Asprin and panadol, although commonplace pills to pop these days, will
> reduce high temperatures very quickly. Modern anti inflammatories are
> also very effective. Things that we take for granted now were just not
> available. All my immediate family would  be long dead except for
> modern medicines. If you look at genealogy as I do, you will discover
> that infant mortality around the 1800's in a country as well civilised
> as England was quite horific. You really cannot judge by today's 
> figures.

I'm well aware of the high mortality figures. But if those figures
do not indicate appendicitis as a significant contributing factor,
then there is no real basis for thinking that the appendix should
have evolved away quickly. If it is a minor contributing factor we'd
expect the appendix to evolve away slowly, and apparently that is
exactly what is happening.

One other point. You have suggested that the appendix used to have
a digestive function. I would agree.

There is a major difference in our positions, however. If you
discount evolution as having a formative effect on our body, you
should be able to show the particular diet for which the appendix
function is demonstrated.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no such diet; which essentially
refutes your hypothesis. You are left asserting a function which
cannot be demonstrated. You have some room to move, in that failure
to demonstrate the function might be due to our limited understanding
of the body; but most folks will still find that unpersuasive. On
the other hand, you might admit degenerative microevolution (as many
creationists do) which would leave you essentially agreeing with
mainstream science that the appendix is a degenerated vestigal organ.

Of course, if you hold that degeneration took place with the last
10,000 years you are proposing a very radid evolutionary change...

>From my perspective, the appendix was probably functional at a time
when our body form was substantially different, and other parts of
our body were *also* adapted to a radically different diet -- not
merely vegetarian but more like grazing. Since then, our body form
has changed markedly; not only reducing the size of the appendix
way beyond the point where it could have digestive function; but
also removing other aspects adapted to that diet. Much of this is
speculative -- except that it is demonstrated (for those willing to
accept scientific methodology) that our body form has indeed
changed markedly over the course of millions of years.

Cheers -- Chris