Talk:Vermiform appendix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Vermiform appendix: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Cleanup:
    • More references required - article is very weak in this area
    • Expand:
    • Expand on the appendix in non-human animals (details of function etc)


Contents

[edit] Function

Would like to hear definitive evidence to prove appendix has function. Creationist websites don't count. --Alex.tan 10:52, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"Although it used to be believed that the appendix had no function and was an evolutionary relic, this is no longer thought to be true. Its greatest importance is the immunological function it provides in the developing embryo, but it continues to function even in the adult, although it's not so important and we can live without it.

"The function of the appendix appears to be to expose circulating immune cells to antigens from the bacteria and other organisms living in your gut. That helps your immune system to tell friend from foe and stops it from launching damaging attacks on bacteria that happily co-exist with you."

Extracted from

http://www.newscientist.com/lastword/article.jsp?id=lw968

Shantavira 14:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Btw, that link does not link to any relevant information on this. Still awaiting a link to good evidence. Alex.tan 15:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

That text can now be found at the New Scientist web site at http://www.newscientist.com/backpage.ns?id=lw968 . Poslfit 06:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Paragraph?

One explanation has been that the appendix is a vestigial structure with no current purpose.[citation needed] The appendix is thought to have descended from an organ in our distant herbivorous ancestors called the cecum (or caecum). The cecum is maintained in modern herbivores, where it houses the bacteria that digest cellulose, a chemically tough carbohydrate that these animals could not otherwise utilize. The human appendix contains no significant number of these bacteria, and cellulose is indigestible to us. It seems likely that the appendix lost this function before our ancestors became recognizably human.[citation needed]

This paragraph is misleading at best. Not only is the whole thing uncited, but it seems to me to also imply that modern humans don't have a cecum, which they certainly do, as any beginner's anatomy book (or cadaver) will show. Cecum is a good starter for a reference to the existing structure in humans. I'm tempted to just delete that whole paragraph outright, as I've already seen once instance of it being misquoted elsewhere. Unless someone's up for re-writing it with proper references? The bit about vestigiality can stay, as that is fairly common thought; it's everything after that sucks. --Dthatcher 19:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Record

So Spencer Bayle's page says that he . Maybe this article should be altered to reflect the current record-holder? -GregoryWeir 30 June 2005 20:24 (UTC)

Better now. -GregoryWeir 14:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
LOL NEW RECORD PLZ KTHX Ahanix1989 19:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which side?

Is the appendix on the right or left of the body (i.e. is the picture showing the front or the back?) --Henrygb 10:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Good question. It's normally on the right side. Annotating the image and updating the text to clarify. Alex.tan 18:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lacking appendix

I read in an article that recent laparoscopies have shown that many people do lack any appendix at all. This would be a disaster for the creationists, which claims the appendix is not an vestigal organ, but a fully functional one. If it turns out some people are born without, it would be very hard for them to accept that it actually is a vestigal organ, even if it actually still have a function, but not as important as they wish to believe. Not that it would matter if it did.

Some people are born with other congenital defects, does that mean those organs were vestigial? Creationists seem to mostly accept that mutations occur, but that they usually result in loss of genetic information and thus are not useful in explaining evolution. Surely this could just be the result of such a mutation? Is the loss of the appendix hereditary?
If the missing organs don't make any determinable difference, then yes, you could probably say that they were vestigial. — Fatalis 17:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned this in the article, and shortly arter it was removed. The external link is described as "evolutionary biology", but after a look on the site I added "creationism" to the description. Shortly after it was removed. That's creationists in a nutshell; remove everything you don't like or what you cinsider as a threat to your personal beliefs.

Do a search on vestigal organs on Google, and you will find almost exclusively phages driven by creationists.


Well, I reverted your edit because what you added made it sound like the talkorigins.org article also supported the creationist point of view, which is wrong (and, I suspect, not what you intended). Alex.tan 12:32, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I really don't wanna offend anyone but if the writer above me is a doctor, then he is probably correct. but if not, chances are, he's/she's guillible. I don't mean to insult anyone, but he should really check it out if it's really true. You can't believe anything in the internet anyhow. User:202.160.21.17

You shoot your own argument in the foot by saying that either I'm a doctor and therefore, I'm correct or I'm not and therefore I'm wrong. Whether I'm correct or not should not depend on whether I'm a doctor - which, by the way, I am. In future, please sign all comments with ~~~~. Alex.tan 01:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
If you cant believe anything on the internet, why would Wikipedia even exist?

[edit] Web Page Copies from Wikipedia

[edit] vestigial

Of course the appendix is vestigial. It's also obvious that it has an unknown function. We want to know what function that might be and how it affect people who has it. There's many things we don't know about human body yet, it would be at very least pretensious to overlook the appendix.

As of me, I believe the appendix must produce unknown substances, probably similar to hormones, because science usually overlook things not yet known by science. Not as much as church, but still do. It could even be related to stress.

--Cacumer 2006-01-27 00:20:21 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't realize that your statements, "Of course the appendix is vestigial" and "It's also obvious that it has an unknown function" contradict each other and are mutually exclusive. Oh, in future, please sign your discussion statements. Alex.tan 23:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I always forget my signature...

I did realize what you said before, and thanks for stressing it out. Perhaps you don't realize what vestigial means.

Thanks for your help. :)

--Cacumer 21:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A vestigial organ is one whose function has been lost or is no longer performing any function. Therefore, a vestigial organ cannot have an unknown function. It either has a function (and is therefore not vestigial) or has no function (and is therefore vestigial). You cannot have a vestigial organ with an unknown function. That's the point. Alex.tan 06:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. But then I think we're using the wrong name here. What Vestigial tells me is that something was left behind, and that's it. It doesn't tell me that it doesn't have any function. Maybe a better name would be obsolete.

--Cacumer 04:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the term vestigial is being mis-defined here. From our own definition, it is a structure "...whose original function is considered to have been lost or reduced...". Not necessarily lost, just reduced. --Dcfleck 15:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
A vestige is a holdover from another time. For instance, a riding crop (horsewhip) is a vestige in that sense that people don't ride horses anymore. But it still has function, i.e. it is used for sexual entertainment. Consider also cannons; no one fights wars with cannons any more, but they're still used for 21-gun salutes, decorative purposes, and historical recreation. They've lost their original function, so they're vestigal. 32.97.110.142 19:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Last but not least before a debate on the relevance of any organ, we must consider that science has overlooked many things in the past and to assume that doctor, scientist or garbageman theory we must take into consideration that we are human and not perfect. What gives the right to anyone to assume it has no purpose stricktly because we dont understand it to its full extent. Thats similar to stating that since we don't understand a certain religion or belief that it is useless. (for lack of a better term/explination. Anyone who states it has no use 100% is simply ignorant, if scientists cannot figure out a use for it does not mean that it is useless. One can make outrageous statements saying since humans being at the top of the food chain would need some sort of population control, this however does not seem like a large margin, but neither do all the other inperfections we have in our body to which can cause death. Take for example 6 people formed in a triangle in a family tree. If person 2 at the top had died due to appendicitis, would that not significantly change the outcome of the population? In the end no man no matter how smart or how ignorant can state something is "Impossible" and nobody on earth can state that something has no use. We as humans have made mistakes in the past with assumuming things.

(Just for a laugh) Building a BBQ, its put all together, and there are a few screws and bolts left over, most people automatically assume they have not overlooked anything, and most people always consider those as "Spare parts" and discard them as nothing. My wife says they go somewhere to this day I haven't checked every possible solution, I remain ignorant and bliss as my lack for determination to figure out what those "spare parts" actually do.

Funding for the study of an appendix is lacking due to the common misconception that it may have no use. Perhaps it has no use, but in the end, nobody can state that it has no use until they have checked every billionth factor to which could lead to its explination of its very existance today. --72.137.203.76 09:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)JD

The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim. It is up to you (or anyone else who claims it has a function) to prove it has a function rather than for me to search every last fossil and every last minute detail of all biological knowledge to prove that it has no function. In the absense of any good evidence that it has a function, it can be (rightly) assumed to have no good function despite all the searching for a function so far. Alex.tan 03:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "fact"

I tried and failed to verify the "fact" about the appendix possibly being involved in the digestion of raw meat in human ancestors. In fact, while attempting to verify, I could only find information that appeared contradictory to this idea, suggesting it is not a serious hypothesis. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs 19:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Who said it was a fact ? I believe it was presented as one of many theories. If you found materials trying to disprove this idea, this suggests to me that someone took the suggestion seriously enough to debate it, so we should list both sides. Note that other theories, like the immune system theory, also have counter-evidence listed. StuRat 05:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact I removed was that the hypothesis was a serious one. It was not a matter of evidence v. counter-evidence; it was a matter of no evidence whatsoever. I did not even find anything trying to disprove the idea; rather, I found materials that suggested to me that it may not be plausible. The theory does not meet WP:VERIFY because nothing at all could be found to verify it is a serious theory. If you can find something that verifies that a medical researcher, anthropologist, or other scientist has seriously put the hypothesis forward, then by all means add the fact back with the citation. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Note to others: I found the evidence he asked for, and presented it on my talk page, after which Ginko100 agreed and restored the material in question. StuRat 12:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, StuRat, I forgot to add that here. Thanks again for your help. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs 16:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
No prob. StuRat 23:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Found one vestigal source.

Does a collection of info from various sources count, ie. a biology text? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grottoman (talk • contribs) 09:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Undue weight, controversy and creationism

I made some changes to the article to downplay the "controversy" surrounding the appendix's function. I searched the Oxford Reference online and found no mention of any controversy. Searched the Medline dictionary and encyclopedia as well. The article seemed to give undue weight to minority views.-Andrew c 02:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

Does the mighty Wikipedia consider evolution a religion or a fact? Does it endorse evolution as such? Murphy 2021 05:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't (or at least shouldn't) endorse any viewpoint. Because of NPOV, we must remain neutral and present each side giving them due weight. If you read the Evolution article, you can see the manner in which we present the topic.-Andrew c 13:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
No, this is a religion. Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific theory and a fact. - Fatalis 17:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's hardly that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Equal weight indeed. @_@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appendicectomy yes or no

Under the Diseases heading:

Appendicitis (or epityphlitis) is a condition characterized by inflammation of the appendix. Virtually all cases of Appendicitis require removal of the inflamed appendix,


...


it is now recognized that many cases will resolve when treated non-operatively. In some cases the appendicitis resolves completely; more often, an inflammatory mass forms around the appendix. This is a relative contraindication to surgery

--These two paragraphs appear to not agree. Is an appendicectomy the normal course of treatment??

[edit] Appendix no longer vestigial

Well, it never was. It's just that the function has been discovered:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1036496

Someone's already been trying to add this to the article, but it was a rather sloppy attempt. The section about the function is going to need some major overhauling to reflect past beliefs and these current findings. Jinxmchue 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Past beliefs are an important background on this organ, the removal of which has become one of the most common major medical procedures, on the basis that it serves no purpose. I changed that section (which was a horrific jumble of non-encyclopedic points) to include both an overview of the history and of the very recent hypotheses surrounding its use as part of the immune/digestion systems. There hasn't been enough time since the paper was put out to get scientific reactions from the evolutionary, biological, and medical fields, much less for a new scientific consensus to be achieved that it is correct. 69.140.102.62 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Jinxmchue 15:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible function

One time, I heard that early humans used to eat wood, and the appendix held certain bacteria to break down the wood for digestion. However, now that we don't eat wood anymore, we don't need the appendix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brody014 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Naw.. pretty sure nobody has ever eaten wood 'cept termites.. and even then that's bacteria in their gut, right? Like, even the world's best four-chambered stomach still couldn't handle wood.. leaves yeah, but not wood.. XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I mean that tens of thousands of years ago, early humans may have eaten wood and that the appendix was used to house bacteria for the digestion of the wood.

[edit] Vestigiality does not imply lack of functionality

The article organizes its subsections in a way that suggests somewhat a wrong dichotomy between function and vestigiality, when in fact evolutionary vestigiality was never really thought to necessarily imply in lack of function. The article actually states that, but organizes the sections in different "interpretations", "historical" and others, only one of them being "vestigiality", the others don't, while a vestigial/homologue origin can still (and still is) sustained despite of more proper knowledge about the current function. "Vestigiality" is not much related to "function" at all, is more about the evolutionary origin of the organ. --Extremophile (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I have attempted to correct it. The article the page actually uses to support this claim is focused on a hypothetical immune function. It in no way contradicts the evolutionary explanation of the appendix, vestigail doesn't mean non-functional, and so finding a function doesn't contradict the claim of for the appendix being a vestige. More about the Bollinger et al. (2007) article here: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/appendix.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.58.41 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And I meant to add as well, the 'no absolute purpose' early in the 'historical' part is easily open to misinterpretation. Vestigiality just makes a claim that a biological system lost one particular purpose during evolutionary development(i.e., cellulose digestion for the appendix). Thus, Ostrich wings are vestigial as they are no longer used for the purpose of flight. But they are still used to aid movement and display etc. Thus, do Ostrich wings have 'no absolute purpose'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.58.41 (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling of cecum

See the Manual of Style. The article can consistently use one kind of spelling or another, but using both is not a valid option, and neither is editing the article only to change from one valid spelling to another. --P3d0 (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of regional variations, it's a question of medical terminology, even the Cecum article notes that it has two distinct spellings. The correct name is the Latin version (as are most anatomical terms), the US English spelling being the regional variation. I kept to MoS by not changing the original US English version that the article used, but added the correct Latin term so as to enable it to show up on searches. Only the US uses "cecum", the rest of the world uses "caecum". This is a compromise and only adds to the usefulness of the article, it does not detract from it, substance should always take precedence over style. Please also note that the MoS doesn't take into account genre/vocational specific terminology, it only discusses grammatical uses of regional spellings. --WebHamster 14:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
As you are so keen to quote MoS then perhaps you should note this diff whereby is shows that the first use of the term in this article was using the correct Latin term. So according to WP:MOS#Retaining the existing variety the actual term used should be caecum and not cecum as the article was originally written in British English. --WebHamster 16:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to get snippy. I have no problem with the British spelling if you think it's that important. --P3d0 (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not being "snippy", I'm merely answering in the same way you started the discussion. You started the wikilawyering so I thought that's what you would understand in response. As regards British English, again that isn't the point. The point is that people will be searching for both terms, so at some point there should be an inclusion of both variants in the article. Or does style win out over common-sense these days? In any case, there's always WP:IAR --WebHamster 22:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem including both spellings; I just don't think every instance of the word needs both spellings. Your recent edit has done exactly the right thing I think. I'm sorry if I offended. --P3d0 (talk) 03:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diagnosis

I just had my appendix removed. Diagnosis was done with white blood cell counts and a sonograph. The article only mentions MRI and CT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.134.146 (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)