[HN Gopher] The appendix is not, in fact, useless
___________________________________________________________________
The appendix is not, in fact, useless
Author : Digit-Al
Score : 292 points
Date : 2024-02-07 21:09 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.npr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org)
| SuperNinKenDo wrote:
| Even when I was a kid they were starting to understand this. I'm
| old enough to remember people believing it was useless, maybe
| even I was told it from a figure of authority at some point, but
| definitely as a child my memory was "people used to think it was
| useless, but now we know it isn't ".
|
| It's kind if interesting to me that I continually see stories
| titled like the article over the years. It goes to show that
| undoing incorrect common knowledge is a long process that isn't
| really ever completed, because an editor somewhere decided that a
| title like this would grab people's attention, but to someone
| like me, this is like a headline that reads "brushing your teeth
| confirmed to be effective treatment in fighting tooth decay".
|
| I've noticed a surge in articles letting me know that the
| appendix isn't useless, so I assume we figured out a bit better
| what it actually does, but to me the most interesting part is
| about knowledge dissemination.
| Talanes wrote:
| I had a similar thing with whether Giant Pandas were actual
| bears or not when I was a kid. The genetic tests that
| determined they were definitely bears happened five years
| before I was born, but I still got taught the "We used to think
| they were bears, but they're actually more closely related to
| raccoons" version until high school.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| It was a weird article. The latest study date was 2007. Maybe
| since then they found the c. Dificils difference??
| tamaharbor wrote:
| Jupiter used to "have" twelve moons.
| taeric wrote:
| To this day, I still have family that think ulcers are strictly
| a stress and diet related thing.
|
| I also get a bit of a smirk out of the example you use.
| Brushing teeth is almost certainly effective at fighting tooth
| problems. However, I have grown wary of it as a goto example,
| as I think it has long been assumed as the only thing of note
| there. It seems far more likely, to me, that diet and genetics
| play far more of an active role in tooth health. Maybe I've
| just had bad luck with dentists, but I swear my tooth woes only
| ever get significantly worse every time I see one. :(
| SuperNinKenDo wrote:
| Interesting. That said, you would expect your teeth to
| basically get worse over time, there's rarely anything you
| can do to make them actually better, assuming you're not
| heavily deficient in something important to them. Only thing
| I can think of is that I believe it's possible to regrow
| enamel, but don't quote me on that. Otherwise teeth just
| basically get worse, and it's just a question of how quickly
| that happens.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_sealant
| kergonath wrote:
| > Only thing I can think of is that I believe it's possible
| to regrow enamel, but don't quote me on that.
|
| It's complicated, but it does happen. Depending on the
| molecules in one's mouth and its pH, the apatite on the
| teeth can grow. There are several toothpastes that do that.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| > your teeth to basically get worse over time
|
| Just like most of your other body parts. I'm 68, and I'd
| guess that every major bone in my body has been bruised at
| some time or other, some (like my shins and knees) multiple
| times in the same place. I have evidence on X-rays of
| hairline rib fractures that I have no memory of acquiring.
| One of my breasts has been removed due to cancer. As a kid
| I was exposed to harsh mediterranean sunshine; on every
| visit to my GP, he checks my moles. I've twice had polyps
| removed from my colon.
|
| I'm rather surprised that I can still walk, smell, talk,
| hear and see.
|
| Things are getting worse (send chocolate).
| taeric wrote:
| My problem there is that most dentistry related things are
| couched in moral failings. And people with good teeth have
| them due to their diligence. But... I've rarely seen
| evidence of this. Always posturing and admonishments.
| kirse wrote:
| _It goes to show that undoing incorrect common knowledge_
|
| It's because the appendix-is-useless "belief" comes with
| decades of evolution vs. intelligent design emotion behind it,
| starting with Darwin himself.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Part of it is also that, while it does seem to _help_ , it
| doesn't really have a major role in your body, and you can live
| a very happy and healthy life without an appendix. So, compared
| to virtually every other organ a regular person would know by
| name, saying "it doesn't have a role" is a quite good
| approximation. Even tonsils have a better defined and more
| measurable role.
| RandomLensman wrote:
| Appendicitis was around in ancient times, too, so I am not sure I
| understand the reference only to industrialized nations in that
| respect.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| "Appendicitis is predominantly happening in the industrialized
| nations of the world -- areas where fiber content of the diet
| tends to be lower. "
|
| I saw it as a reference to fiber poor diets....
| RandomLensman wrote:
| Perhaps, but I am somewhat surprised to see rates of
| appendicitis lower in the US than in Europe, for example.
| xbar wrote:
| _while gnoshing on a French prune_ Me too.
| nerdponx wrote:
| "nosh" is a loanword from Yiddish, definitely no silent
| "g" prefix there.
|
| Unless you're experiencing gnosis while noshing, in which
| case carry on. I've had prunes that good before.
|
| If you're experiencing gnashing while noshing, then I
| suggest taking a break and changing to a different
| activity.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| The last one might be gnarly.
| posterboy wrote:
| _gnash (one 's teeth)_ and German _knusen_ ( "to chew")
| ought to be related with _nosh_ and German _naschen_ ,
| seeing that _snack_ in the same sense may be derived from
| some onomatopoeia meaning "bite". It's a non-trivial
| problem since these onmnomnom forms are thought to escape
| regular sound change. However, you may be right that
| silent g is inserted by mistake, but an archaic g-prefix
| which may be realized as /k/ is productive in Swabian,
| which might indicate a western Yiddish variety rather
| than the more eastern Ashkenaz.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Is "Knodel" related?
| arp242 wrote:
| It doesn't say "only", it said "predominantly" and "more
| likely".
| RandomLensman wrote:
| Not sure the data is that clear:
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9758930/
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9945388/
|
| Bangladesh and Bhutan have the highest age-standardized
| prevalence rates, for example. One of the lower SDI cohorts
| seems to lead now.
| IAmNotACellist wrote:
| Story begins:
|
| >The appendix is not, in fact, useless
|
| >It was the first day of spring break in 1992 in Phoenix, and
| 12-year-old Heather Smith was excited for her family's upcoming
| ski trip...
|
| Immediate skip.
| sva_ wrote:
| Almost like they were going to suggest their cooking recipe 20
| paragraphs later.
| adolph wrote:
| > The human appendix averages 9 cm (3.5 in) in length . . . .
| The diameter of the appendix is 6 mm (0.24 in) . . .
|
| You'd need a bunch of appendii for a meal. Maybe one could
| pan fry them with mushrooms and serve atop pasta.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| No, no. You stuff it. It's the filet mignon of sausage
| casing.
| Culonavirus wrote:
| Stuff it with ground placenta and herbs.
| dvsfish wrote:
| That's very funny, thanks for that one haha :)
| fngjdflmdflg wrote:
| +1. I was bit by an article yesterday[0] whose content begins
| 13 paragraphs in. Seems like this article starts only seven,
| shorter paragraphs in, which is more tolerable but still
| annoying.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39248326
| delecti wrote:
| At least that one presented itself as a story they were
| telling, rather than a simple factual answer. A headline
| about an anatomy professor detailing the uses of the appendix
| doesn't seem like it'll be a meandering tale about that
| professor's personal experience suffering with appendicitis
| more than 30 years ago.
| notfed wrote:
| This is why many of us are excited about LLMs. This.
| knodi123 wrote:
| "Finally, I'll be able to automate turning a short science
| paragraph into a 10 page story with human interest content!"
| lobsterthief wrote:
| Yep, it goes both ways.
| delfinom wrote:
| * with additional fluff content because Google mandated it
| to show up in search results.
|
| Seriously, the reason why all recipe sites online suddenly
| became autobiographies was a policy change by google
| prioritizing such.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Until Google uses an LLM on every indexed entry. Then
| people might start writing stuff for that which might
| correlate more with what users want to read!
| avg_dev wrote:
| I wish an LLM had obviated this thread from the discussion
| leptons wrote:
| So you won't have to write 10 paragraphs of inane filler, a
| computer will do it for you?
| shortrounddev2 wrote:
| Humans retain knowledge better if it's attached to a story
| sidlls wrote:
| I must not be human. For factual information of this sort I
| just prefer the information. The story is irrelevant and
| usually too mundane to be bothered with
| jedberg wrote:
| Luckily they labeled the sections so I just skipped to the
| middle with all the good stuff.
| pentae wrote:
| This is what happens when content is curated for Google and not
| human beings
| ghosty141 wrote:
| Whats the issue? Its just 1 small paragraph that goves a bit of
| background about the researcher. This isnt a scientific paper
| so a tiny bit of fluff isnt so bad.
| lapetitejort wrote:
| I remember two or three times in my early life where I felt
| appendicitis-like symptoms only for them to go away after a few
| hours. That was until one night when the pains persisted past
| midnight. My roommate insisted on taking me to the ER. After
| several hours there I finally got checked in, had a CT scan, and
| prepped for surgery. The docs said I did indeed have
| appendicitis, and in fact had scarring from past episodes. Before
| the surgery the pain actually started to subside. I wonder if I
| could have moved past that episode, and if it would have hit me
| years later.
| cyberax wrote:
| Yes. Appendicitis can go away on its own, and it can also be
| treated with antibiotics.
|
| Doctors prefer surgery because it's a definite cure, without
| negative effects of a long antibiotic course.
| maximinus_thrax wrote:
| Yes, it is possible but not likely for appendicitis to go
| away on its own. I mean the idea here is the likelihood of it
| going away on its own vs the possibility of it to burst and
| cause peritonitis. Doctors prefer surgery because peritonitis
| has a mortality rate of ~13% for < 50yo and ~30% otherwise,
| assuming immediate medical care and of course the surgery to
| clean up the burst organ.
|
| Appendicitis going away without surgery is a common trope I
| heard from antivaxxers over the years. It's a very dangerous
| train of thought.
|
| (someone who no longer has an appendix)
| cyberax wrote:
| > Yes, it is possible but not likely for appendicitis to go
| away on its own.
|
| Yes, that's correct. I should have specified that it's
| rare, and it's extremely dangerous to leave appendicitis
| untreated.
|
| I was morbidly curious about how appendicitis was treated
| before the advent of aseptic surgery, and apparently it was
| mostly "just let the patient die". But several treatments
| seemed to help, including _massage_ of the area along with
| a kind of yoga-like contortions. Apparently, it sometimes
| could "unclog" the swollen appendix and let the pus drain
| into the colon.
|
| Here's an article in JAMA that describes it:
| https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-
| abstract/44765... from 1896, no less (sidenote: and you
| have to pay to read it).
|
| Another side note, I used to be a professionally certified
| masseur (about 20 years ago) and we were trained to
| recognize the signs of appendicitis. It can be almost
| completely asymptomatic until the appendix is almost
| bursting.
| maximinus_thrax wrote:
| > Another side note, I used to be a professionally
| certified masseur (about 20 years ago) and we were
| trained to recognize the signs of appendicitis. I
|
| Can you elaborate on that? It's interesting, because when
| I had appendicitis, I had just a bit of pain (which
| didn't go away overnight) but nothing serious. When I got
| to the hospital, the doctor who triaged me touched my
| abdomen for a few seconds and he was like 'prep this guy
| up'.
| cyberax wrote:
| Yep, it's pretty common. Sometimes people don't feel
| acute pain at all, but a kind of soreness you feel from
| overworking your core muscles. That's why they go to get
| a massage to help them feel better.
|
| We were taught several tests to do in this case, and
| immediately refer the patient to the ER if they are
| positive. From the memory, soreness/pain on the right
| side of the abdomen if the left side is pressured, and
| soreness/pain increasing when the pressure is removed.
| And some cases can apparently be palpitated directly, but
| I forgot what exactly it should feel like.
| twothamendment wrote:
| I went to the local clinic because I wasn't sure if my
| appendix was the problem. I had some signs, but others
| not at all. The doc pushed in on my right side, slowly.
| It didn't hurt, maybe a bit uncomfortable. He let of
| quickly and it was a short, sharp pain - that is what he
| was looking for. He called the ER and we drove there
|
| The ER couldn't believe that I didn't need and pain meds.
| I felt nearly fine and was even hungry - apparently I
| shouldn't have been.
|
| After the scan they said my appendix was huge. Easy
| surgery.
|
| In hindsight, I'm sure it was acting up when I was
| backpacking, but I won that battle. Good thing, because I
| was in the middle of nowhere.
| kergonath wrote:
| > The ER couldn't believe that I didn't need and pain
| meds. I felt nearly fine and was even hungry - apparently
| I shouldn't have been.
|
| I could not eat for a day when it happened to me. I threw
| up everything I ate. That's why my parents suspected some
| food-borne pathogen initially. I could not feel any pain
| besides the cramps at that point. We went straight to the
| ER in the morning when I was in such a pain that I could
| not put the right foot on the ground. It was indeed an
| appendicitis but it was apparently still far from
| rupturing, so it was not quite the last minute. But my
| goodness was it painful.
| outime wrote:
| For what it's worth, I can relate to your story very much,
| albeit with a slight twist. The last time I experienced such
| intense pain, I ended up fainting (first and only instance in
| my life) in the ER. Consequently, surgery became a must.
|
| IMHO, considering your past experiences with similar symptoms
| and existing scarring, it seems advisable to forgo the
| appendix, especially given your susceptibility to infection. If
| you hadn't done it, perhaps one of the future occasions could
| have ended much worse.
| meindnoch wrote:
| My brother had the same. Except the second time it hit, it
| almost perforated, then he got peritonitis after the surgery,
| so he had a second emergency surgery where they had to remove
| 12cm of his bowel to save his life.
|
| Don't hesitate going to the ER if you suspect your appendix.
| ho4 wrote:
| Humanity can do better than suggesting to remove appendix or
| gallbladder painting it useless. But everyone's busy printing
| money via pharma instead of investing into proper research
| robbiep wrote:
| I don't think any surgeon in the industrialised world is
| removing an appendix or gallbladder today because they think
| it's useless, they're removing them because they're trying to
| kill the patient
| XorNot wrote:
| The other reason is if you're going to Antarctica (you can't
| go if you still have your appendix, because if something goes
| wrong there is very likely no way to casevac you fast enough
| that you won't die from it - same applies to astronauts).
| reducesuffering wrote:
| > if something goes wrong there is very likely no way to
| casevac you fast enough that you won't die from it
|
| There is one other option that's been tried...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Rogozov
| mauvia wrote:
| The ambiguous they makes this half as likely to read "They're
| (the surgeons) are removing them (the appendices) because
| they're (the surgeons) trying to kill the patient. It's
| funny.
| agos wrote:
| inflamed appendices, sure. gallbladders are removed with a
| lot less care
| msla wrote:
| While you might reliably survive attacks of biliary colic,
| you'll greatly wish you didn't have to.
|
| (I had my gallbladder removed many years ago.)
| ho4 wrote:
| Never implied that they did. However there are several common
| mild conditions to which the only option you'll get is
| removing them. For instance, a single gallbladder stone
| (instead of trying to dissolve it) or a mild state of
| appendicitis (the body can manage).
| cogman10 wrote:
| > It turns out that the appendix appears to have two related
| functions. The first function is supporting the immune system.
| The appendix has a high concentration of immune tissue, so it's
| acting to help the immune system fight any bad things in the gut.
|
| > The second function that it serves is what we refer to as the
| safe house. So this was a hypothesis that was put forward by a
| team from Duke University in 2007. And they argued that the
| appendix may serve as a safe reservoir for the beneficial gut
| bacteria that we have.
|
| I have to question if the first function is valid. How can the
| appendix "help fight bad things in the gut" when it's basically a
| minor piece hanging off the large intestine. It's not like a lot
| of stuff passes through it or that it really secretes anything
| (AFAIK). In fact, wouldn't it make a little more sense that the
| high amount of immune tissue is there because of appendicitis?
| After all, people that don't die from sepsis tend to have more
| options to procreate and a less infect-able appendix would tend
| to make people live longer.
|
| The second thing is pretty interesting though. Sort of makes
| sense. Though I'd imagine that more often than not the "bad
| bacteria" is going to infest the safe haven and kill the good gut
| bacteria. I can't see how that wouldn't often happen.
| ramraj07 wrote:
| The immune system in the gut has a complicated roll: it doesn't
| just find bacteria and yell "bacteria! We have an infection!"
| Thus it needs to be able to tell the good bacteria from the
| bad. How does it? It constantly surveils the gut flora and
| builds a tolerance to the regular players. When something
| changes then it has the opportunity figure out if this is
| worrisome.
|
| Thus you can see how the appendix could be part of this
| surveillance mechanism. Of course we still don't fully
| understand this entire system so this is all hypotheses at
| best.
| alan-hn wrote:
| Bacteria need to compete for resources, usually when a new
| bacterial strain is introduced to an environment where there's
| already a ton of different bacteria, the ones that are already
| there have adapted to live in balance with the nutrients
| available and the other members of the community.
|
| A new bacterial strain must either find an open niche in that
| community or somehow outcompete what's already there. The ones
| already there generally outnumber newcomers to a significant
| extent.
|
| There is no "good" or "bad" in nature, those are words that
| describe the human perspective and there aren't necessarily
| bacteria that could come in with small numbers and somehow wipe
| out an existing population. Its all about competition and
| resources
| killjoywashere wrote:
| Once you understand the embryology, there are actually a variety
| of things like the appendix: they're just the ends of things that
| come together. The uvula is a great example: embryologically, the
| two sides of the face separate very early as an opening, then
| develop a lot of complicated anatomy and fuse back together. The
| uvula is where that fusion completes and the fusion process
| completes (returns 0) when the microenvironment variables get to
| a certain state.
|
| The vermiform appendix is where the three tiniae coli come
| together. Unsurprisingly, the other, rectal, end the tiniea coli
| don't so much end as they spread out into the longitudinal
| muscular layer of the rectosigmoid.
|
| And of course the wall of the vermiform appendix is full of
| lymphoid tissue. The whole colonic wall is full of lymphoid
| tissue!
|
| Source: I'm a pathologist. I have looked at way too much colon.
| And uvula, and pretty much every other bit of tissue you can
| imagine, under gross exam, under a microscope, and in situ (live
| in ORs and dead in autopsy suites).
|
| This idea that the vermiform appendix is some deep evolutionary
| mystery is sort of a low point of medicine that occasionally
| pokes its head up. It ranks up there with male pregnancy, and
| various birth defects that have given rise to stories of
| monsters, like Cyclops. Fun stories, completely useless. Please
| don't invest in anything related to any of those. If you have
| money burning a hole in your biomedical investment pocket, feel
| free to reach out.
| ProjectArcturis wrote:
| I believe Cyclops myths were inspired by the skulls of dwarf
| elephants who lived on the island of Sardinia.
| https://greekcitytimes.com/2023/01/28/cyclops-ancient-greeks...
| adolph wrote:
| At first I thought the dwarf elephants would have come as a
| result of the Zanclean megaflood [0] of 5m years ago, which
| did cause some odd sized animals like the small dog sized
| rabbit Nuralagus [1], but the Mediterranean dwarf elephants
| did not appear until 2.5m years ago [2].
|
| 0. https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/the-
| zanclean-m...
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuralagus
|
| 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_elephant
| jacobolus wrote:
| Dwarf elephants have appeared separately in multiple places
| and times when full-sized elephants got stranded somewhere
| and their habitat / food supply was restricted. There were
| dwarf mammoths in the California channel islands until
| pretty recently (a mammoth presumably swam from the
| mainland when the sea level was lower and they were one big
| island).
| kombookcha wrote:
| For more non-elephant examples
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_dwarfism
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| In support of your scepticism I have to say there is something
| I'm always missing in these discussions about the alleged
| function of the appendix. That thing that I'm missing is a
| straightforward description of what are the _consequences_ of
| patients losing these functions after an appendectomy. Surely
| there is more than enough population over which to do a case-
| study observational analysis? So, where is it? _What_ happens
| to the immunity or gut flora of people who have had their
| appendices removed? Anything?
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| This seems similar to asking what happens if you loose a
| number of parts whose loss does not produce immediately
| discernible detriment, or perhaps parts whose function may be
| approximated by something else in the event of a failure.
|
| Of course, it is a perfectly valid question to ask what the
| effects of losing a part are.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Hence mention of a large population who lost those parts.
| The actual detriment may not be identifiable in a random
| individual, but it will show up at scale, as the noise of
| other confounders will average out.
| starmftronajoll wrote:
| The article touches on this:
|
| > Studies have shown that infections with the really bad,
| nasty bacteria C. diff tend to be higher in people who have
| had their appendix removed.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| Thanks, I somehow missed that part. I wonder how those
| studies controlled for confounding factors -- it could well
| be that a prior tendency to more _Clostridium difficile_
| infections is correlated to a tendency to get an appendix
| infection.
|
| To be clear, I'm not necessarily as sceptical as GP
| commenter. I'm just surprised that so much talk about the
| actual function of the appendix appears to centre around
| theoreticals rather than on clinical data.
| cco wrote:
| Though I tend to agree with your train of thought, I'm always
| reminded of the French man who lost 90% of his brain mass yet
| still had a family a job and lived a normal life by all
| accounts. The human body can confound expectations for sure.
| lvncelot wrote:
| Sure, but outliers aside, I'd reckon you would see _some_
| sort of statistically relevant effent if you take, say,
| 1000 people, yank out 90% of the brain of half of them, and
| just watch them go about their day. (If the ethics
| committee would let you)
| aetherson wrote:
| You might want to invest in some creative writing for the
| IRB packet for that one.
| ejiblabahaba wrote:
| He didn't lose his brain mass, it was compressed into a
| thin shell around his skull.[0] Moreover, his IQ was 75 -
| I'm not sure ending up in the bottom 5% of human
| intelligence as a consequence of chronic hydrocephaly is a
| "normal" life.
|
| [0] https://www.untrammeledmind.com/2018/02/so-his-brains-
| just-s...
| epgui wrote:
| Not normal, but impressive nonetheless.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| So it's like how knit hats often have pompoms to hide the lumpy
| part where all the threads come together, but like... for
| bodies?
| alan-hn wrote:
| More like the lumpy part where the threads come together that
| the pompom is hiding
| hinkley wrote:
| Is this part of why everyone is so anxious to hear of the
| baby's first bowel movement? I know it's a sign the plumbing
| works, but I am not sure I would have included "the plumbing is
| connected" under 'works'.
| sidlls wrote:
| I always thought this was for two reasons: one as you say is
| to show the plumbing works, the other is because not passing
| the meconium (combination of stuff ingested while in the
| uterus) indicates other more serious conditions might exist
| barsonme wrote:
| Newborn bowel movements are also important for preventing
| more serious jaundice.
| glfharris wrote:
| There are lots of ways things don't work. The plumbing can be
| connected up wrong or the pumps can not work.
| uulu wrote:
| > Pathologist ... returns 0 when the microenvironment variables
| ...
|
| Wow, and also informative and funny. This is HN in its full
| glory!
|
| _Sorry for the off-topic_.
| stavros wrote:
| Looks like it returns 1, to me.
| keepamovin wrote:
| Awesome! Anatomy is so cool. Watching anatomy videos on YT, to
| me it seems like human bodies are composed of layers of
| biopolymers. The way all the structures are arranged and the
| intricacy and clean distinctness of the different layers is
| incredibly well organized. The human body is an amazing marvel,
| more so in than out in many ways.
|
| Regarding gut bacteria, can you actually see biofilms of
| bacteria in the gut? Where do they reside? Or you can't tell
| with the eye?
| pazimzadeh wrote:
| Nothing you said convinces me that the uvula and appendix have
| no purpose. I assume that ends of things do come together a lot
| during development, but why does that imply no importance?
| Sounds like a classic case of chesterton's fence. and I hate to
| say it but argument from authority is pretty boring.
| prometheon1 wrote:
| Is it an argument from authority or an argument from
| experience?
| pazimzadeh wrote:
| Experience would mean he's taken out a bunch of people's
| appendices and nothing bad has happened. Which still
| wouldn't prove that the appendix has no purpose at all.
| glfharris wrote:
| He's a pathologist, so if he has removed someone's
| appendix they'd probably be dead. Pedantry aside, your
| point still stands.
| epgui wrote:
| Experience can mean a lot of things.
| baxtr wrote:
| And there is nothing in the article either that convinced
| you?
| pegasus wrote:
| I think you misread GP, they only said the appendix is not an
| evolutionary mystery, not that it doesn't serve a purpose. In
| fact, he noted the presence of lymphoid tissue, which makes
| is useful to the organism, as stated by the article as well.
| pazimzadeh wrote:
| The main article claims that the appendix is not useless.
|
| I don't think I misread GP: "they're just
| the ends of things that come together."
| [something about cyclops and male pregnancy]
| "Fun stories, completely useless"
|
| At best it's a series of straw man arguments with sprinkles
| of appeal to authority.
| saurik wrote:
| I feel like maybe they didn't read the article and
| misinterpreted the double-negative in the headline.
| epgui wrote:
| Mentioning their background is not necessarily an appeal
| to authority fallacy. It's just metadata.
| pegasus wrote:
| I read "fun stories" to refer to cyclops, male pregnancy
| and the deep mystery of the real purpose of the appendix.
| That's a plausible critique to me, and one which is
| compatible with the appendix being still useful. Same for
| the first comment you mention. Yes, it's just the ends of
| things that come together, but life makes use of that
| real-estate anyway. It's just not critical, and there is
| only a slight dent in immunity when removed.
| brylie wrote:
| They used paragraphs to separate complete thoughts.
|
| Note, GP explicitly mentions the following in their last
| paragraph, and make no claims that the appendix is
| useless:
|
| > This idea that the vermiform appendix is some deep
| evolutionary mystery is sort of a low point of medicine
| that occasionally pokes its head up. It ranks up there
| with male pregnancy, and various birth defects that have
| given rise to stories of monsters, like Cyclops. Fun
| stories, completely useless.
| wilgertvelinga wrote:
| I've got the proof of the embryology in my throat. My uvula is
| partially split. See:
| https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23943-bifid-u...
| picadores wrote:
| As you described, nature just joints the pieces in a best
| effort and when it goes wrong, its never very likely to grow up
| to have appendictis. So the absence of anecdotes about failure
| is a indication of vitality of an element not of any designs.
|
| My question: Did you discover during discection differences on
| the appendix depending on nutrition? Of course, people usually
| do have hospital meals in them when they drop by on the
| stainless steel desk.. none the less.. there might be bits
| stuck to the inflamed material..
| GuB-42 wrote:
| Even if that's just a seam, so to speak, it doesn't mean it
| can't evolve, I guess.
|
| So the question is: why do we have a part of the body that
| seems to serve no purpose besides getting infected? And if it
| is not, in fact, useless, what purpose does it serve? Logically
| it should improve survivability more than the occasional
| infection decreases it, otherwise it should have disappeared,
| or at least, be different than it is now.
|
| Unless appendicitis is a relatively modern disease and didn't
| affect survivability significantly and for long enough for
| evolution to do its work, which is a common hypothesis.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| Natura nihil frustra facit.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Is an assumption. There is no evidence to say we are 100%
| optimised . Although I think it is likely.
| maxbond wrote:
| What about vestigial stuff, like leg bones on whales?
|
| https://www.icr.org/i/stage_248/whalelegs_stage.jpg
|
| Similarly, what about things like congenital diseases? Why
| does sickle cell anemia seem to be an imperfect answer to
| malaria? Etc.
|
| My suspicion is that evolution satisfices rather than
| optimizes, because once a trait which is in the process of
| changing ceases to be the limiting factor in reproduction it
| ceases to change rapidly. So unlike an optimizer, evolution
| often doesn't take free variables to extremes (eg remove the
| leg bones entirely) and doesn't find a global minimum, it
| finds a satisfactory location in phase space close to it's
| previous position.
|
| Or maybe it optimizes on a higher level, and satisficing is
| more advantageous because optimizing to local conditions will
| leave you unprepared for future environmental changes, and
| tolerating things like vestigial traits creates opportunities
| for advantageous mutations. I think both explanations could
| coexist. This is all speculation, to be clear.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.h...
|
| Date: October 8, 2007 Source: Duke University Medical Center
| Summary: Long denigrated as vestigial or useless, the appendix
| now appears to have a reason to be - as a "safe house" for the
| beneficial bacteria living in the human gut. The gut is populated
| with different microbes that help the digestive system break down
| the foods we eat. In return, the gut provides nourishment and
| safety to the bacteria. Parker now believes that the immune
| system cells found in the appendix are there to protect, rather
| than harm, the good bacteria.
| feedsmgmt wrote:
| A reserve of good bacteria to repopulate your guts in case you
| consume something bad that needs to get flushed out. Aren't
| tonsils something similar?
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| Yes, tonsils are another organ that was at one point declared
| useless but proved to be important.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| For some definition of "important".
| looping8 wrote:
| It fits "important". It is not essential like some organs
| but if it protects immune system and bacteria, it is
| definitely important.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| Would you call helping fight infection and condition the
| immune system is "important"?
|
| I would.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Only if it helps a medium-large amount.
|
| How many percent better would you say it makes the immune
| system?
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| I'm not sure I can begin to answer that question given
| the immune system's complexity... How many percent
| smarter does your frontal lobe's top left corner make
| you?
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > top left corner
|
| If you have to leave in most of an organ for it to
| function, then it's a lot more important than an organ
| where you can chop out the whole thing with minimal
| consequences.
| wly_cdgr wrote:
| Well yeah. Half the time that's like, the best part of the book.
| dinkleberg wrote:
| Haha that is how I interpreted the title too. Was thinking who
| in their right mind would question the value of an appendix?
| kmoser wrote:
| It took me until the third paragraph to understand the actual
| topic.
| jongjong wrote:
| I heard that tonsils also have an immune function.
| ornel wrote:
| Primary source here:
|
| https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.2...
| jojobas wrote:
| The immune role of the appendix has been known for decades.
| cryptonector wrote:
| I wonder whether exploratory surgery to try to "squeeze clear"
| any blockage might be a good idea, though it could easily be a
| terrible idea, no doubt.
| fargle wrote:
| it is, in fact, usually the most interesting part of the document
| denton-scratch wrote:
| What purpose is served by the little toe?
|
| I suspect it provides some ( _very_ ) marginal help with
| balancing, at the cost of a microlimb that is particularly
| exposed to breakage by stubbing. Having broken each of my little
| toes by stubbing (on different occasions), I can attest that a
| broken little toe definitely makes it harder to balance. Hell, it
| makes it hard to stand.
|
| I seriously doubt that there's enough strength in a little toe to
| provide much help with balancing. So given its propensity for
| injury, why have little toes not evolved away in large bipeds? (I
| don't think birds or quadripeds are prone to toe-stubbing)
| Ekaros wrote:
| It is probably linked to fingers in some gene expressions. And
| 5 fingers I would say is more effective than 4. So changing of
| number of toes might also affect fingers. So better just to
| keep the extra. After all it is marginal.
| lloeki wrote:
| Doesn't necessarily need to be effective motor function: it's a
| probe that provides tactile feedback, both for posture and
| balance, as well as being the one who gets hit often - being on
| the outer edge - possibly saving more critical foot areas from
| irreparable damage. By way of consequence it's helpful when
| fully functional but not essential as you are prone to hit it
| by "design" and make it temporarily nonfunctional every so
| often, all without impairing the whole foot function critical
| for bipedal walk as humans do it. Also, redundancy: when you
| break some other toe you're super glad there's a pinky, however
| comparatively small and weak.
|
| Anecdata: as a skateboarder it's obvious (sometimes painfully
| so) how every toe matters to get the most information from
| beneath one's feet.
| adammarples wrote:
| Little toes significantly widen your base. Yours probably don't
| because you've forced them into shoes your whole life and they
| are crushed against the others.
| Fire-Dragon-DoL wrote:
| When I used to windsurf, it was pretty obvious how important
| the little toe is for balance, it drives where to push. I can't
| tell you why, but it was the toe that gave back the most
| feedback and told me how to push with my feet
| searchingalways wrote:
| I really thought this was going to be about a book appendix.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-08 23:02 UTC)