3

According to this, the "evolutionists" believe the appendix to have evolved twice, independently.

Incidentally, the appendix seems to pose other challenges for evolutionary arguments. As it is found in both marsupial and placental mammals, evolutionists are forced to believe that the same appendix evolved twice, independently, in a striking case of organ-level convergent evolution.

Is this an actual claim of "evolutionists", or do they have some other explanation for the dual appendices?

6

I don't know who the "evolutionists" are, so it's hard to address whether or not they are forced to believe what the quote says they are forced to believe.

From Comparative anatomy and phylogenetic distribution of the mammalian cecal appendix:

Cladistic analyses indicate that the appendix has evolved independently at least twice (at least once in diprotodont marsupials and at least once in Euarchontoglires).

Regarding whether it is the "same" appendix, this review article, (Multiple independent appearances of the cecal appendix in mammalian evolution and an investigation of related ecological and anatomical factors) describes the wide variety of appendix shape and size relative to the rest of the intestine.

I think it is too strong to call it the "same" appendix given the wide variance in shape and size, and its independent evolution.

| improve this answer | |
  • 4
    I think a very important point clearly explained in the first paper is that many animals lacking an appendix proper have an immune-rich caecum, showing that this may be the starting point in appendix evolution. Also: the ancient origin or origins of the cecal appendix in the Euarchontoglires and the parallel evolution of the structure in the marsupials and placentals strongly support the idea that the function of the structure is biologically important. – nico Jun 9 '14 at 22:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .