Now on ScienceBlogs: Charles Darwin February 12, 1809 - April 19, 1882
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
The history of science knows scores of instances where an investigator was in the possession of all the important facts for a new theory but simply failed to ask the right questions.
Ernst Mayr
« Microsoft owns bioinformatics? | Main | Darwin and the vermiform appendix »
More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!
Posted on: August 22, 2009 12:01 AM, by PZ Myers
So…anybody with an institutional subscription care to send me a copy of this paper? My university's subscription only lets me see articles in this journal after they've aged for a year.
Smith HF, Fisher RE, Everett ML, Thomas AD, Randal Bollinger R, Parker W (2009) Comparative anatomy and phylogenetic distribution of the mammalian cecal appendix. J Evol Biol. 2009 Aug 12. [Epub ahead of print]
Already got it, thanks everyone!
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/118166
HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>
dynamics of cats 02.10.2012
greg laden's blog 02.09.2012
the pump handle 02.09.2012
dean's corner 02.09.2012
erv 02.09.2012
Comments
Posted by: Newfie | August 22, 2009 12:11 AM
the power of minions
Posted by: Cam | August 22, 2009 12:16 AM
Done....
Posted by: Odonata | August 22, 2009 12:18 AM
That sure was fast! You guys are good.
Posted by: Stan | August 22, 2009 12:20 AM
Damn. I guess I was slower on the uptake than I thought.
Ah well. You can't have too many PDF copies of an article, right?
--
Stan
Posted by: bsk | August 22, 2009 12:21 AM
I'm looking forward to your opinion on this one, if it's the paper I think it is...
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 22, 2009 12:22 AM
Sadly I only subscribe to The Egg Daily and Dumbledores Knitting Quarterly. I've let God Bless You expire. Sorry PZ.
Posted by: Blake | August 22, 2009 12:39 AM
pfft. What are you doing wasting your time with that comparative anatomy bollocks, PZ? Everyone knows that this is the paper of the week to be reading! http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5943/977
OMZeus it's so exciting! I printed it out at work today and now I'm reading it at home all snugly in my bed!.....at 12:30 am .......on a Friday......oh good heavens I need help.
Posted by: Bjørn Østman | August 22, 2009 12:43 AM
Hey! I was going to blog about that paper this evening.
Posted by: Bjørn Østman | August 22, 2009 12:47 AM
Blake @7: Titles like this are surely outlawed in some states:
Printed Assemblies of Inorganic Light-Emitting Diodes for Deformable and Semitransparent Displays
Posted by: Autumn | August 22, 2009 12:47 AM
Cue the cries of "See! It's not vestigial, so evoloution is Wrong!"
In 3, 2, 1. . .
Posted by: Big City
|
August 22, 2009 12:52 AM
See! It's not vestigial, so evoloution is Wrong!
Posted by: dave
|
August 22, 2009 1:03 AM
open access!
Posted by: anaxagoras | August 22, 2009 1:18 AM
That is some wicked cool stuff!
Since (1) the immune system can regulate the bacterial populations in the rest of the gut, and (2) bacteria can "communicate" (for lack of a better word) with each other in the formation of biofilms, then wouldn't it be interesting to see if there is an immune-mediated signal to the appendix-resident biofilms to trigger rapid reconstitution of the gut flora when necessary? Or in other words, could it be possible that when the normal gut flora have been flushed from the colon, re-inoculation isn't dependent on "constant state of growth and shedding" of the biofilms, that it could be actively regulated by the immune system? Just a crazy thought.... Immunology rocks :)
Posted by: What | August 22, 2009 1:55 AM
I have heard positive things about this blog and decided to give it a visit. The thread about this article has made a great first impression upon me. :-)
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 22, 2009 2:00 AM
See! It's not vestigial, so evoloution is Wrong!
sarcasm, of course, but since someone actually DID take the paper as meaning evolution was wrong, because appendixes in humans aren't vestigial (no shit, it was early today in another thread!), I would remind those thinking function =/ vestigial to read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html
saying an organ has a function is not relevant really to whether it is defined correctly as vestigial or not.
Posted by: what | August 22, 2009 2:01 AM
There are times when surgeons may elect to "sterilize" the gut of a surgical patient by giving broad spectrum antibiotics. Does anybody know if the cecal appendix is known to play a role in the re-population of the gut with normal flora?
Posted by: AlanWCan | August 22, 2009 2:20 AM
Can't wait for the fundie rationalisations to begin: "See, it has a function -- jeebus did it. The scientist-nazis have been hiding it. Well, except these scientist-nazis of course. They're right! Well, except for that "has been maintained in mammalian evolution for 80 million years or longer" bit obviously..."
Head assplodes!
Posted by: What | August 22, 2009 2:28 AM
Blake
That's a nice paper. And long anticipated. How long until we have 1 lb top-of-the line notebook PCs? My intervertebral discs and I can't wait!
Posted by: anaxagoras | August 22, 2009 2:39 AM
What (#16):
I don't think they know that for sure but I think that is their hypothesis. The structures of biofilms can reduce the efficacy of antibiotics and increase the ability of bacteria to survive adverse conditions.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 22, 2009 2:47 AM
I should clarify:
the person who posted in the other thread was convinced this paper proved, by function, that the human appendix was not vestigial, therefore evolution was wrong.
which is actually incorrect on both counts:
whether it has a function is not relevant to whether it is vestigial (which is why I posted to the link to the discussion on talk origins, which does a nice job of defining what we mean by vestigial wrt to evolution)
and
whether it is or is not vestigial (it is, still, IMO) has little bearing on the ToE.
Posted by: What | August 22, 2009 3:12 AM
anaxagoras
I guess a good question would be: Do folks without an appendix have difficulty repopulating there gut with natural floral following gut sterilization?
Posted by: What | August 22, 2009 3:22 AM
Ichthyic
I agree. The notion of function is silly and human-centric to me. The universe is composed of matter and fields that interact. Which interactions are functions?
Posted by: Raiko | August 22, 2009 3:43 AM
Be glad that your university has problems with papers like that - mine is lacking a prescription to Nature Methods and that is an enormous pain. :P
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 22, 2009 3:50 AM
What, #22
Function in this case only means it does something. It has no reason, no purpose for what it does, it just does it. It is the function of lignin to let trees grow tall, and that function it performs very well.
Posted by: Bob O'H | August 22, 2009 3:50 AM
PZed, join ESEB and you get a subscription to JEB thrown in. It will also make it cheaper to attend the next ESEB meeting in 2 years' time, in Tübingen in Germany. You can use the trip to visit Grrl and I in Frankfurt too.
(I'm on the editorial board of JEB, so I feel obliged to go on a one-man membership blitz occasionally)
Posted by: Daniel de Rauglaudre
|
August 22, 2009 3:54 AM
Scientific papers should be always free of charge.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 22, 2009 3:58 AM
I'd lend you my subscriptions to the various scientific journals that my university have but unfortunately it requires that you are a student/faculty/alumni of the university and the passcode to access it is also my pin...
okay maybe should change that.
Posted by: What | August 22, 2009 4:11 AM
Alan Kellogg
Thanks but I was responding to the notion that some things have a function and some do not. Nothing is without function so the distinction of having a function isn't very distinguished.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 22, 2009 4:37 AM
@ 28,
[citation needed]
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 22, 2009 5:10 AM
Nothing is completely useless, it can serve as a bad example. -Anon
Posted by: Ray Moscow | August 22, 2009 5:27 AM
Done as well.
I've been very pleased to find that my Open University account gives access to pretty much all major scientific journals. Plus, the course work so far has been excellent.
Posted by: Bjoern Brembs | August 22, 2009 6:06 AM
There's a room o Friendfeed which is there for cases where we don't have access. You just go there, ask for the paper and someone will have access and send it to you:
http://friendfeed.com/references-wanted
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 22, 2009 6:43 AM
There are things that perform a function because of what they are, and things that perform a function because of what we use them for. A thing does not have to do what we wish it to do to have a function, even if the only thing it can do is occupy space. Things that occupy this reality with us don't have to serve a purpose for us, it is up to us to find a way to use them to our purposes.
Posted by: Rich | August 22, 2009 7:56 AM
Is it legal to get someone to send you a copy of a document that has to be paid for to gain access?
Posted by: druidbros | August 22, 2009 8:31 AM
Thank you concern troll.
Posted by: Darby | August 22, 2009 9:57 AM
I would think that clearing the system for a colonoscopy is closer to what a bad diarrheal disease would do than gut sterilization.
Plus, that would provide a bigger study group, and folks who were essentially healthy except for that nasty chemical-induced flush, which also might get closer to a bout of, say, beaver fever.
Posted by: amphiox | August 22, 2009 10:00 AM
People who have had their appendix removed surgically suffer no observable ill effects, as far as we know. So even if the appendix has a function, that function itself seems to be a non-essential one. We could in a sense consider the function to be vestigial too.
Though it would be interesting in light of this paper to look and see if there is any association of appendectomy with inflammatory bowel diseases like Crohn's and Ulcerative Colitis, etc. One could also look to see if there is any association between appendectomy and vulnerability to known diseases related to disturbance of normal gut flora, such as C. difficile infection. Other diarrheal infections like cholera might also be worth looking at.
Posted by: amphiox | August 22, 2009 10:06 AM
"Is it legal to get someone to send you a copy of a document that has to be paid for to gain access?"
That's funny. I don't know what the letter of copyright law says in this case, but can you imagine any self-respecting science journal trying to go after some researcher for sending a copy of a paper to a colleague? They'd become the laughing stock of the industry and their prestige amongst scientists would plummet like a stone.
The unrestricted dissemination of scientific results (ie, publications) is a foundational part of the scientific method.
Posted by: anti.theist | August 22, 2009 10:11 AM
PZ's blog is the ultimate personal knowledge and information tool. Imagine if you had a blog with 1,000,000 hits a month. It is more godly than google.
MUAHHAAH I would dethrone god.
Posted by: Apophenia | August 22, 2009 10:55 AM
"Is it legal to get someone to send you a copy of a document that has to be paid for to gain access?"
No, it is not legal. As a medical writer for pharma, I would be in deep doo doo if I used an article obtained by "hey, can somebody send me a copy of this?" I have to fill out forms, etc, before I see the full article.
No, I'm not a concern troll, either. But when I saw PZ's posting, the first thing that went thru my mind was "uh oh, that's a no no."
Just thought I should mention it as sometimes companies can get really aggressive enforcing copywrite.
Posted by: raven | August 22, 2009 11:12 AM
Creationists can get a little bonkers over vestigal human features of which there are many. Becaue they have no explanation. My favorite is a muscle in the forearm that does nothing, and is even absent in some people. In chimpanzees it is well developed. It helps with grasping as they climb trees and swing through them. Creationists hate that image.
They get glassy eyed over atavisms. Humans are born occasionally with tails and rarely covered with fur. Whales with legs are occasionally caught.
But we didn't come from no monkeys, no how no way.
Posted by: metaeditor | August 22, 2009 11:49 AM
wait, you're a medical writer?
and you wrote "copywrite"?
Posted by: Apophenia | August 22, 2009 11:52 AM
"wait, you're a medical writer?
and you wrote "copywrite"?
Hey, I'm a writer, not a speller. That's why I have editors.
:)
Posted by: daveau | August 22, 2009 11:57 AM
Yes, everyone knows it's "copywright".
Of course it's illegal. Is anyone going to enforce it? Don't know. As long as it's not ubiquitous or high profile; good thing nobody knows who PZ is...
Posted by: Apophenia | August 22, 2009 12:09 PM
"Of course it's illegal. Is anyone going to enforce it? Don't know. As long as it's not ubiquitous or high profile; good thing nobody knows who PZ is..."
Oh, yeah, I forgot. He's got that anonymity thing going for him...hee.
Posted by: Anonym | August 22, 2009 2:26 PM
Uh-oh! Now the god-bots have a new stick to throw at PZ -- illegal!!!
Posted by: What | August 22, 2009 2:56 PM
Allan Kellog #33
Your last post is a bit more inline with my perspective on the use of the word "function". My main objection is that word serves little purpose and is usually superfluous. As an example take your statement: "It is the function of lignin to let trees grow tall ...". What is lost from this statement if one simply states: Lignin lets trees grow tall?
Posted by: What | August 22, 2009 3:00 PM
Since I am new to this blog would somebody please tell me who are the most disruptive theists commenting here. I would like to avoid discussion with the willfully irrational.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 22, 2009 3:51 PM
What's missing is the how. How does lignin let trees grow tall? What lignin does, how it functions as part of the cells of trunk and branches, is how it lets trees grow tall. So one could state simple that lignin lets trees grow tall, but that is not the whole story.
Posted by: What | August 22, 2009 4:13 PM
Alan
I don't see how your last point addresses the superfluousness of the word?
Posted by: ambulocetus | August 22, 2009 4:17 PM
What @ 49
Hey that's cheating! You have to lurk for months like I did.
Posted by: amphiox | August 22, 2009 4:31 PM
Apophenia, like I posted before, no self-respecting science journal is going to make an issue of a scientist obtaining a copy of a paper in order to review it and critique it, because that is the whole (and really, only) point for scientific journals to exist in the first place.
Now, if PZ were to reproduce material in that paper and present it to his class in a lesson, or write a book with a reproduction of a figure in the paper, or something like that, then it would be different.
Posted by: Apophenia | August 22, 2009 8:45 PM
Amphiox,
Yes, one would think that for individual scientific use and critique it would not be a big deal. However, sometimes the almighty buck is more important to these companies than sharing of scientific information. Sad, really. Let's hope it doesn't get RIAA crazy.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 22, 2009 9:01 PM
Given that PZ has used it for one of the personal use exemptions, legitimate critic, I don't think any company will come after him. The companies really don't want to test the legitimate personal use exemptions to the copyright laws. If they ever lost that in court, some online copying via bit torrenting may be valid. If some, maybe all. Best not to go there...
Posted by: windy | August 22, 2009 9:17 PM
Science journal, no. Wiley InterScience? Hmmm.
And yes, it is illegal, so maybe at least some discretion would be warranted. Why not ask the author for a PDF like the rest of us mortals do? They are usually allowed to distribute them.