Should we have bunches of neutral body parts?

If you are considering 'body parts' to mean large collections of cells, then Jacen has already pointed out that there can be no such thing as a 'neutral' body part. Such parts would still impose a finite cost to the organsim without any benefit in return, and would therefore be weeded out by natural selection.This would seem to be a very satisfactory answer to your inital question.

If you find the appendix and coccyx a puzzle it is because you are unable to visualise the magnitude of the time-scales involved. If there was no "garbage collection" we'd be totally weighed down by vestigial equipment like this. Besides, the appendix helps maintain the bowel-blood barrier for bacteria in this region, so is still of some benefit and the coccyx is simply left there to give creationists something to worry about.

Once again I draw your attention to timescales. The time taken for natural selection to effect such changes might be beyond your comprehension. That would account for why you're suprised to find such depreciated items still present(albeit in reduced form) and I'm not. Standing this on its head, if "garbage collection" was not performed then over such extended periods the so-called "neutral body parts" would outnumber the active ones.

Remind me how we got to things being the result of garbage collection? Well, you might be able to imagine things dissapearing the very instant they are no longer required, but I can't and nobody has ever suggested this might happen due to natural selection. Which is why I keep reminding you about timescales. If you still fail to understand why species are not overburdened with neutral bodyparts, then it is probably because you fail to see the way in which they might be phased-out over time.

Well after reviewing the disproportionate amount of effort required to gain your agreement above, I hesitate to continue... ...however seeing as you have clearly laid a clever trap it would be inconsiderate not to oblige: every collection of cells requires the host to expend resourses in maintaining them. Resources that being finite, may be used to the advantage of the organism elsewhere.So if, for want of a better term, the "bodypart" in question confers more cost than benefit then yes, it becomes a candidate for being weeded out over many generations. To become established in the first place requires a benefit to have been conferred at some point so the probability of finding a well-developed neutral bodypart is extremely low. This may not suit your BLACK and WHITE thinking, but I'm afraid it's how natural selection operates. We would therefore expect to see transitional stages in every species.Now you can tell me all about your example of a benign mutation that was never of any benefit to the host.

I'm not at all sure you deserve to get away with such uncivil language. In all my replies I have tried to show where your thinking might be at fault and have patiently rephrased my answers several times over in an effort to show how there can be no such thing as a completely neutral bodypart. Not only have you disappointed me by resorting to calling me an ass, I expect you have also disappointed many people who were looking forward to your exceptional example.

Brad, it seems that I can count on you to restore my faith in human nature.This message has been edited by Electron, 25 February 2005 22:20 AM

In the context of this discussion there is no difference between the two. Both represent a cost to the organism that it could do better without. Explain why that is wrong and you'll have cracked it, otherwise gman has an answer to why life does not have a huge number of neutral, non-functional body parts.