Should we have bunches of neutral body parts?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the human appendix and coccyx fall into the category of 'large collections of cells' which are essentially neutral and of no benefit to the organism?

Is that why? I thought it was because I was answering this statement of yours: So are you claiming that any 'neutral' body parts I find in organisms are simply garbage collection?

Actually what I'm surprised by is your condescension. I am well aware of the timescales. I was providing an example to see how you would respond, but I wasn't aware your responses would center on your misperception of my temporal cognitive abilities. You sort of dodged my question: are you claiming that ANY neutral body part is simply a result of garbage collection? Because now it sounds as though you allow for the possibility of neutral body parts in organisms, but that they will be outnumbered by 'active' ones - which is NOT what you said in your earlier post; nor was it what HC said: "neutral body parts don't exist b/c natural selection gets rid of them" (paraphrase).

Dude, we are obviously miscommunicating here because I don't even know what you are arguing at this point.Let's start over. You posted this: I proffered the coccyx and appendix as examles of neutral body parts, you pointed out that these are vestigial in nature and not some benign mutation.I AGREE! Let's move on.I ask you again, do you still stand by this statement you made (above): "there can be no such thing as a 'neutral' body part?"If you do, then I shouldn't be able to find any organism that has some benign mutation (neutral body part) that doesn't currently or didn't PREVIOUSLY benefit the organism, correct?

I'm not sure why you feel the need to be a total ass when I'm trying to have a simple discussion with you, but I think I'll do myself a good turn and NOT continue to subject myself to your posts.

Agreed. All body parts have some cost. The term 'neutral body part' seems to be interpreted differently by each poster (myself included).Hector's query of gman: To respond to this adequately we need to be sure of what definition of 'neutral body part' gman intends.I take it to mean a non-vestigial appendage, growth, organ, blastocyst, etc. that is the result of random mutation that provides NO competitive advantage or disadvantage.Ergo an Emu's wings would not be considered neutral, but perhaps something like the lack of wisdom teeth in homo sapiens is.It's possible gman is confusing vestigial 'body parts' (pelvis in snakes, coccyx in humans, etc.) with a distinct, benign mutation that has conveys no competitive advantage.