"What does the appendix do? Biologists explain the complicated evolution of this inconvenient organ (The Conversation, 9 March 2026). In this story (NOT scientific article), Phil Starks and Lilia Goncharova use the adjective evolutionary a dozen times. Try “dormitive” for “evolutionary” in the following examples without falling asleep:
The evolutionary story of the appendix
…is supported by evolutionary analyses
A broader evolutionary survey found that the appendix evolved
 |
| Scientist entering trance to meditate on his idol and on 747s emerging from tornadoes in junkyards. |
Evolutionary importance and modern life
the evolutionary pressures that once favored the appendix have largely disappeared.
A structure that was once a global evolutionary advantage is now more of a medical liability.
This mismatch between past adaptations and present environments illustrates a core principle in evolutionary medicine
If evolutionists didn’t have circular reasoning, they wouldn’t have any reasoning at all.
These phrases are all vacuous, empty, deceptive: pretending to explain something, they merely reinforce the evolutionary bias of the authors. (Evolutionary bias, you notice, is real. Never would they consider anything other than evolution to explain something.)
When a trait evolves repeatedly and independently, biologists call this convergent evolution. Convergence does not mean a structure is indispensable. But it does suggest that, under certain environmental conditions, having that structure provided a consistent enough advantage for evolution to favor it again and again.
In other words, the appendix is unlikely to be a useless evolutionary accident.
It is still an evolutionary accident, they are saying, but it is a “useful” accident. It has a dormitive virtue that helps put their readers to sleep, where dreams of emergence dance like sugar plums in their heads."
CEH
