Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why haven't we observed mutations of new body parts?
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 91 of 99 (427236)
10-10-2007 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by bernerbits
10-10-2007 2:49 PM


Re: IC parts
bernerbits writes:
I'm hoping there are some creationists on here that will give me some *real* food for thought. Failing that, people who can help me expand my debate skills on the subject.
You are welcome to debate with one of our creationists. We don't just have creationists here. We have the crackpot kinds, too. I try to stay clear of them because I can't afford the drugs necessary to understand what they are saying, but you are welcome to try.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by bernerbits, posted 10-10-2007 2:49 PM bernerbits has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 92 of 99 (427286)
10-10-2007 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by bernerbits
10-10-2007 1:05 PM


Re: IC parts
I think IC in its most useful definition would actually imply some vital subset of parts that is fully and completely interdependent, not that the whole machine is fully interdependent.
Perhaps. I'm still not convinced that IC, even in this more useful definition, actually describes anything that actually exists, which is what makes the whole thing so moot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by bernerbits, posted 10-10-2007 1:05 PM bernerbits has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by bernerbits, posted 10-11-2007 8:10 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 93 of 99 (427339)
10-11-2007 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by crashfrog
10-10-2007 7:57 PM


Re: IC parts
I'm still not convinced that IC, even in this more useful definition, actually describes anything that actually exists
Me either, but many of these guys will claim victory for the smallest logical fallacy committed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2007 7:57 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
BattleAxeDime
Junior Member (Idle past 5947 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 06-19-2007


Message 94 of 99 (427901)
10-13-2007 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Taz
10-09-2007 1:27 PM


Re: New body parts and bilateral symmetry
I'm sorry I took so long to reply back.
Have you seen my earlier agrument for IC with the insectal wing? Entomology is really all I can debate on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Taz, posted 10-09-2007 1:27 PM Taz has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 95 of 99 (427909)
10-13-2007 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by BattleAxeDime
10-08-2007 5:56 PM


Irreducible complexity
Irreducible complexity concerns the inability of a biological unit to function without any one of its parts, and thus the corresponding conclusion that the unit could not have evolved through slow steps, each intermediate step being essentially non-functional.
I think you have it exactly right! That is the way the IDists have defined IC.
However, it has pretty much nothing to do with the evolution of biological structures in the real world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by BattleAxeDime, posted 10-08-2007 5:56 PM BattleAxeDime has not replied

  
Franatic25
Junior Member (Idle past 5948 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 96 of 99 (432903)
11-08-2007 11:36 PM


I see what I would consider evidence of body modifications today...though we wouldnt see it in mammalian, reptilian, or any other large multicelled organisms in our lifetimes...
But take the case of animal that appears to have a precursor to a new body part. What do flying squirrels, sugar gliders, and certain tree snakes have in common? In the mammals, we see that they simply have a skin membrane which can be stretched out during a jump, helping to glide further...these creatures can jump from nearly any sized tree without injury, and has enough control of their membranes (and apparently, already enough instinct to know how to manipulate these membranes for a certain purpose...weave right, weave left...etc...as if their brains are being rewired along with the body). The snakes that can also "glide" do so by flattening their bodies, and they are quite proficient at it.
As far as the human body goes...I myself feel that we have several organs whose uses are ambiguous at best...many like spleens, appendixes, u can easily live without whatever their contribution is to the body (spleens are much more understood these days)...
However, I would say that the next thing u would notice on a human would not be more limbs...rather, the chemical/hormone producing plants in the brain and other glands will change their "recipe" long before we see that...this is just an opinion...
We see what a thyroid gland does when it is either hypo' or hyper' active. We see the hypothalamus...and how its hormones contribute to the growth of humans...we see the cascades of chemicals that occur in brains while having fun or under the influence (seratonin and dopamine being directly linked to the feeling of "euphoria" or enjoying the moment). I think the biggest changes we will see in the years to come would be in the brain...we already have a few uncommon cases of people who process the optical imput of the eye in slightly different parts of the brain. And how some people who are blind DO in fact develop better usage of their other remaining senses...hearing being the most obvious. It is the most complex, amazing machine in the body...and due to its parts...and how it is directly related to our success as a species...I would venture it would continue to be the quickest changing part of the human body...
And on a side note...I did once have an extra body part...an extra wisdom tooth on the upper left side..I kid u not.

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Wounded King, posted 11-09-2007 3:38 AM Franatic25 has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 97 of 99 (432926)
11-09-2007 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Franatic25
11-08-2007 11:36 PM


And on a side note...I did once have an extra body part...an extra wisdom tooth on the upper left side..I kid u not.
was it congenital?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Franatic25, posted 11-08-2007 11:36 PM Franatic25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Franatic25, posted 11-09-2007 12:20 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Franatic25
Junior Member (Idle past 5948 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 98 of 99 (432969)
11-09-2007 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Wounded King
11-09-2007 3:38 AM


I would think so. I believe the dentist referred to the case an a hyperdontial tooth. But I dont remember what the term is for a MOLAR hyperdontial tooth, they are much more rare. What are more common are Mesiodens...or an extra encisor. There is debate about where they come from. Theories include a splitting of one of the 2nd teeth...or a 3rd tooth simply developing behind the second...which in my case I would be the later, since it was by far the last tooth to erupt. U could debate either way as to if this is congenital or not. But if its a 3rd tooth developed independently of the 2nd sets...I would lean toward a slight genetic mutation...therefore congenital...but once again, its all debatable in this particular case.
Edited by Franatic25, : No reason given.
Edited by Franatic25, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Wounded King, posted 11-09-2007 3:38 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Franatic25
Junior Member (Idle past 5948 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 99 of 99 (432983)
11-09-2007 12:59 PM


I would add though that I personally had another case of DNA mutation. Of which there is very little known about its origins and causes due to its rarity (no funding goes to the few, mostly to the vast genetic mutations). In my case, I have ACC (adenoid cystic carcinoma). A very rare cancer, with interesting traits. I bring it up only because of what we DO know...it is NOT congenital...but neither is it known why it occurs, but toxicity in the lungs (tobacco, or other chemicals) has been pretty much ruled out as well. It appears to be a sudden drastic mutation of the genetic level of a single cell...
People can live with it for YEARS...literally, without consequence. I apparently had it since I was 5 or 6 (their guess) but it didnt start to show until I was 13...and it wasnt diagnosed until I was 20. Its is VERY slow growing...and causes no pain.
What is interesting though, is that chemotherapy, and radiotherapy have little to no effect on it. Why? Because apparently, unlike popular belief...radiation causes the most damage to a cell, and its DNA when the cell is dividing...our normal body cells (minus nervous system cells) repicate very frequently, radiation to these cells is bad news.
Unlike normal cells though (and just about every other cancer) these cells replicate rarely...the cell walls acting as a protective agent to the cells dna, and other parts of the cell needed to survive....likes its own personal "ozone layer, protecting us from the suns radiation".
Perhaps in the future, this could also be a trait normal cells might pick up on...slower multiplication...if the normal cells in our body dont replicate often...they are MUCH less succeptable to the dangers radiation causes to dna.
(Also, already had the surgery to have it removed...but due to metastasis...it is nearly impossible for the doctors to believe that it is gone for good...and the "new" infected area would not show up for years...a potentially deadly disease...but since it takes so long to develop...not one that is a death sentence any more than old age is.)

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024