scitsofreaky Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I wanted to start a thread where we can post good online science resources. In no particular order:http://www.evolutionary.tripod.com/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html http://www.stephenjaygould.org/(especially Evolution as fact and theory) http://www.talkorigins.org/ http://www.pandasthumb.org(hmm, having some trouble with this site tonight) But it's "just a theory" http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html and our very own http://www.reverendatheistar.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Hey... I know I'm being lazy *sigh*... and I know this may be a bit off topic... but, do any of you science enthusiast know why the higher level animals lost the ability to regenerate body parts? Just curious if any of you evolutionary topic fanatics have come across this in your research... Heck, if you just know why off the top of your head... it would be much appreciated, no need to cite resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted May 10, 2006 Author Share Posted May 10, 2006 Off the top of my head, I would say that your wording is a bit off. The larger animals didn't lose the ability, they never had it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RHEMtron Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 what freaky said. other than that brief moment when an organism was just a couple cells, they dont regenerate. if your leg gets cut off, it wont regenerate because there's too many different structures, or actually, too much differentiation of cells... unlike a starfish, which obviously upon examination, has no varying structures, or very little variation in cells in it's limbs. that's the simplest i can put it without going into heavier terms of biology and genetics. hope that helps give a basic concept and geez... dont be lazy. just click on one of the links provided haha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted May 11, 2006 Author Share Posted May 11, 2006 I should also put Zach's site up too: http://www.freethoughtmedia.com/evolution101.ftm I'm not sure how I forgot that one. and geez... dont be lazy. just click on one of the links provided hahalol. What's funny is that I didn't even think of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 what freaky said. other than that brief moment when an organism was just a couple cells, they dont regenerate. if your leg gets cut off, it wont regenerate because there's too many different structures, or actually, too much differentiation of cells... unlike a starfish, which obviously upon examination, has no varying structures, or very little variation in cells in it's limbs. that's the simplest i can put it without going into heavier terms of biology and genetics. hope that helps give a basic concept and geez... dont be lazy. just click on one of the links provided haha! Thanks Rhem and Scitsofreaky! I know I could click on those sites, however... I knew I didn't have time to spend hours and hours on there now. This topic reminded me of the curiosity I had on this regeneration subject... and I knew the wealth of dependable knowledge here on this site, without any additional research needed by you science junkies! It seems that we do have lots of regeneration processes available in our body. Our liver, skin, and other body parts do regenerate/heal to a certain degree. I just assumed that as we evolved, the more complicated our organs and body parts became, the ability to regenerate organs and limbs may have not kept up with our evolutionary processes... which is basically what you are saying. I was hoping signs of this were improving, or we may be pursuing successfully a catalyst/process to speed it up or induce it to go further instead of stopping. I know, I know... I'll go check it out for myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted May 11, 2006 Author Share Posted May 11, 2006 It seems that we do have lots of regeneration processes available in our body. Our liver, skin, and other body parts do regenerate/heal to a certain degree.Technically, skin doesn't "regenerate" but exists in layers. As far as I know, the liver does regenerate in the more technical sense of the word, I just don't know how, so now I must search (and I'm guessing none of the sites that I've put up thus far will have the answer). I just assumed that as we evolved, the more complicated our organs and body parts became, the ability to regenerate organs and limbs may have not kept up with our evolutionary processes... which is basically what you are saying. I was hoping signs of this were improving, or we may be pursuing successfully a catalyst/process to speed it up or induce it to go further instead of stopping. It isn't really a matter of the ability to regenerate didn't "keep up," it just isn't accessable. We can only evolove as much as our genes allow. Different parts of an organism don't evolve, the entire organism does (at least that's how I understand it, correct me if I am wrong). What I mean by this is that certain parts don't get "ahead" of others. In fact, evolution is easier to understand if you don't think of it in terms of more/less evolved, so just abolish that kind of thinking. Evolution is just about change, and saying that "this" change is "better" than "that" change is both subjective and arbitrary. For example, some say that people are "more" evolved than apes/monkies. But in what way are we "more" evolved? Take for example the digestive systems. Humans and apes/monkies have very similar systems(probably an oversimplification, but it works just for our example), with one glaring difference: the apendix. In humans it serves no purpose in the digestive system, but in monkies it allows for the digestion of cellulose. So which is "more" evolved?Anywho, back to regeneration. The only inducer of evolution is enviromental pressure (correct me if I'm wrong). So if there is no enviromental pressure that would make regeneration necessary present, there would be no reason for a species to evolve the ability to regenerate. And given our current enviroment, namely our health care system, I would say there is no pressure for such an ability to evolve, therefore, hypothitically, if a person did obtain (not the right word, but I can't think of the right one) a gene that allowed them to regenerate it would not give them an advantage over the individuals that did not (the vast majority), so the gene would be diluted and would eventually disappear. There ya go, a glimpse at my chaotic thought process. Please critique as you see fit. And now I'm off to figure out how our livers regenerate *flies off* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted May 11, 2006 Author Share Posted May 11, 2006 Liver regeneration info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 Anyhow, back to regeneration. The only inducer of evolution is enviromental pressure (correct me if I'm wrong). So if there is no enviromental pressure that would make regeneration necessary present, there would be no reason for a species to evolve the ability to regenerate. And given our current enviroment, namely our health care system, I would say there is no pressure for such an ability to evolve, therefore, hypothitically, if a person did obtain (not the right word, but I can't think of the right one) a gene that allowed them to regenerate it would not give them an advantage over the individuals that did not (the vast majority), so the gene would be diluted and would eventually disappear. There ya go, a glimpse at my chaotic thought process. Please critique as you see fit. And now I'm off to figure out how our livers regenerate *flies off* Scitsofreaky, thank you soooo much, and please do not bother researching livers for me. The reason I'm so interested, is that I have a very dear family member that had eye trauma, can't see out of that eye, and wears a prosthesis. I'm always seeking alternative possibilities for healing, and realize the world is changing so quickly. It seems that having the ability to regenerate organs and limbs would be a great advantage to perpetuate a species. Gosh, we can make self replicating polypeptide chains, yet we can't manage to stimulate the process by which the organ/limb was made. It would be nice if we were successfully pursuing that avenue. That may be what stem cell research is all about... if we, in the US, had the public support to go there. *sigh* Scitsofreaky... you are fast! Gosh, by the time I finished typing my last post... you already had the site with the info on regenerating livers! Thank you so much! It seems the problem, after reading your site you posted on liver regeneration, is that the organ must be at a point where there is not the terminally differentiated cells established. This seems to be in accord with your original opinion. See.... I told you that you science fanatics wouldn't need to do any research... I was more than willing to trust your opinion... which was right, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted May 11, 2006 Author Share Posted May 11, 2006 Scitsofreaky, thank you soooo much, and please do not bother researching livers for me.Don't worry, I didn't look it up for you, but because of you. That may be what stem cell research is all about... if we, in the US, had the public support to go there. *sigh*Not to sound mean, but I think that stem cell research should focus on what it seems to be focusing on: spinal injuries and other highly dibilitating problems. But stem cells could be an avenue towards limb regeneration in the future, I wouldn't know.It seems that having the ability to regenerate organs and limbs would be a great advantage to perpetuate a species.It certainly could. But like I said, regeneration of the vast majority of organs/limbs just wasn't accessable to our ancestors. There are a great many things that would be very nice to have, and perhaps science will give them to us Edit: fixed those damn quotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 What about reptiles who go through limb regeneration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted May 11, 2006 Author Share Posted May 11, 2006 Some more links: http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/ http://www.sciencedaily.com/ http://www.biocab.org/Abiogenesis.html as well as http://www.biocab.org/Origin_of_Life.html Introduction to physics concepts Intor to Physics for beginners (Yeah, I need to re-learn physics again. Hopefully I'll do better than I did in school, which is entirely possible) http://www.101science.com/(Seems like a good site for general knowledge about many different sciences) What about reptiles who go through limb regeneration? Damn you Asimov!!!! Why must you always come in and point things out I'm done with the internet for now, I'll look later unless someone comes up with something first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted May 11, 2006 Author Share Posted May 11, 2006 An interesting article on reptile tail regeneration. It doen't answer Asimov's question, but it is still interesting. Amanda, here's a quote to pique your interest:) How lymphangiogenesis is promoted in 3–6 wk is unknown, but this period may hold the key to establishing complete lymphangiogenesis in humans where lymphatic vessels are damaged or absent. This natural tail-regenerating model capable of rapidly regenerating a functional lymphatic system allows a study of the molecular mechanisms responsible for creating a functional lymphatic system. Using this model, it may be possible to eventually determine why only transient lymphangiogenesis occurs in humans throughout wound healing. As for how it evoloved, my preliminary response is that we might not know. I don't know if there is any way to see if an animal can regenerate based on fossils, so any evidence would probably have to be genetic, which may not exist as of yet. I'll keep looking though. Oh, and I'm adding http://www.fasebj.org/ to the list of links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 Amanda, here's a quote to pique your interest:) Thanks AGAIN Scitsofreaky! I'm guessing that healing in complex animals is transient, because of the time and energy it took for this healing... and our ancestors did not have time for rehabilitating... since we were nomadic until just recently. Perhaps for the lymphatic system to be most efficient, it saved its resources for quick healing... causing a point of terminally differentiated cells to become established. Perhaps with our new level of consciousness, it seems studies indicate that we are able to use our ability to focus our 'intent' for healing purposes. I know you guys are skeptical about such matters, however there is a convincing experiment done to pepsin enzymes in containers outside the body! More information on this can be found here... http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/a...cts/v13n2a1.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted May 11, 2006 Author Share Posted May 11, 2006 Amanda, here's a quote to pique your interest:) Thanks AGAIN Scitsofreaky! I'm guessing that healing in complex animals is transient, because of the time and energy it took for this healing... and our ancestors did not have time for rehabilitating... since we were nomadic until just recently. Perhaps for the lymphatic system to be most efficient, it saved its resources for quick healing... causing a point of terminally differentiated cells to become established. I agree with your guess. I like the way Daniel Dennett describes evolution as research and development. Just like r and d, evolution takes time, and it also has cost. So if a certain ability, like regeneration, has too high of a cost for not enough return, it wouldn't evolve. This combined with the genes apparently not being accessable (I don't know of any mamal that can regenerate limbs) and what you said seems to be why we don't have this ability. So now it seems that we've gone from why don't we to why would we. Perhaps with our new level of consciousness, it seems studies indicate that we are able to use our ability to focus our 'intent' for healing purposes. I know you guys are skeptical about such matters, however there is a convincing experiment done to pepsin enzymes in containers outside the body! More information on this can be found here... http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/a...cts/v13n2a1.php Have you read any Ken Wilber? I think you would enjoy him. Thanks for the article, I'll give it a read. I've never had a problem with the concept of our 'consciousness' affecting physical objects, my problem is that people saying that it's mind over matter(MoM). It seems to me to be very clear that the mind and the brain are inseperable, so it also seems to me that consciousness/mind and brain are just two parts of the same whole. With MoM, people think of some metaphysical force acting on a physical object, but with mind and matter it is clear that it is a physical force acting on a physical object. Well, that's enough of my ramblings for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 Have you read any Ken Wilber? I think you would enjoy him. Thanks again! I had never heard of him before you mentioned him. He is quite diversified, and very accomplished. Reviewing his philosophies on healing, I really liked his Integral Medicine approach and Psychiatric Pharmacology. I think I can use that resource on another thread here too. :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted May 12, 2006 Author Share Posted May 12, 2006 Link fix that I missed: Intro to Physics had never heard of him before you mentioned him. He is quite diversified, and very accomplished. Reviewing his philosophies on healing, I really liked his Integral Medicine approach and Psychiatric Pharmacology. I think I can use that resource on another thread here too.I figured you could use that I don't agree with him 100%, but he has been very influencial in how I aproach "knowing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RHEMtron Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 Scitsofreaky... you are fast! boy... that's something i hope to never hear from a woman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted May 12, 2006 Author Share Posted May 12, 2006 Scitsofreaky... you are fast! boy... that's something i hope to never hear from a woman Well, for the record, that is the first time I've ever been told that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 Scitsofreaky... you are fast! boy... that's something i hope to never hear from a woman Well, for the record, that is the first time I've ever been told that Ahhhhhhhhh...... so you guys DO think of something besides researching science! Are you guys fanatically inclined in everything you do? Hey... there ARE some questions... I don't want answered! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts