Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, January 13, 2008 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version Print | Comments

Document Fish out of water: Your Inner Fish

by Neil Shubin

Thanks to Stephen Weeks for the link.

Reposted from:
http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0812/features/fish_out_of_water.shtml

Adapted from Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin © 2008. Reprinted with permission by Pantheon Books, a division of Random House, Inc. Shubin, Chicago's Robert R. Bensley professor, chair and associate dean for Organismal Biology & Anatomy, is also provost of the Field Museum of Natural History.

Hernias, hiccups, and snores—oh, my! It's been 3.5 billion years, and the human body's past still plays a role in our lives and health.

My knee was swollen to the size of a grapefruit, and one of my colleagues from the surgery department was twisting and bending it to determine whether I had strained or ripped one of the ligaments or cartilage pads inside. This, and the MRI scan that followed, revealed a torn meniscus, the probable result of 25 years spent carrying a backpack over rocks, boulders, and scree in the field. Hurt your knee and you will almost certainly injure one or more of three structures: the medial meniscus, the medial collateral ligament, or the anterior cruciate ligament. So regular are injuries to these three parts of your knee that these three structures are known among doctors as the "Unhappy Triad." They are clear evidence of the pitfalls of having an inner fish. Fish do not walk on two legs.

fish1Our humanity comes at a cost. For the exceptional combination of things we do—talk, think, grasp, and walk on two legs—we pay a price.

This is an inevitable result of the tree of life inside us. Imagine trying to jerry-rig a Volkswagen Beetle to travel at speeds of 150 miles per hour. In 1933 Adolf Hitler commissioned Dr. Ferdinand Porsche to develop a cheap car that could get 40 miles per gallon of gas and provide a reliable form of transportation for the average German family. The result was the VW Beetle. This history, Hitler's plan, places constraints on the ways we can modify the Beetle today; the engineering can be tweaked only so far before major problems arise and the car reaches its limit.

In many ways, we humans are the fish equivalent of a hot-rod Beetle. Take the body plan of a fish, dress it up to be a mammal, then tweak and twist that mammal until it walks on two legs, talks, thinks, and has superfine control of its fingers—and you have a recipe for problems. We can dress up a fish only so much without paying a price. In a perfectly designed world—one with no history—we would not have to suffer everything from hemorrhoids to cancer.

Nowhere is this history more visible than in the detours, twists, and turns of our arteries, nerves, and veins. Follow some nerves and you'll find that they make strange loops around other organs, apparently going in one direction only to twist and end up in an unexpected place. The detours are fascinating products of our past that, as we'll see, often create problems—hiccups and hernias, for example. And this is only one way our past comes back to plague us.

Our deep history was spent, at different times, in ancient oceans, small streams, and savannahs, not office buildings, ski slopes, and tennis courts. We were not designed to live past the age of 80, sit on our keisters for ten hours a day, and eat Hostess Twinkies, nor were we designed to play football. This disconnect between our past and our human present means that our bodies fall apart in certain predictable ways.

Virtually every illness we suffer has some historical component. The examples that follow reflect how different branches of the tree of life inside us—from ancient humans, to amphibians and fish, and finally to microbes—come back to pester us today. Each of these examples show that we were not designed rationally but are products of a convoluted history.

I. Our hunter-gatherer past: obesity, heart disease, and hemorrhoids.

During our history as fish we were active predators in ancient oceans and streams. During our more recent past as amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, we were active creatures preying on everything from reptiles to insects. Even more recently, as primates, we were active tree-living animals, feeding on fruits and leaves. Early humans were active hunter-gatherers and, ultimately, agriculturalists. Did you notice a theme here? That common thread is the word "active."

The bad news is that most of us spend a large portion of our day being anything but active. I am sitting on my behind at this very minute typing this, and a number of you are doing the same reading it (except for the virtuous among us who are reading it in the gym). Our history from fish to early human in no way prepared us for this new regimen. This collision between present and past has its signature in many of the ailments of modern life.

What are the leading causes of death in humans? Four of the top ten causes—heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and stroke—have some sort of genetic basis and, likely, a historical one. Much of the difficulty is almost certainly due to our having a body built for an active animal but the lifestyle of a spud.

In 1962 the anthropologist James Neel addressed this notion from the perspective of our diet. Formulating what became known as the "thrifty genotype" hypothesis, Neel suggested that our human ancestors were adapted for a boom-bust existence. As hunter-gatherers, early humans would have experienced periods of bounty, when prey was common and hunting successful. These periods of plenty would be punctuated by times of scarcity, when our ancestors had considerably less to eat.

Neel hypothesized that this cycle of feast and famine had a signature in our genes and in our illnesses. Essentially, he proposed that our ancestors'bodies allowed them to save resources during times of plenty so as to use them during periods of famine. In this context, fat storage becomes very useful. The energy in the food we eat is apportioned so that some supports our activities going on now, and some is stored, for example in fat, to be used later. This apportionment works well in a boom-bust world, but it fails miserably in an environment where rich foods are available 24/7. Obesity and its associated maladies—age-related diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease—become the natural state of affairs. The thrifty genotype hypothesis also might explain why we love fatty foods. They are high-value in terms of how much energy they contain, something that would have conferred a distinct advantage in our distant past.

fish2Our sedentary lifestyle affects us in other ways, because our circulatory system originally appeared in more active animals. Our heart pumps blood, which is carried to our organs via arteries and returned to the heart by way of veins. Because arteries are closer to the pump, the blood pressure in them is much higher than in veins. This can be a particular problem for the blood that needs to return to our heart from our feet. Blood from the feet needs to go uphill, so to speak, up the veins of our legs to our abdomen. If the blood is under low pressure, it may not climb all the way. Consequently, we have two features that help the blood move up. The first are little valves that permit the blood to move up, but stop it from going down. The other feature is our leg muscles. When we walk we contract them, and this contraction serves to pump the blood up our leg veins. The one-way valves and the leg-muscle pumps enable our blood to climb from feet to abdomen.

This system works superbly in an active animal, which uses its legs to walk, run, and jump. It does not work well in a more sedentary creature. If the legs are not used much, the muscles will not pump the blood up the veins. Problems can develop if blood pools in the veins, because that pooling can cause the valves to fail. This is exactly what happens with varicose veins. As the valves fail, blood pools in the veins.The veins get bigger and bigger, swelling and taking tortuous paths in our legs.

Needless to say, the arrangement of veins can also be a real pain in the behind. Truck drivers and others who sit for long stretches of time are particularly prone to hemorrhoids, another cost of our sedentary lives. During their long hours of sitting, blood pools in the veins and spaces around the rectum. As the blood pools, hemorrhoids form—an unpleasant reminder that we were not built to sit for too long, particularly not on soft surfaces.

II. Primate past: talk is not cheap.

Talking comes at a steep price: choking and sleep apnea are high on the list of problems we have to live with in order to be able to talk.

We produce speech sounds by controlling motions of the tongue, the larynx, and the back of the throat. All are relatively simple modifications to the basic design of a mammal or a reptile. The human larynx is made up mostly of gill arch cartilages, corresponding to the gill bars of a shark or fish. The back of the throat, extending from the last molar tooth to just above the voice box, has flexible walls that can open and close. We make speech sounds by moving our tongue, by changing the shape of our mouth, and by contracting a number of muscles that control the rigidity of this wall.

Sleep apnea is a potentially dangerous trade-off for the ability to talk. During sleep, the muscles of our throat relax. In most people, this does not present a problem, but in some the passage can collapse so that relatively long stretches pass without a breath. This, of course, can be risky, particularly in people who have heart conditions. The flexibility of our throat, so useful in our ability to speak, makes us susceptible to a form of sleep apnea that results from obstruction of the airway.

Another trade-off of this design is choking. Our mouth leads both to the trachea, through which we breathe, and to our esophagus, so we use the same passage to swallow, breathe, and talk. These three functions can be at odds, for example, when a piece of food gets lodged in the trachea.

III. A hiccup in our tadpole past

This annoyance has its roots in the history we share with fish and tadpoles.

If there is any consolation for getting hiccups, it is that our misery is shared with many other mammals. Cats can be stimulated to hiccup by sending an electrical impulse to a small patch of tissue in their brain stem. This area of the brain stem is thought to be the center that controls the complicated reflex that we call a hiccup. The hiccup reflex is a stereotyped twitch involving a number of muscles in our body wall, diaphragm, neck, and throat. A spasm in one or two of the major nerves that control breathing causes these muscles to contract. This results in a very sharp inspiration of air. Then, about 35 milliseconds later, a flap of tissue in the back of our throat (the glottis) closes the top of our airway. The fast inhalation followed by a brief closure of the tube produces the "hic."

But we rarely experience only a single hic. Stop the hiccups in the first five to ten hics, and you have a decent chance of ending the bout altogether. Miss that window, and the bout of hiccups can persist for an average of about 60 hics. Inhaling carbon dioxide (by breathing into the classic paper bag) and stretching the body wall (taking a big inhalation and holding it) can end hiccups early in some of us. But not all. Some cases of pathological hiccups can be extremely prolonged. The longest uninterrupted hiccups in a person lasted from 1922 to 1990.

Our tendency to develop hiccups is another influence of our past. There are two issues to think about. The first is what causes the spasm of nerves that initiates the hiccup. The second is what controls that distinctive hic, the abrupt inhalation–glottis closure. The nerve spasm is a product of our fish history, while the hic is an outcome of the history we share with animals such as tadpoles.

First, fish. Our brain can control our breathing without any conscious effort on our part. Most of the work takes place in the brain stem, at the boundary between the brain and the spinal cord. The brain stem sends nerve impulses to our main breathing muscles. Breathing happens in a pattern. Muscles of the chest, diaphragm, and throat contract in a well-defined order. Consequently, this part of the brain stem is known as a "central pattern generator." This region can produce rhythmic patterns of nerve and, consequently, muscle activation. A number of such generators in our brain and spinal cord control other rhythmic behaviors, such as swallowing and walking.

The problem is that the brain stem originally controlled breathing in fish; it has been jerry-rigged to work in mammals. Sharks and bony fish all have a portion of the brain stem that regulates the rhythmic firing of muscles in the throat and around the gills. The nerves that control these areas all originate in a well-defined portion of the brain stem. We can even see this nerve arrangement in some of the most primitive fish in the fossil record. Ancient ostracoderms, from rocks over 400 million years old, preserve casts of the brain and cranial nerves. Just as in living fish, the nerves that control breathing extend from the brain stem.

This works well in fish, but it is a lousy arrangement for mammals. In fish the nerves that control breathing do not have to travel very far from the brain stem. The gills and throat generally surround this area of the brain. Mammals have a different problem. Our breathing is controlled by muscles in the wall of our chest and by the diaphragm, the sheet of muscle that separates chest from abdomen. Contraction of the diaphragm controls inspiration. The nerves that control the diaphragm exit our brain just as they do in fish, and they leave from the brain stem, near our neck. These nerves, the vagus and the phrenic nerve, extend from the base of the skull and travel through the chest cavity to reach the diaphragm and the portions of the chest that control breathing. This convoluted path creates problems; a rational design would have the nerves traveling not from the neck but from somewhere nearer the diaphragm. Unfortunately, anything that interferes with one of these nerves can block their function or cause a spasm.

If the odd course of our nerves is a product of our fishy past, the hiccup itself is likely the product of our history as amphibians. Hiccups are unique among our breathing behaviors in that an abrupt intake of air is followed by a closure of the glottis. Hiccups seem to be controlled by a central pattern generator in the brain stem: stimulate this region with an electrical impulse, and we stimulate hiccups. It makes sense that hiccups are controlled by a central pattern generator, since, as in other rhythmic behaviors, a typical sequence of events happens during a hic.

fish3It turns out that the pattern generator responsible for hiccups is virtually identical to one in amphibians. And not in just any amphibians—in tadpoles, which use both lungs and gills to breathe. Tadpoles use this pattern generator when they breathe with gills. In that circumstance, they want to pump water into their mouth and throat and across the gills, but they do not want the water to enter their lungs. To prevent it from doing so, they close the glottis, the flap that closes off the breathing tube. And to close the glottis, tadpoles have a central pattern generator in their brain stem so that an inspiration is followed immediately by a closing glottis. They can breathe with their gills thanks to an extended form of hiccup.

The parallels between our hiccups and gill breathing in tadpoles are so extensive that many have proposed that the two phenomena are one and the same. Gill breathing in tadpoles can be blocked by carbon dioxide, just like our hiccups. We can also block gill breathing by stretching the wall of the chest, just as we can stop hiccups by inhaling deeply and holding our breath. Perhaps we could even block gill breathing in tadpoles by having them drink a glass of water upside down.

IV. What's fishy about hernias

Our propensity for hernias, at least for those hernias near the groin, results from taking a fish body and morphing it into a mammal.

Fish have gonads that extend toward their chest, approaching their heart. Mammals don't, and therein lies the problem. It is a very good thing that our gonads are not deep in our chest and near our heart (although it might make reciting the Pledge of Allegiance a different experience). If our gonads were in our chest, we wouldn't be able to have babies.

Slit the belly of a shark from mouth to tail. The first thing you'll see is liver, a lot of it. The liver of a shark is gigantic. Some zoologists believe that a large liver contributes to the buoyancy of the shark. Move the liver away and you'll find the gonads extending up near the heart, in the "chest" area. This arrangement is typical of most fish: the gonads lie toward the front of the body.

In us, as in most mammals, this arrangement would be a disaster. Males continuously produce sperm throughout our lives. Sperm are finicky little cells that need exactly the right range of temperatures to develop correctly for the three months they live. Too hot, and sperm are malformed; too cold, and they die. Male mammals have a neat little device for controlling the temperature of the sperm-making apparatus: the scrotum. As we all know, the male gonads sit in a sac. Inside the skin of the sac are muscles that can expand and contract as the temperature changes. Muscles also lie in our sperm cords. Hence, the cold-shower effect: the scrotum will tuck close to the body when it is cold. The whole package rises and falls with temperature. This is all a way to optimize the production of healthy sperm.

The dangling scrotum also serves as a sexual signal in many mammals. Between the physiological advantages of having gonads outside the body wall, and the occasional benefits this provides in securing mates, there are ample advantages for our distant mammalian ancestors in having a scrotum.

The disadvantage is that the plumbing that carries sperm to the penis is circuitous. Sperm travel from the testes in the scrotum through the sperm cord. The cord leaves the scrotum, travels up toward the waist, loops over the pelvis, then goes through the pelvis to travel through the penis and out. Along this complex path, the sperm gain seminal fluids from a number of glands that connect to the tube.

The reason for this absurd route lies in our developmental and evolutionary history. Our gonads begin their development in much the same place as a shark's: up near our livers. As they grow and develop, our gonads descend. In females the ovaries descend from the midsection to lie near the uterus and fallopian tubes. This ensures that the egg does not have far to travel to be fertilized. In males the descent goes farther.

The descent of the gonads, particularly in males, creates a weak spot in the body wall. To envision what happens when the testes and spermatic cord descend to form a scrotum, imagine pushing your fist against a rubber sheet. In this example, your fist becomes equivalent to the testes and your arm to the spermatic cord. The problem is that you have created a weak space where your arm sits. Where once the rubber sheet was a simple wall, you've now made another space, between your arm and the rubber sheet, where things can slip. This is essentially what happens in many types of inguinal hernias in men. Some of these inguinal hernias are congenital—when a piece of the gut travels with the testes as it descends. Another kind of inguinal hernia is acquired. When we contract our abdominal muscles, our guts push against the body wall. A weakness in the body wall means that guts can escape the body cavity and be squeezed to lie next to the spermatic cord.

Females are far tougher than males, particularly in this part of the body. Because females do not have a giant tube running through it, their abdominal wall is much stronger than a man's.

This is a good thing when you think of the enormous stresses that female body walls go through during pregnancy and childbirth. A tube through the body wall just wouldn't do. Men's tendency to develop hernias is a trade-off between our fish ancestry and our mammal present.

V. Mitochondria's bacterial legacy

Mitochondria exist inside every cell of our bodies, doing a remarkable number of things. Their most obvious job is to turn oxygen and sugars into a kind of energy we can use inside our cells. Other tasks include metabolizing toxins in our livers and regulating different parts of cell function. We notice our mitochondria only when things go wrong. Unfortunately, the list of diseases caused by malfunctioning mitochondria is extraordinarily long and complex. If there is a problem in the chemical reactions in which oxygen is consumed, energy production can be impaired. The malfunction may be confined to individual tissues, say the eyes, or may affect every system in the body. Depending on the location and severity of the malfunction, it can lead to anything from weakness to death.

Many of the processes we use to live reflect our mitochondria's history. The chain reaction of chemical events that turns sugars and oxygen into usable energy and carbon dioxide arose billions of years ago, and versions of it are still seen in diverse microbes. Mitochondria carry this bacterial past inside of them: with an entire genetic structure and cellular microstructure similar to bacteria, it is generally accepted that they arose from originally free-living microbes over a billion years ago. In fact, the entire energy-generating machinery of our mitochondria arose in one of these kinds of ancient bacteria.

The bacterial past can be used to our advantage in studying the diseases of mitochondria—in fact, some of the best experimental models for these diseases are bacteria. This is powerful because we can do all kinds of experiments with bacteria that are not possible with human cells. One of the most provocative studies was done by a team of scientists from Italy and Germany. The disease they studied invariably kills the infants who are born with it. Called cardioencephalomyopathy, it results from a genetic change that interrupts the normal metabolic function of mitochondria. In studying a patient who had the disease, the team identified a place in the DNA that had a suspicious change. Knowing something about the history of life, they then turned to the microbe known as Paracoccus denitrificans, which is often called a free-living mitochondrion because its genes and chemical pathways are so similar to those of mitochondria. Just how similar was revealed by the European team. They produced the same change in the bacteria's genes that they saw in their human patient. What they found makes total sense, once we know our history. They were able to simulate parts of a human mitochondrial disease in a bacterium, with virtually the same change in metabolism. This is putting a many-billion-year part of our history to work for us.

The example from microbes is not unique. Judging by the Nobel Prizes awarded in medicine and physiology in the past 13 years, I should have called this book Your Inner Fly, Your Inner Worm, or Your Inner Yeast. Pioneering research on flies won the 1995 Nobel Prize in medicine for uncovering a set of genes that builds bodies in humans and other animals. Nobels in medicine in 2002 and 2006 went to people who made significant advances in human genetics and health by studying an insignificant-looking little worm (C. elegans). Similarly, in 2001, elegant analyses of yeast (including baker's yeast) and sea urchins won the Nobel in medicine for increasing our understanding of some of the basic biology of all cells. These are not esoteric discoveries made on obscure and unimportant creatures. These discoveries on yeast, flies, worms, and, yes, fish tell us about how our own bodies work, the causes of many of the diseases we suffer, and ways we can develop tools to make our lives longer and healthier.

Comments 1 - 50 of 73 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #111047 by GodlessHeathen on January 13, 2008 at 11:56 am

 avatarI got to giggling reading this.

The results of evolution permeate our lives at every level. The evidence for it is really overwhelming, with only a goodly number particular details being worked out. Yet people can still manage to deny it.

Denial often seems to be our single most powerful psychological ability. Odd stuff, I can't wait to see more studies on it.

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

2. Comment #111049 by Deepthought on January 13, 2008 at 12:00 pm

 avatar
Much of the difficulty is almost certainly due to our having a body built for an active animal but the lifestyle of a spud.


This made me laugh really hard.
I have been wondering why we have hiccups for a while. I am glad that somebody worked it out.

Other Comments by Deepthought

3. Comment #111051 by Storeo on January 13, 2008 at 12:02 pm

 avatarreally interesting article

Other Comments by Storeo

4. Comment #111063 by BigJohn on January 13, 2008 at 12:16 pm

 avatarI sent a link to this article to a bunch of folks. Some will be shocked when they read it and some will refuse to believe any of it. One or two will think it interesting and plausible.

Other Comments by BigJohn

5. Comment #111066 by travismc on January 13, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Here's a link to a Diavlog between Carl Zimmer and Neil Shubin on bloggingheads.tv.

http://www.brainwaveweb.com/diavlogs/8008

Other Comments by travismc

6. Comment #111067 by ianmkz on January 13, 2008 at 12:23 pm

 avatarWe've got past the fin rot and gill flukes though;-)

Other Comments by ianmkz

7. Comment #111070 by Roy_H on January 13, 2008 at 12:29 pm

In a nutshell, no way were we "Intelligently designed!"

Other Comments by Roy_H

8. Comment #111072 by phil rimmer on January 13, 2008 at 12:34 pm

 avatarGod really, really, really fucked up!

Other Comments by phil rimmer

9. Comment #111073 by jimbob on January 13, 2008 at 12:37 pm

So, those who still insist on ID have to face up to the reality that the designer must have been drunk on all six days!

Other Comments by jimbob

10. Comment #111078 by John Turner on January 13, 2008 at 1:00 pm

I think a few videos should be watched before doubting the ability of a hot rod beetle!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljv6EZlB08s&feature=related

Other Comments by John Turner

11. Comment #111086 by jshuey on January 13, 2008 at 2:01 pm

 avatarMarvelous...I have to have the book!

In the meantime, I'm sending a .pdf of the article to a few theists I know.

Other Comments by jshuey

12. Comment #111092 by steveroot on January 13, 2008 at 2:44 pm

 avatarI feel like I finally made a contribution here! :-)

I was sent this article by my father-in-law, who has written and published two books on mythology and history in the bible. He can make a pretty darned good case for the bible *not* being the inerrant word of god.
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

13. Comment #111094 by kraut on January 13, 2008 at 2:49 pm

"What they found makes total sense, once we know our history. They were able to simulate parts of a human mitochondrial disease in a bacterium, with virtually the same change in metabolism. This is putting a many-billion-year part of our history to work for us."

This is why the denial of so called "ID scientist" of the fact of evolutionary mechanisms makes them utterly incapable of performing any task in biological research - except sweeping the floors and keeping the labtable clean.

Other Comments by kraut

14. Comment #111095 by steveroot on January 13, 2008 at 2:52 pm

 avatar
13. Comment #111094 by kraut on January 13, 2008 at 2:49 pm
This is why the denial of so called "ID scientist" of the fact of evolutionary mechanisms makes them utterly incapable of performing any task in biological research - except sweeping the floors and keeping the labtable clean.

Would you trust one of them even to do *that* in your lab?
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

15. Comment #111097 by Deepthought on January 13, 2008 at 2:55 pm

 avatarsteeveroot

Is there anyway I could find those two books? I've been dealing with quite a few thiests who believe that the bible is the "inerrant word of god" and I have a hard time convincing them otherwise.

Other Comments by Deepthought

16. Comment #111105 by steveroot on January 13, 2008 at 3:52 pm

 avatarThe first one is called "Adam to Ahab- Myth and History in the Bible", and the second is "Myths, Dreams, and Theology in Early Christianity". The author, Fred Stitt, has a long career in the insurance industry. He took divinity courses at the University of Chicago. He learned Hebrew, Aramaic and Cuneiform as part of his studies. It is amazing to hear him talk about this stuff. He says his interest in the bible is purely historical and points out that he is *not* a theologian. In fact, he claims to be a practicing episcopalian. He speaks at local churches occasionally on topics related to his studies- I heard him this morning at his own church. He gets some heat about his point of view, even from his relatively liberal episcopal church; he gets a lot of support as well. Some fundamentalists I have shown the books to don't like them much :-). I think you can find these books here:

Adam to Ahab...
http://www.amazon.com/Adam-Ahab-Myth-History-Bible/dp/1557788529/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200267344&sr=1-1

http://www.paragonhouse.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=387

Myths, Dreams...
http://www.amazon.com/Myths-Dreams-Theology-Early-Christianity/dp/1419641247
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

17. Comment #111117 by Richard Morgan on January 13, 2008 at 4:19 pm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/4/part2.html


Only a Designer would have had the infinite wisdom and compassion to create the human body such that 70% of us suffer lower back pain, since our vertebrae are better designed to function as horizontal suspension bridges for our internal organs rather than as vertical supports for a bipedal mammal.

Read the whole article - much food for thought.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

18. Comment #111127 by Deepthought on January 13, 2008 at 4:49 pm

 avatarThank you Steve. I will try to find them at my local book store.
Hmmm... A book on the history of Christianity written by a Christian. At least no one could claim that he was "biased" against religion so the whole book is worthless.

Other Comments by Deepthought

19. Comment #111133 by Kakashi_monkey on January 13, 2008 at 5:12 pm

 avatarI didn't exactly read the whole article, but I did learn some interesting bits. I didn't know that sharks had big livers, or that the sperm tube was so long. And humans' lifestyle sure isn't suited for a natural body. Fish never exactly lay for hours at a time with a TV or play sports. Humans would have far fewer problems if we lived naturally, by having simple dwellings a being hunter-gatherers. But that's out of the question, of course.

Other Comments by Kakashi_monkey

20. Comment #111134 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 5:17 pm

 avatarYeah, that's why Methuselah and Noah and all those guys lived for hundreds of years -- good clean livin' off the land.

Other Comments by Radesq

21. Comment #111135 by Russell Blackford on January 13, 2008 at 5:32 pm

I was expecting this article to be someone taking a much-deserved shot at Stanley Fish for his nasty review of The God Delusion.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

22. Comment #111137 by Goldy on January 13, 2008 at 5:39 pm

As ADH would tell us all, you do realise this is an interesting aside but obviously not true. It is the manipulation of data and results and study to show that theism in all its forms its wrong. God made man in his own image (among various other ways - I believe there are 2 versions in Genesis) and that's that. Says so in the Bible.
Much as we like to show these as evidence we are right, it doesn't work. Hell, ADH will throw all evidence that Jesus' teachings predate him by millenia in the odd case and that the OT is suspiciously close in content to older literature right back at you as evidence that God exists - he must do for the "proto-Bible" stories, which are inerrant, to appear in pagan literature.
Sad, eh?

Other Comments by Goldy

23. Comment #111149 by Roland_F on January 13, 2008 at 6:32 pm

15. Comment #111097 by Deepthought
I've been dealing with quite a few theists who believe that the bible is the "inerrant word of god" and I have a hard time convincing them otherwise.

I was reading ' The Unauthorized Version – truth and Fiction in the Bible' from Robin Lane Fox after it was mentioned in TGD. It's written from someone who 'don't believe in God but believe in the Bible'… just to totally shredder the holy book for the next 400 pages.
The unauthorized version gives an account of internal inconsistencies, looks into the history of it's assembly full of patches, distortions and additions over generations of scribes. Different versions of the same stories like 2 genesis, 2 Abrahams exile, 2 Lot's, 4 (from a dozen) Gospels, contradictions of archaeological evidence (like for example Jericho never had walls), contradictions with other (Roman, Greek,, Egyptian, Babylonian…) recordings, impossibilities because of Jewish custom and rules of high court proceedings…etc….
I haven't looked into the Bible or its history so far, but I was very astonished that 2 billion humans on this planet follow a teaching derived from such a weak source and millions take it even literally.

Another source about contradictions, immoral, and nonsense in the Bible :
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

Other Comments by Roland_F

24. Comment #111153 by Roland_F on January 13, 2008 at 6:45 pm

About this article: It shows indeed very UNINTELLIGENT DESIGN which can be fully understood and explained with gradual evolution.
All this imperfection is the best example that it can NOT be created that crazy by purpose from an all knowing perfect God, when even a highschool student with a little biology and anatomical knowledge could go the drawing board and propose a much better design.
The only reply I've got from cretinists was this imperfect design is made from God because of 'the fall' (Adam and Eve's sin in Eden – which by the way happened AFTER all creatures already existed) or cretinists reply a Bible quote that there are unbelievers and the true faithful must be strong'.

Other Comments by Roland_F

25. Comment #111156 by Goldy on January 13, 2008 at 6:57 pm

You can take the horse to water, but you can't make it drink. same with cretinists - show them the evidence they'll poo-poo it. Mind you, they'll still ask for it AND use the same methodology (modified, of course) to try and show we are wrong (we as in those of us who prefer the scientific explanations of how and why we are here)

Other Comments by Goldy

26. Comment #111179 by comet halley on January 13, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Is this why some people drink like fish?

Other Comments by comet halley

27. Comment #111183 by Goldy on January 13, 2008 at 11:05 pm

And you thought that fish symbol was a Greek play on words signifying Christ? ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

28. Comment #111199 by Vadjong on January 14, 2008 at 2:24 am

 avatarCall this article "Your Inner Ichtus" and it may reach the audience that needs it most.
Great how accessible and funny it is, and then you realize it is pretty profound in a number of ways.

Now I'm curious about how these design flaws got sorted in cetaceans.

Other Comments by Vadjong

29. Comment #111227 by TheTrueScotsman on January 14, 2008 at 5:08 am

 avatarKakashi_monkey:

"Humans would have far fewer problems if we lived naturally, by having simple dwellings a being hunter-gatherers"

Not sure if I'd agree with this. It would of course depend on your definition of problems, but by almost any definition of health we have been improving dramatically over the past 100 years. I doubt that any pre-historical society could have achieved the levels of survival and longevity science has wrung out of nature.

Of course the very fact we have such bounty brings different problems but these are recognisable and solvable. A percentage of adults with knee problems in later life is surely not as bad as 1 in 4 infant mortality or a life expectation to the late 30's.

Other Comments by TheTrueScotsman

30. Comment #111248 by bluebird on January 14, 2008 at 6:33 am

 avatarsteveroot, cool article, thanks for sharing!



Last time we visited Windy City, we couldn't visit the Field Museum. We did tour the Shedd Aquarium; it was great!!

http://www.sheddaquarium.org/

Other Comments by bluebird

31. Comment #111261 by Scott McMeekin on January 14, 2008 at 7:10 am

 avatarWhat a fascinating article!

Perhaps the Florida school boards would benefit from reading this kind of thing.

But of course, that would necessitate expanding their reading material to encompass more than one book. What are the chances...?

Scott.

Other Comments by Scott McMeekin

32. Comment #111263 by steveroot on January 14, 2008 at 7:19 am

 avatar
25. Comment #111156 by Goldy on January 13, 2008 at 6:57 pm
You can take the horse to water, but you can't make it drink. same with cretinists - show them the evidence they'll poo-poo it.

Don't be too hard on them- they retain a vestigial (but in them, slightly functional) feature from their "icthus" phase: a valve that closes their mind when they see a bible. ;-)

@Bluebird
Yes the Shedd is amazing. We have a family membership and try to go there a few times a year. The Field Museum and the Museum of Science and Industry are also good to visit. Of course, none of them can hold a candle to the creation museum in Tennessee! LOL
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

33. Comment #111273 by cassdenata on January 14, 2008 at 7:58 am

Fascinating! If the rest of the book is as interesting to read as this, I will quickly add it to my library. Keep telling me of all the wondrous things that can go wrong with my body.

Other Comments by cassdenata

34. Comment #111297 by FreeThink25 on January 14, 2008 at 8:54 am

As a medical student, I confront these fascinating defects in the body everyday, and it amazes me still how many "theist" students there are. I don't understand how people who study these problems all day long can still contend that we were "designed" by a Creator. With a god, there would be no need for medicine. But alas, he's imaginary and the reverse-engineering and study of several thousand years of scientists has led us to where we are today.

It makes me laugh when people use the "doctors playing god" cliche disparagingly. Of course they're playing god....someone has to!! The real one isn't there to do it!

I've also become very interested in the history of religious opposition to advances in medicine, and the ones that are, of course, still present. It's amazing how religions are still granted a place in discussions of medical ethics. Anyone know of any work done in the overlapping fields of religion, medicine, and ethics?

Other Comments by FreeThink25

35. Comment #111299 by konquererz on January 14, 2008 at 8:56 am

 avatarThis section alone was damn near brilliant! Excellent description of why we either evolved or were created by an idiot! No designer here boys, try again.

Other Comments by konquererz

36. Comment #111315 by acidhouser on January 14, 2008 at 9:55 am

 avatarWhat a great article. That's another book to add to the list then.
Visiting this place is costing me a fortune!
Oh well.

Other Comments by acidhouser

37. Comment #111318 by Vinelectric on January 14, 2008 at 10:22 am

 avatarNice article but some of the explanations are a bit far fetched.

For example haemorrhoids and varicose veins develop from a primary dysfunction of connective tissue and valves respectively. If you happen to suffer with these conditions you'll find that you didn't have to stand or sit for that long to start them off.

The story about herniae sounds strange too! The defect in the developmental tract of the gonads may explain one of the (commoner) types of herniae (the so called indirect type) but what about herniae in women? or the very common 'direct' hernia or the dangerous femoral hernia? They have nothing to do with that developmental features the writer was talking about.

On the other hand I thought the similarity between hiccups and gill breathing was interesting. I'm even more surprised that anyone went all the way to study them but that makes for good fodder for the lunch break chat!

Other Comments by Vinelectric

38. Comment #111330 by Glen Davidson on January 14, 2008 at 11:37 am

The movement of mitochondrial genes from mitochondria into the nucleus, which in many cases can be documented by comparison of the genes, is by itself a very powerful argument for non-teleological evolution. On the "design" side, it appears that such transfers exist primarily because the (near-total, at least) lack of recombination among mitochondrial genes makes us and nearly all eukaryotes vulnerable to mutations among those genes (iow, poor "design"). Then too, sexual reproduction has little reason to exist except for its role in evolution.

To put it another way, nearly all aspects of biology not only have part of their explanation in evolution, they are tied together by evolution, as in the transfer of genetic material from the mitochondria to the nuclei.

The whole mitochondria and sexual reproduction matter indicates that it's certainly not all about fish, and anyway, there have been several solutions to the problems mentioned. There is nothing obvious about spermatozoa needing lower temperatures to develop properly, since in birds they develop inside bodies warmer than our own. It's in mammals where high-temperature sperm development seems to be evolutionarily disallowed, so that while lower-temperature bodies retain the testicles in the abdomen (elephant), higher temperature bodies which retain testes in the abdomen must occur in conjunction with another manner of cooling those gonads (dolphin).

I actually heard a creationist trying to explain how testes-cooling in dolphins proves that evolution didn't happen, because apparently the cooling system would have to exist prior to their developing aquatic habits. It appears by his thinking that any organism with a scrotum cannot swim.

Of course the whole descent of the testes is a quite interesting development in evolution, since the testes still develop in a roughly ancestral position (evidently not as close to the heart as in "earlier" organisms, but clearly reflecting a much earlier time), while they cannot remain there. It's an insane way to develop according to "design principles" (hernias are hardly the only problem, with undescended testes a not infrequent error in males, plus it's obvious that they're much vulnerable to harm in their present position than in the abdomen) but it is just another of the many vestiges of the past expected and found in evolved organisms.

It's amazing that the creos and IDists can never quite see the importance of adopting a theory which explains precisely what design has never and can never explain, unless, of course, we find their god who thinks only in genetic algorithms.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Other Comments by Glen Davidson

39. Comment #111354 by Steven Mading on January 14, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Vinelectric, there are multiple types of problems that are all called by the same name "hernia". That they have the same name doesn't mean they have the same cause. Just that different causes lead to similar symptoms. The writer was only talking about one specific kind of them, and was not attempting to claim his explanation was for all maladies called by the name "hernia" - just the kind involving the genital area. (To wit: a "hernia" is just a name for ANY time some part of the guts in the abdomen (large or small intestine) pokes through the muscles that wall-in the abdomen area on all sides. There's even types of hernias that occur on the top wall of the abdomen. I had one of those once - a very bad cold virus I had for a few weeks caused me to 'wear out' my diaphram from all the coughing, to the point where I tore the diaphram muscle, and then a bit of small intestine started poking through the tear, forcing me to breathe in small shallow breaths for a few weeks until the muscle healed. (I hated it when someone made me laugh - it hurt like hell.)

Anyway, the point is, the author never claimed to be talking about ALL hernias.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

40. Comment #111369 by jargo on January 14, 2008 at 12:43 pm

"It makes me laugh when people use the "doctors playing god" cliche disparagingly. Of course they're playing god....someone has to!! The real one isn't there to do it!"

That made me laugh out loud!

My wife and I both come from a medical background and we enjoyed this article very much. What strange imperfect creatures we are. =)

Other Comments by jargo

41. Comment #111392 by Vinelectric on January 14, 2008 at 1:57 pm

 avatarSteven Mading

I agree that the writer was talking about a particular type of hernia amongst many. As you pointed out there are several factors that contribute to the problem. Does that not make it even clearer that linking herniae to fish is an oversimplification? You don't need that anatomical anomaly to develop a hernia and, in fact, only a tiny minority of the population devlop herniae even though every single one of them has the anomaly. Surely that developmnetal story can't be that important!

Anyways let's leave out that 'fishy' hernia business and agree that the rest of the article was well put.

Vince

Other Comments by Vinelectric

42. Comment #111465 by ChicagoMolly on January 14, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Hmmmmm... a hot-rodded Beetle.

Can you say "Porsche 911S", boys and girls?

I knew you could.

Vroom, VROOOOOMMMMMM!!!!

Other Comments by ChicagoMolly

43. Comment #111468 by Goldy on January 14, 2008 at 5:17 pm

I'd have said a Porsche 356 Carrera myself...

Other Comments by Goldy

44. Comment #111490 by Shuggy on January 14, 2008 at 7:33 pm

 avatarI have created images to illustrate three of the worst examples of Stupid Design (the oesophagus crossing through the trachaea; the downward-pointing uterus; and the backward-pointing light-receptors and blind spot) compared with more Intelligent alternatives, here: http://www.cafepress.com/wero/2005296

I think I'll add the looping vasa deferentia and the male urethra passing through the prostate, but somehow I don't think many people will buy the T-shirt.

Other Comments by Shuggy

45. Comment #111502 by Glen Davidson on January 14, 2008 at 8:35 pm

I should just add to my comments at #38 that perhaps the worst harm to mitochondrial DNA being outside of the nucleus is that it thereby has few repair mechanisms to fix lesions to it.

Lack of recombination certainly doesn't help its evolution, either, but the actual deterioration of mitochondrial DNA is likely due mostly to the paucity of repair within mitochondria. Which just adds to the poor "design" exhibited by mitochondrial replication.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Other Comments by Glen Davidson

46. Comment #111512 by Mitchell Gilks on January 14, 2008 at 9:39 pm

 avatarSo that is responsible eh? That should have been in the panflit.

I have a mostly-healed scar of an incision in my lower (extremely lower) abdomine. About two weeks before christian, after about 2 years of putting it off (after the initial discover that something was wrong) I finally got the courage to go under the knife and get my inguenal hernia corrected.

I'll skip the gory details. I will say that it sucked ass. I was in so much pain for the first week. Also, because of the instalation of the patch (tehehehe) a lot of work was done, so for fear of blood clotting in my legs I had to constantly be moving my feet back and forth to flex my leg musles and get up and walk around for 15 minutes every half hour. I also had and incredible hard time sleeping for the first week

Can't lift more than 10 lbs for 10 weeks the panflit said. It's been about 8 weeks, and I think I'm fine to lift stuff again.

Damn contorted fish body-o-mine, learn to make balls better already.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

47. Comment #111584 by Dinah on January 15, 2008 at 4:12 am

I wonder if some religious apologists would get out of it by claiming that our imperfect bodies are the result of Man's Disobedience and the Fall – for example, according to Genesis, Eve and her descendents were condemned to have protracted and painful labours by God 'I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing: in pain you shall bring forth children' (nice guy isn't he?) in punishment for her disobedience – the implication being that prior to that, he had intended childbirth to be easier! Just a thought.

Other Comments by Dinah

48. Comment #111602 by Mitchell Gilks on January 15, 2008 at 5:46 am

 avatarYes, that is one of the funniest and most illogical arguments I hear about "creation.

The religious argue that because the world and the universe is all perfect, and wonderful that it requires and creator, and anything this perfact couldn't have come about without design (the argument for ID/creationism) then when it is demonstrated that the universe and the world is by no means perfect, and in fact has some tell-tale signs that it come about through mindless processes.

Oh guess what, that proves god too, because we live in a fallen creation. In other words, they are saying that both A and -A equal B at the same time. There is no conceivable optional where a god didn't do it.

The way the universe is proves god no matter how the universe is. I guess that's why the religion tend to not bother looking at it.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

49. Comment #111603 by George Lennan on January 15, 2008 at 5:54 am

Yeah, look. If I were God I would have bypassed the whole mechanical approach. I would have made my special creation out of some ethereal unitary 'magic dust'. My beings would have all the moral, transcendental and cognitive attributes of humans without the grumbling, clanking, ludicrously complex set of cogs and gears that we have. As a vehicle for transporting us through the great moral test that is the physical world, such a 'magic dust' body could age as a result of sin while supporting all of the functions such as reproduction, manipulation of the physical world and worshipful rituals that the Lord requires our physical bodies to undertake. As an added bonus the sheer separateness and unfathomability of our magic dust bodies from the burping, farting, rotting agglomerations of tubes, wires, belts and braces that other living beings get along with would surely magnify My Holy Name far more than the accident-prone and wholly ill designed adapted fish that we *appear* to be.

Other Comments by George Lennan

50. Comment #111604 by Mitchell Gilks on January 15, 2008 at 6:03 am

 avatarVinelectric, being someone who just went through the correction surgery of an inguenal hernia, I've done some researc. As anatomical abnormalities go, ingeunal hernias are one of the most common. 5% of men developed them durring adolesence. As a result of when he testical descend.

It is one of the most common corrective surgeries done.

I think you are taking the word "hernia" and thinking he is talking about any hernia. He is not. He specifies inguenal. Anything can herniate, spinal fruid, brain matter, anything really. Even the testicals themselves if ruptured can herniate it's inners. Those are not what he is refering to.

Also, expecting such an abnormality to inflict a great deal of people is unreasonable. Since a hernia of anykind would effect one's ability to survive, if a large percentage of people got them, then natural selection would have weeded them out in favor of people not predisposed to have inguenal hernias. Only because all men can develope them, but only a minority do is it was it able to stay with us without correct over our evolution from the ocean.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: