










Fish out of water: Your Inner Fish
Our 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.
Our 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.
It 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.2. Comment #111049 by Deepthought on January 13, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Much of the difficulty is almost certainly due to our having a body built for an active animal but the lifestyle of a spud.
3. Comment #111051 by Storeo on January 13, 2008 at 12:02 pm
4. Comment #111063 by BigJohn on January 13, 2008 at 12:16 pm
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.6. Comment #111067 by ianmkz on January 13, 2008 at 12:23 pm
7. Comment #111070 by Roy_H on January 13, 2008 at 12:29 pm
In a nutshell, no way were we "Intelligently designed!"8. Comment #111072 by phil rimmer on January 13, 2008 at 12:34 pm
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!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!11. Comment #111086 by jshuey on January 13, 2008 at 2:01 pm
12. Comment #111092 by steveroot on January 13, 2008 at 2:44 pm
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."14. Comment #111095 by steveroot on January 13, 2008 at 2:52 pm
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.
15. Comment #111097 by Deepthought on January 13, 2008 at 2:55 pm
16. Comment #111105 by steveroot on January 13, 2008 at 3:52 pm
17. Comment #111117 by Richard Morgan on January 13, 2008 at 4:19 pm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/4/part2.htmlOnly 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.
18. Comment #111127 by Deepthought on January 13, 2008 at 4:49 pm
19. Comment #111133 by Kakashi_monkey on January 13, 2008 at 5:12 pm
20. Comment #111134 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 5:17 pm
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.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.23. Comment #111149 by Roland_F on January 13, 2008 at 6:32 pm
15. Comment #111097 by DeepthoughtI'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.
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.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)26. Comment #111179 by comet halley on January 13, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Is this why some people drink like fish?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? ;-)28. Comment #111199 by Vadjong on January 14, 2008 at 2:24 am
29. Comment #111227 by TheTrueScotsman on January 14, 2008 at 5:08 am
30. Comment #111248 by bluebird on January 14, 2008 at 6:33 am
31. Comment #111261 by Scott McMeekin on January 14, 2008 at 7:10 am
32. Comment #111263 by steveroot on January 14, 2008 at 7:19 am
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.
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.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.35. Comment #111299 by konquererz on January 14, 2008 at 8:56 am
36. Comment #111315 by acidhouser on January 14, 2008 at 9:55 am
37. Comment #111318 by Vinelectric on January 14, 2008 at 10:22 am
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.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.)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!"41. Comment #111392 by Vinelectric on January 14, 2008 at 1:57 pm
42. Comment #111465 by ChicagoMolly on January 14, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Hmmmmm... a hot-rodded Beetle.43. Comment #111468 by Goldy on January 14, 2008 at 5:17 pm
I'd have said a Porsche 356 Carrera myself...44. Comment #111490 by Shuggy on January 14, 2008 at 7:33 pm
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.46. Comment #111512 by Mitchell Gilks on January 14, 2008 at 9:39 pm
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.48. Comment #111602 by Mitchell Gilks on January 15, 2008 at 5:46 am
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.50. Comment #111604 by Mitchell Gilks on January 15, 2008 at 6:03 am
1. Comment #111047 by GodlessHeathen on January 13, 2008 at 11:56 am
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