Transplanting Organs From Animals (e.g. Ape) To Humans

[needimprovement]

If theory of evolution is true, the organs from apes can be transplanted to humans.

 

If theory of evolution is really true, there are no animals today in the first place.

 

Is there an evidence in science that connect the animals to humans? I mean, where is the link between animals and humans?

Edited September 27, 2010 by needimprovement

[AzurePhoenix]

Chimp hearts have been successfully transplanted into humans... pig hearts too for that matter. Look up xenotransplantation.

 

If theory of evolution is really true, there are no animals today in the first place.

Succinct response: No.

 

Response I'm going to regret: Please share with me how your obviously, profoundly erroneous non-understanding of evolution led you to this oh so darling conclusion.

 

Is there an evidence in science that connect the animals and humans?

Vast amounts of evidence. Comparative anatomy, genetics, the biogeography, fossil record. The latter provides a series of links, from apes (keep in mind, we didn't just evolve from apes, we still are apes) to well before. Here's a likely timeline.

 

 

I mean, where is the link between animals and humans?

... I feel silly having to point it out, but I think it might be necessary in this case, so I will explain it as simply as I can...

What are popularly referred to as "missing links" are just snapshots of more obviously distinguishable "generations" along the evolutionary path. There are no clear demarcations between species or genus or family or so on and so forth. If you could magically line up and look at EVERY reproductive generation between, lets look on the "short" scale, modern Homo sapiens and our last common ancestor with Pan, you would see EVERY generation give birth to its own species, only seeing notable differences when you jumped ahead many, many generations, in which case you'd simply be seeing the cumulative effect of countless tiny generational changes piling up on one another (rather than any one big change or complex of multiple changes occuring simultaneously to create an offspring taxonomically distinct from the parent; this does NOT happen.)

 

As for multiple species evolving from a common ancestor, heres this for a simple comparison; a modern human family spreads out and splits, acquiring subtle changes in customs or mannerisms or surname, so on and so forth. Several generations down the line the original "family" is now a number of distinct, independent families not obviously related to one other. The family may share common traits, but they've developed along various lines, and none likely perfectly resemble their common ancestors in any of these traits, though some more traditional lines of descent may more closely resemble the ancestors they all share. (A family farming out in rural china more closely resemble ancestors of the family as they were hundred years ago, than that family's cousins who moved to the US and became Americanized.)

 

The same general thing happens to organisms. Some populations diverge into multiple lines of descent, slowly acquiring changes, some remaining more traditional, others becoming more obviously distinct, while the original ancestors are dead, as ancestors tend to be, no matter how closely this or that surviving population may or may not resemble them.

Edited September 27, 2010 by AzurePhoenix

[divagreen]

If theory of evolution is true, the organs from apes can be transplanted to humans.

 

Organs don't even transplant 100% successfully between humans (blood type plays a big factor, as well as how many antigens a person may have in their blood) so I am not sure why the theory of evolution needs to rest on organs from apes being successfully transplanted to humans.

[AzurePhoenix]

Indeed, and even with matched blood types making things like kidney transplants between humans possible, the donatees still have to take immunosuppressants for the rest of their lives.

[ewmon]

where is the link between animals and humans?

1. Genetics

2. Molecular biology

3. Developmental biology

[Mr Skeptic]

If theory of evolution is true, the organs from apes can be transplanted to humans.

 

You're wrong, but before I deign to answer please explain why you believe that.

 

If theory of evolution is really true, there are no animals today in the first place.

 

You're wrong, but before I deign to answer please explain why you believe that.

 

Is there an evidence in science that connect the animals to humans? I mean, where is the link between animals and humans?

 

Yes, most of the classification categories refer to common ancestors (and traits) we have with other animals:

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Primates

Family: Hominidae

Subfamily: Homininae

Tribe: Hominini

Genus: Homo

Species: H. sapiens

 

 

There's yet more subdivisions, eg sub-phylum Vertebrata.

 

There's also better and more recent evidence, largely called phylogenetics.

[needimprovement]

Transplanting organs from animals to humans.

 

I would say that the first in no way precludes Intelligent Design. For example, we all agree that cars are designed and do not spring out of nowhere, right? And yet I can take a tire off one car and put it on another, no? (I have done this even when the tire didn't fit--it makes the car hard to drive, but got me to a garage where I could get my original tire fixed.)

 

Evidence in science that connect the animals and humans.

 

The second doesn't really make sense, because taking the Chinese peasant family, if one of the far descendants ran into a 23rd cousin from China, yes, they would be very different, but they would still be the same species, no? Whereas evolution posits that at some point the descendants become so different they can (or will, in some cases) not longer mate. The theory says that wheat and corn descended from the same plant species zillions of years ago, and if you plant wheat next to corn, there will be no cross-pollination.

 

OTOH, if you plant curcubits (squash, pumpknins, melons, cucumbers) near each other, there can be cross-pollination, but there are problems with the resulting offspring.

 

However, even this in no way precludes an Intelligent Designer. In fact, evolution itself in no way precludes an ID, and to me evolution does not even make any sense at all without an ID. It is perfectly believable that species evolved, but a-theistic or materialist evolution leaves a lot of questions, like how did life begin in the first place? How did very different species evolve? What did they evolve from?

 

Your scenario attempts (but fails) to answer the second question. There are two ideas about this: one that changes occurred very rapidly and entirely, the other that they occurred slowly over the generations. If you really consider a complex organism like the eye, tho, this last makes no sense because how would random mutation over the generations work to create something like the eye? But at the same time, how could something as complex as an eye result from random mutation? And this is just the beginning, because then you run across even more complex situations such as species which are interdependant... how did that come about through random mutation?

 

 

 

 

From my point of view, either there is an Intelligent Designer (one of the attributes of God) or there is not. If there is, then whether things evolved or not is beside the point, because the ID could have created the different species via evolution or He could have created different species individually. It really doesn't matter, if the ID exists, does it?

 

If there is no ID, then there are a host of unresolved problems, as I mentioned before, and there is no proof that, say, platypuses evolved from any other animal.

[Moontanman]

Transplanting organs from animals to humans.

 

I would say that the first in no way precludes Intelligent Design. For example, we all agree that cars are designed and do not spring out of nowhere, right? And yet I can take a tire off one car and put it on another, no? (I have done this even when the tire didn't fit--it makes the car hard to drive, but got me to a garage where I could get my original tire fixed.)

 

This makes no sense what so ever, cars are far more simple than living organisms and who said it precluded intelegent design?

 

Evidence in science that connect the animals and humans.

 

The second doesn't really make sense, because taking the Chinese peasant family, if one of the far descendants ran into a 23rd cousin from China, yes, they would be very different, but they would still be the same species, no? Whereas evolution posits that at some point the descendants become so different they can (or will, in some cases) not longer mate. The theory says that wheat and corn descended from the same plant species zillions of years ago, and if you plant wheat next to corn, there will be no cross-pollination.

 

Again you are making a claim that makes no sense, the idea that corn and wheat do not cross pollinate supports evolution, the idea that Chinese peasants can interbreed again supports evolution, you are trying to straw man the argument and not doing a very good job. Chinese peasants are the same species, human beings, none of them are separated genetically far enough to be different species, why would you even suggest such a thing. Corn and wheat have been separate many millions and years and cannot cross pollinate because they are not closely related, exactly what evolution would predict, both of the situations you suggest support evolution. Needimprovement you have demonstrated many times you are an intelligent man and then you make such a ridiculous assertion, i am sure you can do better than this.

 

 

OTOH, if you plant curcubits (squash, pumpknins, melons, cucumbers) near each other, there can be cross-pollination, but there are problems with the resulting offspring.

 

 

Um maybe because those are all very closely related? Plants are often easier to cross breed than animals but closely related animals can also often cross breed.

 

However, even this in no way precludes an Intelligent Designer. In fact, evolution itself in no way precludes an ID, and to me evolution does not even make any sense at all without an ID. It is perfectly believable that species evolved, but a-theistic or materialist evolution leaves a lot of questions, like how did life begin in the first place? How did very different species evolve? What did they evolve from?

 

Are you seriously asking this question... again? You say "It is perfectly believable that species evolved,"

then you say "How did very different species evolve?" make up your mind, is it believable that species evolve or isn't it? While we cannot say for sure the exact route that life took from non life we have many routes to choose from and most think that a synergy of many different routes that produced life. life evolved from chemicals, these chemicals eventually produced single celled life forms we would recognize as life. These single cells evolved into the complex life forms we see today. No IDer needed so why require one?

 

 

 

 

Your scenario attempts (but fails) to answer the second question. There are two ideas about this: one that changes occurred very rapidly and entirely, the other that they occurred slowly over the generations. If you really consider a complex organism like the eye, tho, this last makes no sense because how would random mutation over the generations work to create something like the eye? But at the same time, how could something as complex as an eye result from random mutation? And this is just the beginning, because then you run across even more complex situations such as species which are interdependant... how did that come about through random mutation?

 

The idea of irreducible complexity has been shown to invalid so many times on this forum i will not go through the trouble of doing it again. The eye exists in every form from a simple spot that detects light to eyes that are far better than human eyes and every degree in between. if you are going to challenge evolution you need to try something else...

 

 

 

From my point of view, either there is an Intelligent Designer (one of the attributes of God) or there is not. If there is, then whether things evolved or not is beside the point, because the ID could have created the different species via evolution or He could have created different species individually. It really doesn't matter, if the ID exists, does it?

 

The evidence we have shows that animals evolved, it does not show they were created, yes it does matter if ID exists if he exists then he has gone far out of his way to plant misleading evidence and to lie to us about how things happen by making everything look like he doesn't exist.

 

If there is no ID, then there are a host of unresolved problems, as I mentioned before, and there is no proof that, say, platypuses evolved from any other animal.

 

 

This is simply not true, the idea that the platypus is some how a special case and that is has developed from several different animals is false. the platypus the one of the last remnants of of a line of primitive mammals evolved from animals that split off from mammals millions of years ago, before the time of the dinosaurs. the platypus is not a combination of several non related animals that is an old wives tale used to explain the platypus to children.

[Horza2002]

I think some of your confusion is arising from the fact you want to see individual species evolving. Evolution says that there is a gradual change from one to another..you don't wake up one morning to find you'r child is a different species. Also remember, the idea of grouping individuals together is not natural..it is something that we humans do to try and make sence of things. There are many accounts of fossil remains of animals being debated for years over which species they belong too. Some people think that this is evidence against evolution but they are wrong...the fact that this indivdual shows characterisitcs of both species IS proof of evolution..he/she/it is obviously a halfway point between the two species......remember grouped species are humans attempt to explain things!

 

One of the defintion of a species is that they can not reproduce to give fertile offsrping. Horses and donkeys can reproduce to give an offspring in rare cases but this child is infertile...therefore horses and donkeys are different speices.

 

OTOH, if you plant curcubits (squash, pumpknins, melons, cucumbers) near each other, there can be cross-pollination, but there are problems with the resulting offspring.

 

The problem is often that they are infertile. They are as similar to each other as horses/donkeys, but different enough that they can't reproduce.

[Fuzzwood]

You do know one of the basis of evolution is just mutations in genes and the ones with mutations that allow better survival in their environments are the ones that will more often mate, passing those mutations? Elementary, it is just chance-based, coupled to selection of the strongest.

[needimprovement]

Species Problem

 

The species problem is a mixture of difficult, related questions that often come up when biologists identify species and when they define the word "species".

 

One common but sometimes difficult question is how best to decide just which particular species an organism belongs to. Another challenge is deciding when to recognize a new species.

 

Many of the debates on species touch on philosophical issues, such as nominalism and realism, as well as on issues of language and cognition.

 

Realism and Nominalism are philosophical subjects that come up in debates over whether or not species literally exist. From one perspective, each species is a kind of organism and each species is based on a set of characteristics that are shared by all the organisms in the species. This usage of "species" refers to the taxonomic sense of the word, and under this kind of meaning a species is a category, or a type, or a natural kind. For example, the species that we call giraffe is a category of things that people have recognized have a lot in common with each other and to which we have given the name "giraffe". This is a category in the same sense that the words "mountain" and "snowflake" identify categories of things in nature.

 

This view of a species as a type, or natural kind, raises the question of whether such things are real. The question is not whether the organisms exist, but whether the kinds of organisms exist. There is a school of philosophical thought, called realism that says that natural kinds and other so called universals do exist. But what kind of existence would this be? It is one thing to say that a particular giraffe exists, but in what way does the giraffe category exist? This question is the opening for Nominalism which is a philosophical view that types and kinds, and universals in general, do not literally exist.

 

If the nominalist view is correct then kinds of things, that people have given names to, do not literally exist. It would follow then that because species are named types of organisms, that species do not literally exist. This can be a troubling idea, particularly to a biologist who studies species. If species are not real, then it would not be sensible to talk about "the origin of a species" or the "evolution of a species". As recently at least as the 1950s, some authors adopted this view and wrote of species as not being real.[34][35]

[Marat]

In fact, the way organ transplantation operates proves the converse of the assertion in the OP. When organs are transplanted from one human to another, they have to be matched by blood type, tested for tissue specific antigens, and then matched again by human leukocyte antigen groups. Even after all that matching has been performed just to make the transplant possible, the recipient's immune system still has to be massively suppressed by heavy doses of highly toxic immunosuppressive drugs during the initial phase, and then these medications have to be continued at lower doses throughout the life of the graft. But even with all of that done, there is still chronic allograft disease which ultimately destroys the transplanted organ much sooner than its normal life expectancy. This process is poorly understood, but seems to involve some persisting immunological rejection.

 

But when animal organs are transplanted into humans, normally a hyperacute rejection occurs, and instead of the graft being lost under immunosuppression after 10 to 20 years, such as happens with human organ transplants, the graft can be lost within hours. The rare cases of successful baboon heart transplants in human infants have used massive amounts of anti-rejection drugs. All of this demonstrates the evolutionary gap between humans and animals.

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes, the species problem is yet more evidence against Intelligent Design and in favor of evolution. A designer would have probably made life so that it only reproduces after its kind, with clear categories distinguishing one from the other. Whereas what we actually see, is that there are no such categories and the artificial categories we create blend into each other, as necessitated by evolution.

[AzurePhoenix]

The second doesn't really make sense, because taking the Chinese peasant family, if one of the far descendants ran into a 23rd cousin from China, yes, they would be very different, but they would still be the same species, no?

I have to suspect that you are intentionally misinterpreting what was obviously a dumbed-down analogy. The traditions of the families represent the genetically based biological traits of diverging populations. A metaphor. Idiot.

 

Whereas evolution posits that at some point the descendants become so different they can (or will, in some cases) not longer mate. The theory says that wheat and corn descended from the same plant species zillions of years ago, and if you plant wheat next to corn, there will be no cross-pollination.

What this means is that they separated long enough ago, and diverged far enough from one another that they've changed enough to not "sync" in whatever sense it is that's preventing them from breeding, whether chromosomal incompatibility or physical incompatibility (wrong shaped pollen) or what have you. It's a predicted element of evolution. If two distinct organisms (like a tree and a tiger) separated by billions of years of evolution, distinct at the genetic and cellular and physiological levels COULD interbreed, there'd be a serious problem for the theory of evolution. But you do not see turtles knocking up mushrooms.

 

OTOH, if you plant curcubits (squash, pumpknins, melons, cucumbers) near each other, there can be cross-pollination, but there are problems with the resulting offspring.

Like has been pointed out, they ARE closely related enough to reproduce. In many cases apparently distinct cultivars of a plant look completely different based solely on a difference in one gene complex that has no influence on their reproductive compatibility. I should also point out, squash are the fruit of a plant, not the plant itself in the sense of the mature organism. More comparable to the differences in egg size and color between two chickens.

 

However, even this in no way precludes an Intelligent Designer. In fact, evolution itself in no way precludes an ID, and to me evolution does not even make any sense at all without an ID.

personal incredulity has no place in a discussion beyond you asking questions with the intention of learning what you need to learn to overcome your poor comprehension, which is obviously not your goal. You not understanding is not an argument against anything. Anyhow, we have not claimed in this thread that any of these things preclude an Intelligent Designer, but they are perfectly viable without one regardless.

 

It is perfectly believable that species evolved, but a-theistic or materialist evolution leaves a lot of questions, like how did life begin in the first place? How did very different species evolve? What did they evolve from?

Abiogenesis is a separate issue. I know this has been pointed out to you, and I know you're aware of this, so stop associating it with evolution in general. Very different species evolved exactly how it was pointed out to you. Divergent populations, gradually acquiring different mutations over time and having those mutations selected for or against to account for tiny individual divergences, for so long that those changes pile up. The evolution of species is well understood. Your claims to the contrary are simply wrong. I don't know if you're just ignorant of the mechanics of it, or if you're in active denial of the facts, if you're deluded, or if you DO understand and you're just stubbornly pretending otherwise for the sake of raising an argument. But it is one of those four options, and no other.

 

Your scenario attempts (but fails) to answer the second question. There are two ideas about this: one that changes occurred very rapidly and entirely, the other that they occurred slowly over the generations. If you really consider a complex organism like the eye, tho, this last makes no sense because how would random mutation over the generations work to create something like the eye? But at the same time, how could something as complex as an eye result from random mutation? And this is just the beginning, because then you run across even more complex situations such as species which are interdependant... how did that come about through random mutation?

Again you are simply wrong. You are making false claims that are in complete contrast to the reality. The evolution of the eye is actually well understood. It's actually an easy thing to evolve, and has happened independently over a dozen times.

 

 

If there is no ID, then there are a host of unresolved problems, as I mentioned before, and there is no proof that, say, platypuses evolved from any other animal.

You. Are. Wrong. We have genetic evidence of their relatedness to other extant animals, from the only other monotreme, the echidna, to more distant marsupials and placental mammals, and even its relationship to reptiles, as well as physiological comparisons to less derived fossil mammals and mammal-like reptiles, and we have numerous ancestral fossils that demonstrate their evolutionary descent. In fact, the platypus is a very helpful animal that confirms many of the predictions of evolution.

 

 

 

I'm confused about what you're trying to imply by posting the Species Problem. The species problem isn't a problem for evolution in any sense, but is a clerical issue that basically amounts to "how should we classify species for the sake of categorization to make studying the concept easier." The Species Problem itself is a consequence of exactly what I pointed out in my first analogy, mainly being that the way evolution is predicted and SHOWN to work means there are no demarcations between what we call species, which makes the Species Problem evidence in support of how evolution is supposed to work.

[needimprovement]

I'm confused about what you're trying to imply by posting the Species Problem. The species problem isn't a problem for evolution in any sense, but is a clerical issue that basically amounts to "how should we classify species for the sake of categorization to make studying the concept easier." The Species Problem itself is a consequence of exactly what I pointed out in my first analogy, mainly being that the way evolution is predicted and SHOWN to work means there are no demarcations between what we call species, which makes the Species Problem evidence in support of how evolution is supposed to work.

That post was with regard to the notion that "humans are apes". The species problem indicates that the question of what a species is, is not a question of science. As the article points out -- it's philosophical in nature.

 

The problem with your claim that this supports evolution is that the idea that there are distinct species was claimed as evidence supporting evolution. Then, the contrary idea that there are no species is claimes as evidence supporting evolution.

 

That's one of the biggest problems with evolutionary theory itself. It's an ambiguous collection of claims which are often contradictory.

[AzurePhoenix]

That post was with regard to the notion that "humans are apes". The species problem indicates that the question of what a species is, is not a question of science. As the article points out -- it's philosophical in nature.

I would say it's only philosophical only to the same extent that organizing the card catalogue at the library and determining what book to shelf alongside what others is. What we call what doesn't change what is, it's a tool. Whether you consider the platypus a monotreme and a mammal and a vertebrate and a craniate and an animal or if you just consider it "that specific fuzzy rubbery-billed egg-laying lactating population of interbreeding thingies over there in that pond," how we categorize them doesn't change the implications we can draw about evolution from that specific set of populations of platypus. So we might as well put the tool to use.

 

When I pointed out the "humans are apes" bit, I was working within the perfectly useful framework that you already established by asking about what separates humans from apes. You established the apes as a group distinct from humans yourself at this point, and I simply pointed out that within this framework that you were deriving "ape" from, we are equally classed as apes within that same framework.

 

The problem with your claim that this supports evolution is that the idea that there are distinct species was claimed as evidence supporting evolution. Then, the contrary idea that there are no species is claimes as evidence supporting evolution.

Regardless of what you call them, populations of distinct interbreeding organism of shared biology and close relatedness exist, and using these population of organisms you can determine how they are related to other such organisms and figure out where they all came from, how they evolved. Your argument is a thin candy shell wrapped around nothing.

 

That's one of the biggest problems with evolutionary theory itself. It's an ambiguous collection of claims which are often contradictory.

You have yet to point out a single contradictory claim. Every single one you think you have is an artifact of your complete lack of understanding of the concept you are attempting to refute. Edited September 30, 2010 by AzurePhoenix

[Mr Skeptic]

Is it really contradictory? The words "species" and "evolution" will have various meanings depending on context, so if the meaning of the words is different things that are seemingly contradictory can be said while still being true. So using the biological (reproductive) definition of species, we have observed several speciation events which is evidence of evolution, and yet species is a rather mixed concept with no clear boundaries as your link shows, which is also evidence of evolution.

[needimprovement]

AzurePhoenix,

 

Thank for the private messages. As for the rest of your comments, I'm not going to reply. Here are the links that explains my stand on the subject.

 

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp

 

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea2.asp

Edited September 30, 2010 by needimprovement

[Leader Bee]

The words "species" and "evolution" will have various meanings depending on context, so if the meaning of the words is different things that are seemingly contradictory can be said while still being true. So using the biological (reproductive) definition of species, we have observed several speciation events

 

 

There are other definitions of a species? what are they?

[zapatos]

AzurePhoenix,

 

Thank for the private messages. As for the rest of your comments, I'm not going to reply. Here are the links that explains my stand on the subject.

 

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp

 

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea2.asp

 

From the first link (my bold)...

 

"The magisterium of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation, and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically sacred Scripture and of defending the dogmas of faith" (HG 36).

 

This is one of the reasons the church loses credibility with me.

[Maximus Semprus Veridius]

As already stated several times in this thread, Species is in fact a man-made creation, of taxonomic ranking. So "Species" (or taxonomic ranking on the whole) just makes collecting and categorizing things a lot easier for scientists, and shouldn't be used to answer questions like these really.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Maximus Semprus Veridius

[Moontanman]

That post was with regard to the notion that "humans are apes". The species problem indicates that the question of what a species is, is not a question of science. As the article points out -- it's philosophical in nature.

 

The problem with your claim that this supports evolution is that the idea that there are distinct species was claimed as evidence supporting evolution. Then, the contrary idea that there are no species is claimes as evidence supporting evolution.

 

That's one of the biggest problems with evolutionary theory itself. It's an ambiguous collection of claims which are often contradictory.

 

 

Why does the idea that humans are apes bother you so much? There are several species of apes, they are all just as different from each other as humans are from each of them. An ape is not a species of animal, gorillas are apes, as are chimps, orangutans, and humans...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

 

An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, including humans. Due to its ambiguous nature, the term ape has been deemphasized in favor of Hominoidea as a means of describing taxonomic relationships.

 

Under the current classification system there are two families of hominoids:

 

the family Hylobatidae consists of 4 genera and 14 species of gibbon, including the Lar Gibbon and the Siamang, collectively known as the lesser apes.

the family Hominidae consisting of chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans[1][2] collectively known as the great apes.