1,237
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 656:
Line 656: + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 03:11, November 3, 2009
, 03:11, November 3, 2009→Kidneys
:No, I don't think you're right. "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] Of course, many people have high blood pressure and other problems, and having only one rather two kidneys would not give someone an advantage. But the second kidney is superfluous for most people and has no evolutionary justification.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 2 November 2009 (EST)
:No, I don't think you're right. "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] Of course, many people have high blood pressure and other problems, and having only one rather two kidneys would not give someone an advantage. But the second kidney is superfluous for most people and has no evolutionary justification.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 2 November 2009 (EST)
::I think the quality of life has a lot to do with the rigorous screening of the patients prior to donation, as cited in the article. They can have no trace of diabetes, high blood pressure, or any sort of renal disease. As I said, one ''can'' live with only one kidney, and many go on to lead a normal, healthy life—as the article says. I think this falls in somewhat of a gray area in evolution/creation debate. Perhaps the function of the other kidney is to "pick up the slack" (?) if the other one fails, as is known to happen—the prevalence of renal disease is steadily increasing. This could be beneficial from both a design standpoint and an evolutionary standpoint. That's the main reason I took it out. I'm not trying to overstep any bounds, though, and just hope to keep the credibility of all arguments on this site sound. --[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 22:11, 2 November 2009 (EST)