| | ::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) | | ::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) |
| | + | :::I have an open mind about this. But it's obvious from the Scienceline article that people exaggerate their need for a second kidney. All evidence is that the second kidney is superfluous in most people. So why do people exaggerate the need for a second kidney? Because evolution teaches that everything has a utilitarian purpose, and it misleads people into this false perception. The result is made clear by the article: 75,000 people need a donation of that extra kidney that most people don't need, but don't donate it due to being misled by the theory of evolution into thinking they do need it. That's a heavy cost caused by a politically motivated falsehood. |
| | + | :::Evolution cannot plausibly explain the superfluous kidney, and hence its inclusion in this list. The theory claims that populations evolve, but there is no reason for an entire organ to develop which most of the population does not need. Pre-obesity, when evolution supposedly occurred, at most a tiny percentage of people would have had a need for a second kidney, far too few to just an entire population developing it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 2 November 2009 (EST) |