Are all the recent conjoined twin cases due to evolution?

[ecstatic]

Is the human form attempting to change or evolve? Forgive me if this post sounds ridiculous or ignorant. I'm fascinated both by conjoined twins and the theory of evolution. I also wonder why a chance process like evolution has allowed humans to be on top of the food chain for so long.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. no, this has happened throughout history

usually they were killed as newborns. However - there could very well be a link to pollution, which wouldn't surprise me.

[cheezus]

2. ouch. i think you need some background

There's an excellent book called "Genome", by Matt Ridley.

[Ediacara]

3. no

Most conjoined twins before the 19th cnetury died in childbirth, or before childbirth. The fact that medicine can now save the lives of conjoined twins is probably what is driving their increased newsworthiness.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

4. no

though, i think you could argue that some of these thing probably contibuted to the evolution of mythology.

[truthspeaker]

5. It works the other way around

A population doesn't choose to evolve; evolution is what happens when populations reproduce.

[Wapsie B]

6. No.

Just freepers marrying their cousins.

:evilgrin:

[ecstatic]

10. hehe

}(

[truthspeaker]

7. as to why we're on top

We're not really on top of the food chain. The insects and mites that live off our refuse, fecal matter, and dead skin cells are higher on the chain than we are.

But we certainly are a successful species able to survive almost anywhere on earth (the 30% of the earth that's above water, anyway). That's because we have big, complex brains allowing us to manipulate our environment more than any other creature and enabling us to communicate abstract concepts to other humans, passing knowledge down to future generations. Having hands that are really good at manipulating objects helps too.

[salinen]

8. My Father was a Nixon man

so I know I've decended from apes.

[ecstatic]

11. true, but i still wonder why there are no "rival"species

that are like humans in almost every way except they're not human. Sort of like how flies have also been able to exist alongside bees, etc.

[jpak]

16. At one point in the distant past

there were several hominid species coexisting in Africa and Europe.

We're the only one left.

Wonder why....

[truthspeaker]

17. there were; we out-competed them to extinction

neanderthal, austrolepithicus, etc. And we inhabit so much territory now a comptetitor species wouldn't have much room to get started. If, for example, some slightly more intelligent rats or raccoons started showing up they would probably become such a nuisance that we would exterminate them. Maybe not, though. Maybe we'll be in for a suprise someday.

[SoCalDem]

9. Nope.. More hospitals... more media

Conjoined twins are simply an anomaly that occurs when the duplicate embryo formed from the single fertilized egg fails to completely separate..


In past times, the mother and children might have died in childbirth, and the family would have been too upset to divulge the details..or a kindly family doctor on a house call would have delivered the child, and "allowed nature to take its course".. The mother would have been sedated and then told that it was a stillbirth.. as would the friends and family..

Lots of children with obvious birth defects were "handled" this way, until hospital births became the norm..

It's one thing for a doctor or midwife in the privacy of the home to help a family make a decision...and it's entirely another when there are 10 or 12 people in a delivery/operating room..

That is the main reason we are hearing about these unusual births..

[ecstatic]

12. does anyone know if conjoined twins have normal children?

Conjoined twins are simply an anomaly that occurs when the duplicate embryo formed from the single fertilized egg fails to completely separate..

[nostamj]

15. yes! 'the 'original' siamese twins had 21 children

http://blueridgecountry.com/newtwins/twins.html

As to their offspring, Chang and Eng fathered 21 children -- Eng had 11 and Chang had 10, none of which were twins, connected or otherwise.

[FlaGranny]

18. Sure many can. Many of them

are relatively normal twins who are just joined. Sometimes, when joined below the waist, there is only one set of sexual organs, one anus, etc., that is shared, and there might be abnormalities that would prevent a pregnancy, but any eggs or sperm produced would be "normal."

[YellowRubberDuckie]

22. Remember the girls that have two heads and share the rest of their body?

I'd be anxious to see if they have children.
Duckie

[ecstatic]

24. Me too

The thing that intrigues me about that case is, what if one of the twins meets and falls in love with a guy, but the other twin hates that guy? Could one twin force unwanted sex on the other twins body? Would it be rape?

[kerouac]

13. Yes, the evolution of the energy industry. nt

[leftofthedial]

14. no. it's due to an oversupply of video cameras

and an undersupply of journalists

[mountebank]

19. Evolution as a Chance Process.... Stephen Jay Gould, etc.

While there is considerable debate about what role random processes play in evolution, certain aspects (like the evolution of brain size in humans) were most likely driven by directional natural selection.

Someone else also pointed out that nothing chooses to evolve. This may make evolution seem "random," but it can be both "blind" and directional.

As to the wider debate: paleontologists (e.g. Stephen Jay Gould) often emphasize the role of random processes and contingency (happenstance) in evolution, while biologists studying more contemporary aspects of evolution tend to favor processes like natural selection. Undoubtedly, both random and non-random processes play a role in evolution in both the long-term and short-term.

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. Better medical care

has enabled many an "imperfect" baby to be born.

[MAlibdem]

21. Woah

Evolution is not a conscious process, it has no desired end, it is not conscious, or even a thing. Just a way to describe how organisms change genetically and new species develop over time.

It is true that conjoined twins represents a genetic mishap, and sometimes these lead to positive mutations, but if the twins die, then clearly it is not a positive mutation.

[ecstatic]

23. i understand the essence of evolution

although i suck at putting my understanding into words.

It is true that conjoined twins represents a genetic mishap, and sometimes these lead to positive mutations, but if the twins die, then clearly it is not a positive mutation.

I wonder if theoretically there could be a place on Earth where conjoined twins thrive and flourish. Which brings me back to my second question...why are we the *only* intelligent human-like beings around after millions of years of evolution? Is it just that we haven't been around long enough? Might we see the human race break apart into different species sometime in the future? These are just some of my random thoughts...I'm very curious yet I don't have time to fully research the topic.

[DrWeird]

25. First off...

conjoined twins are not a genetic mutation. It's a physical deformity when an embryo splits, but doesn't fully seperate. Identical twins form in the same process, they just got lucky and fully seperated.

Second, we were not the only intelligent species that existed. Somebody already pointed this out in this thread. The Neanderthals were a different species than homo sapiens, but they're extinct. They went extinct about the time humans showed up and some believe we hunted them to extinction. Given human nature, it's unlikely we'd allow another intelligent species to exist for very long.

If we don't go extinct, then the human race will undoubtedly evolve over time.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ecstatic]

27. your post was pretty offensive

But anyway, I realize that evolution doesn't "allow" anything. I'm sorry that I did not word my comments using the strict guidelines you speak of.

We (humans) haven't been on top of the food chain long at all - what 20000 years maybe? That's a blink of an eye as far as evolution is concerned.....


Still, one has to wonder why humans/pro-magnons/whatever were the only ones who lucked up on environments that "selected" bigger brains. I tell you what, you can continue to spew hatred towards ppl who are not as entrenched in evolutionary knowledge as yourself. I think I'll *casually* pick up new info on the topic whenever I get the chance. Thanks.