Skip to main content

Why can I grow new toenails, but not a new leg?

Writing a kids book and need a good resource on this question. Any suggestions...?

Comments

Michael Fisher said…
This is a great 24-slide powerpoint that could be simplified

Rgrds Michael Fisher

http://www.qpowerpoint.com/Why-Cant-We-Grow-New-Arms--PPT.html
September 16, 2011 at 9:24 AM
Michael Fisher said…
Not sure it 'took' first time

http://www.qpowerpoint.com/Why-Cant-We-Grow-New-Arms--PPT.html
September 16, 2011 at 9:29 AM
Paul P. Mealing said…
Salamanders are the best known animals for regenerating limbs, and eyes apparently. I found this after a quick search, which provides a not-too-esoteric explanation.

As for toenails, like hair, they don't stop growing unless they fall out. Same as rodents' teeth, including beavers. If they don't wear them down by chewing timber they'd grow into their lower jaw.

So toenails are a completely different process to regeneration, which requires different types of cells: skin, bone, cartilege, blood vessels; to generate.

Regards, Paul.
September 16, 2011 at 1:04 PM
jeremy said…
As far as I know, this question doesn't have a universally agreed-upon answer, but the closest I think anyone has come is the theory by Randolph Nesse and George Williams, in their book Evolution and Healing. (Annoyingly, the book has a different name in America: "Why We Get Sick".) See the short "Regeneration of Body Parts" section of the "Injury" chapter.

Fundamentally, their answer is that evolution won't maintain capacities whose average benefit is low. However, their argument is quite shrewd, and nuanced.

If you can't obtain the relevant section easily, I can send you a summary of their arguments, if you'd find it helpful. However, getting hold their (wonderful) book would be better, I think.
September 16, 2011 at 7:48 PM
Eric Sotnak said…
Some information here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5731/84.full
September 18, 2011 at 4:53 PM
RS Gold said…
I recently adore this kind of tute! Thanks for expressing countless nice tips here just about all! I really like your talent with regard to materials. Lord Appreciate it you! RS Gold
January 14, 2012 at 6:51 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more