https://www.sciencealert.com/more-h...tery-in-our-arms-because-we-re-still-evolving

An artery that temporarily runs down the center of our forearms while we're still in the womb isn't vanishing as often as it used to, according to researchers from Flinders University and the University of Adelaide in Australia.

That means there are more adults than ever with what amounts to be an extra channel of vascular tissue flowing under their wrist.

"Since the 18th century, anatomists have been studying the prevalence of this artery in adults and our study shows it's clearly increasing," Flinders University anatomist Teghan Lucas said in 2020.

"The prevalence was around 10 percent in people born in the mid-1880s compared to 30 percent in those born in the late 20th century, so that's a significant increase in a fairly short period of time, when it comes to evolution."

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_36
edit: added this link

 

Not proof of evolution, just a environmentally altered DNA.

 

Not proof of evolution, just a environmentally altered DNA.

Please explain how that is different from evolution?

Bob

 

An excerpt:
"We might imagine having a persistent median artery could give dexterous fingers or strong forearms a dependable boost of blood long after we're born."I vote for strong forearms!

 

Change that rapid is more likely to be a physiological adjustment to improvement in nutrition. The Flynn Effect is an interesting parallel, a mystery now considered to probably be a change in response to environmental factors particularly nutrition.

Historically, people were a lot hungrier than today, something that changed gradually in the west over the past 150 years, and now worldwide.

Rapid evolutionary change would be directed to characteristics that dramatically affect reproductive success, normally in response to stresses that undermine it (hence punctuated equilibrium)

 

Please explain how that is different from evolution?

Bob

It is well known that various genes are turned on and off over time. The information for the extra artery was there all along. The control mechanisms and enzymes that control gene expression are complex and not well understood. The control mechanisms for turning it off where obviously altered or altered by environmental feedback mechanisms. It is now well known that not one mutation has been found that actually adds information to the genome. Take for example the modern dairy cow. It produces considerably more milk because of us breeding them that way. The increase in milk production was at the expense of damage to the regulatory enzymes due to mutations that kept the milk production at what was needed for survival of the off spring. This also resulted in other damaging effects like the modern dairy cow cannot give birth without human intervention. It is one thing to have mutations that are beneficial for specific reasons, it is another thing all together to actually have a mutation that increases complexity. It does not happen.
The cell has an enormously complex mechanism to proof read DNA when it is copied to try to minimize mutations! The mechanism cost the cell a lot of energy to implement. If mutations are so beneficial, I wonder why the cell goes through so much trouble to minimize them. Which begs the question: How can a mechanism that is driven forward by mutations create a mechanism to eliminate mutations?

 

A persistent median artery!
Post number 6,5,3&2. With respect to the subject of the threat starter. Has nothing to do with nothing!
I will arm wrestle anybody who says different!!

 

Please explain how that is different from evolution?

Bob

The information for that artery was there the entire time. What changed was the environment. Input from the environment can turn on and off gene expression by activating/deactivating various gene regulation enzymes and structures. An analogy: A car manufacturing plant may have information for leather seats and information for cloth seats. Customers get to decide. The information for both is there the entire time. Which one is expressed is determined by other factors.

 

The information for that artery was there the entire time. What changed was the environment. Input from the environment can turn on and off gene expression by activating/deactivating various gene regulation enzymes and structures. An analogy: A car manufacturing plant may have information for leather seats and information for cloth seats. Customers get to decide. The information for both is there the entire time. Which one is expressed is determined by other factors.

Again in the spirit of the topic of the thread starter for you I'll make an exception I will thumb wrestle you!

 

I would trust the original paper.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joa.13224

The
mechanism for the regression of the median artery is initiated and
regulated by specific genes. Persistence of the median artery into
adulthood indicates the failure of the expression of these genes.
Increasing the prevalence over the last 125 years means a true
evolutionary process of the change in gene pools. Retention of the
palmar type phenotypes of the median artery may be the result
of the failure of the regression process to commence. This could
have resulted from alteration of or damage to genes by mutations.
Alternatively, the mother could have been subjected to an envi-
environmental insult such as an infection before the initiation of the
regression process.

When this prevalence rate reaches 50% or more (Kumaratilake and
Saniotis, 2018), persistent median arteries of the forearms will be
considered as normal structures of the forearm and the hand. The
question to ask is whether the mutation/natural selection pressures
acted in causing the trend that occurred during the 150 years of this
study or whether the health insults to the mother and the fetus
were changing during this period, or both.

 

I would trust the original paper.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joa.13224

The necessary genes for the artery where there all along. They just were not being expressed most likely due to regulatory genes that react to environmental cues. Nutrition etc. This is Occam's razor. What is more likely a 'new information added over an insane short period of time' or simply a gene that is now being expressed more than in the past? The information for it was there the whole time, that is why the baby had it to begin with. The article is making something out of pretty much nothing.

 

The necessary genes for the artery where there all along. They just were not being expressed most likely due to regulatory genes that react to environmental cues.

I would trust the original paper.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joa.13224

'may' and 'could have' shows up way to much in this article to call it anything but guessing. As far from true scientific investigation as you can get apparently the researches need grant money. They will say whatever apparently to get it.

 

I would trust the original paper.

It might be correct, but to me it's a far call to postulate microevolutionary change with so many other variables at play.

Scepticism is always valuable to have at hand - the history of explanations for the Flynn Effect is instructive, or further back the discovery and refutation of the 'N-Ray'.

.... the researchers need grant money

or likely looking to improve their citation count.

 

This is Occam's razor. What is more likely a 'new information added over an insane short period of time' or simply a gene that is now being expressed more than in the past?

And insane short period of time? As opposed to what? evolution? And what epoch would that extend too, for humanity to evolve? An insane short timeline perhaps undefined! Although we share the same genus, because of your response I'm ashamed to call myself homo!
Edit: the last sentence was a play on words scientifically!

 

And insane short period of time? As opposed to what? evolution? And what epoch would that extend too, for humanity to evolve? An insane short timeline perhaps undefined! Although we share the same genus, because of your response I'm ashamed to call myself homo!
Edit: the last sentence was a play on words scientifically!

Way to short to be 'evolution' being it is well under 300 years. A spec of time from an evolutionary perspective. Then we have the other problem, if this is a 'evolutionary process' there would have to be selection pressure from the environment for such a change. Common sense tells me there is most likely no correlation between the 'extra' artery in the forearm and the number of children you have. The number of children you have depends on much more important factors like the society you live in, the culture and economic factors. Finally there is the obvious: That is the information for the extra artery is there already. That is why the baby has the extra artery. It is simply being turned on or off base on regulatory enzymes. These enzymes use positive and negative feedback mechanisms that are not well understood by molecular biology at this time but we know they exist and play a critical role in proper operation of the cell and organism as a whole.

 

Please explain how that is different from evolution?

Bob

The obviousness of the many flaws in their thinking (all related to time) is self-explanatory-

 

The latest video of the:
Chain Fountain Dispute

 

Another lock not to buy.

 

 

https://owlcation.com/stem/Blood-Color-in-Humans-and-Animals-Meaning-and-Function

Blood Color in Humans and Animals: Pigments and Body Facts