Recently, ANANOVA reported that two brothers in Bosnia each had 2 pairs of kidneys (the normal human has 1 pair of kidneys).
So, my questions for debate:
What role did God play in this? Based on the Old Testament version of religion, man was created in God’s image. So does God have four kidneys?
Can we use this to finally disprove creationism?
PS The old example is sickle cell anaemia.
First off if your trying to disprove creationism there are much more effective then this. I’m not a creationist but this is not really proof, for one thing it is not evolution as you put it, but a mutation, and probobly a harmfull one. While it seems odd the genetic difference is probobly just as much as hair color.
I’m not defending creationism or anything, but I doubt this particular example will change many minds.
Most Christians don’t seem to believe that “created in God’s image” refers to anything physical. But rather, it’s more of a spiritual or moral image.
Creationists seem to believe (rightly or wrongly) that the only “real” evolution is what they sometimes call “downward” evolution- that is, genetic changes that result from the mutation or duplication of existing DNA information. So by that logic I would assume that extra kidneys would count under duplication.
As far as I understand it, the process of kidney formation in the foetus is quite complex and that they arise from an extended line of a particular kind of tissue; it seems at least possible that this might not be a heritable condition, even though it is present in two siblings (i.e. it might be caused by some developmental peculiarity that is specific to the conditions in their mother’s womb, for example).
Even if it IS heritable and caused by a mutation, it doesn’t demonstrate evolution as such, just that mutations can give rise to situations that aren’t immediately destructive (which is not insignificant), but I can hear the creationists now; the response would be:
“Four kidneys are a disadvantage! You have twice the risk of kidney stones and infections! Four kidneys cost more to run than two! Show me where a mutation caused something positive!”
Or
“So what? They are still humans! Show me where a mutation caused a mouse to change into an elephant”
IMO, the only fruitful way to challenge creationism is to ask for positive evidence in favour of it, rather than lists of ill-informed and lame potshots at misunderstood or grossly distorted caracatures of real science.