I was just having a conversation and the topic of babies and development came up.
At one stage in human development, do humans have “gills”?
Nope, but they do have the instinct to hold their breath underwater and swim (kinda), but this wear off unless they are in water regularly
There are some vestigal thingies during fetal development that appear to be related to gills, but there are no actual gills.
No. They do, however, have gill slits, which are non-functional. All air the fetus receives is through the placenta–they can not breathe amniotic fluid. More here: http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/sgilber1/bio111/steve/W10/PharyngealGillSlits.htm
During development, the embryos of all vertebrates develop a series of pouches (pharyngeal pouches) in the neck region. In fish these go on to develop into gills. In mammals and other terrestrial forms, the primitive developmental pathway has become modified and they never develop into functional gills, but into other structures.
So there is a little germ of truth to it. While they don’t have functioning gills, they do have gill slits.
IANAWhoeverKnowsAboutThisStuff, but Rutgers says there are “gill pouches”"
I’m sure someone who knows more than I do will be along shortly.
Humans, and all other vertebrates, develop gill-like folds (aka slits or pouches) at some stage during development (a very early stage). These structures are not gills, never become gills, and their actual nature is a matter of debate. It has long been a keystone of comparative embryology that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” which is to say that embryos display the stages of their evolution as they develop. Some biologists are uncertain of that, but still insist that gill-like structures during development indicate some piscine ancestry. Others are certain that they’re just folds, or that they’re the precursors of other, more universal structures in the neck, such as the parathyroid. I’m not certain of the degree to which any of this has been confirmed, but I’m pretty sure it’s less than any of the adherents of these positions are saying.
The strict form of this, that embryos go through stages that are similar to the adults of ancestoral forms, has long been discarded. However, it may be better stated as “ontogeny recapitulates ontogeny,” that is, embryos pass through stages that resemble the embryos of ancestors. What is true is that early embryos of related forms (e.g. vertebrates) are generally much more similar than adult forms are.
So * The Abyss * had it wrong? I always wondered about that part.
Yeah, 'cause all the other science in that movie was spot on…right? 
Yeah, The Abyss is actually a wealth of scientific information.
To get back to the subject at hand, Porcupine’s pretty much nailed this one as far as the eventual fate of the gill-looking structures in humans.
(Then again, I only minored in biology.)
Ontogeny recapitulates phyolgeny. . .
Anybody out there ever read THE WATER BABIES, a Victorian fairy tale by Charles Kingsley and just about the freakiest thing that I’ve ever come across? The author was a devout Christian who yet believed in the newly-proposed theory of natural selection, and his imaginative tale is an attempt to unite the two in symbolic terms. And what a wild, weird ride it is.
When our protagonist, a young chimney sweep, drowns, he finds himself reborn into a new body, swimming about in the English country stream where his old self died. He’s a sort of fetal soul, almost four inches long, usually invisible to the human eye, and yes–he has gills!
It gets weirder from here on. We’re off on an epic journey that is part travelogue, part zoological study (the sections on marine life are marvelous), part satire on the British school system, and part theological discourse. All of it is sugar-coated with Victorian sentimentality and didacticism that cannot suppress the sexual repression straining to break through in every paragraph. Tom’s spiritual and evolutionary journey begins in the most infantile terms (he learns that stealing candy is bad)–but before it’s over, he’s laying his soul on the line to free another soul–one who tormented him cruelly in his earthly life–from Hell. Is the ending happy or sad? Did it “really happen” or was the author just playing with our heads? You decide, Gentle Reader.
THE WATER BABIES can be read on about 1,298,876 different levels, and you’ll never read it the same way twice. It’s the masterwork of an eccentric visionary who believed that ontogeny recapitualtes phylogeny in spiritual terms as well as the physical.
In other words, evolution applies to the soul, not just the body.
What a nut case! And what a great book!
Sexual repression in the Water Babies?
My god I really did miss that subtext when I read it about the age of nine!
Now I really want to go re-read it. Can you give me a brief synopsis of these elements in the book?
pharyngeal arches are my nemesis!
i’m studying the anatomy or the head and neck and neuro-anatomy and i HATE the embryology.
stupid arches…
mutters to self
throws textbook down in frustration
Not only do people have gill slits for a time during embryonic development, from time-to-time remnants of these slits remain after birth.
This ran in the family of an old girlfriend of mine. Her brother and her son were both born with a barely noticeable indentation in their neck, rather like a deep pin prick. Doctors assured them this was the tip of a gill slit which failed to seal completely.
In addition to The Water Babies, a 3-D horror movie from the early 50s called The Maze is of interest. In it a family covers up for relative whose development took a wrong turn after the gill slit phase, and is, to all appearances, a gigantic frog. The idea was also dealt with in an episode of the old TV series One Step Beyond.
The Water Babies can be read online here.
Water Babies! I’d forgotten completely about that creepy story. Even as a small child, I remember wondering what the hellt he author was smoking while writing it.
Hi istara!
I guess the sexual element of the book isn’t evident unless you’re in on Kingsley’s personal fixations. Kingsley had an undeniable sexual fetish involving water, and for him it was a very powerful sexual symbol. Dissertations about the power of water abound in the book (hell, most of it is set in the ocean!)–including that very peculiar essay near the end in which the author advises his young male readers to bathe only in cold water.
The water=sex connection isn’t just a theory thrown together by wishful-thinking Freudians. Kingsley once wrote a VERY erotic letter to his wife–fortunately the original still exists–full of water symbolism, and included a pen-sketch of the two of them nude, making love, pound to a cross that was floating on the ocean. Sexuality, faith, and fetishism all in one!
Dear Cat Fight,
Yes, it IS creepy, isn’t it?
By the way, the publication of THE WATER BABIES had an interesting and unforeseen social effect. Although most of the book is pure fantasy, the opening chapters presented a realistic and unsettling description of the cruelties that child chimney sweeps faced every day. This led to an examination of the practice by Parliament, and to the first really effective child-labor laws in England!
Just to clear up any confusion… They are not gill slits or gill pouches. They are definitely pharyngeal pouches, because they never develop into gills. Colibri’s post summed it up best. Combine that with porcupine’s list of what the pouches give rise to, and you have what should be a nice, complete answer.