[QUOTE=Nullpersona]
I greatly appreciate the link, as it is not only informative, but lends credibility to my argument.
[/QUOTE]
Not likely, since your loopy argument (that the placenta could (and should) continue to function while attached to the infant) never had any credibility in the first place.
Someone can lend you credibility but ultimately you’ve got to give it back, plus interest, which (frankly speaking) is decreasing with rapidity.
It is the physiologic reality of the situation. The placenta is not a self-sustaining organ. It is a way of protecting and carrying and exchanging nutrients and waste products between fetal and maternal sides. It is awesome and really good at that (in all species), but that is what it is. There is nothing wrong with it being unnecessary and discarded after birth. It served its great purpose.
I understand you are against commercialization of placental products, and I can understand that. Frankly, other than saving for stem cells, I don’t see a lot of other benefits derived from the placenta itself. And I’d prefer the stem cells go towards research or transplants, not beauty products.
Proof has been provided that it is perfectly functional up until birth.
What proof has anyone provided, that it cannot continue to function?
Conforming to a socially accepted norm of thinking, is useful for avoiding conflict with ignorance.
Conflicting with a socially accepted norm of thinking, is a useful way to avoid conforming with ignorance.
If there is some “Magical switch” that turns the placenta off at birth, no one has provided proof of it. The Wharton’s Jelly reacts to temperature and congeals, or it is clamped off by people.
I ask the question, that others might ask the question.
I think youve shifted the burden of proof. There is no evidence that the placenta has any purpose beyond birth, and litte reason to imagine that it might. If your view is to the contrary, bring some substance to back it up.
You seem to keep thinking that the placenta is what provides nutrients/energy to the fetus. No, it does not. A part of the placenta is integrated with the maternal circulation in order to conduct that exchage. The placenta and the maternal side form a unit that is involved with that. But the placenta by itself cannot give any energy to the fetus.
That is all it is needed for. Why is it so hard to accept the concept of a temporary organ? What does that belief goes against?
Information has been provided in this thread. Also, keep in mind that the placenta is broken so that the fetus can get out (that is childbirth). What remains of the placenta are the vessels and part of the unit that is involved in nutrient exchange. But the placenta is broken at birth. By the fetus if not by the mother or attendants, this needs to be done so that the fetus can breathe air and you know, develop and survive outside of the uterus.
They have provided it. And the fact that in many cases, the placenta is expelled from the uterus (instead of tugged out) is evidence that it is switched “off”. The uterus severs its connections and association with the placenta, amongst other things. Actually tugging at the placenta in numerous species IS risky, as the chances that the connections are still there and intact are higher, and the chances of bleeding (for the mother) are greater (multiple species).
Thank you. None yet, as the placenta has not been kept after birth to find out. Imagination needs no reason, but if one cannot imagine the possible benefits of this, Oly had some nice ideas. What would constitute substance at this point.
Chief Pedant provided proof of the placenta’s functionality up to birth.
Oly provided conjecture based on their expertise and imagination.
I am the progenitor of the idea. That is my role.
Think of the placenta capable of being a super liquid lung. That lung does not spontaneously generate resources, it gleans them from the environment.
I accept the concept of temporary organs. The second question is moot. The placenta may be temporary. Courtesy dictates I ask: Why is it so hard to accept the concept of the placenta as a permanent organ? What does that belief go against?
“Is broken” and “Breaks” have different actors. It does not “break”, it “is broken” by the environment, or the people around.
I have not seen this proof, please quote and/or link. Understanding the placenta stands to improve the survival rate of both mother and child.
ALERT Imminent humor ALERT
Everyone has figurative buttons that may be pushed.
This is an intellectual button that ironically has a physical manifestation on intellectual creatures that bear it.
(People get upset, when talking about their belly buttons.) ALL CLEAR
The lung is a specialized organ that can extract oxygen from the air and release carbon dioxide. The placenta is not able to do that. Once again, the placenta cannot even exchange nutrients unless it is somewhat linked to the maternal side (uterus).
It goes against physiology. The placenta is not supposed to be a permanent organ, anymore than the egg is a permanent organ in birds, reptiles, and fish.
When I speak of placentas, I speak in general, of multiple species (so no people needed). The placenta is broken by the fetus itself when getting out of it, it is broken by the physical force of giving birth, it is expelled by the uterus that contracts and pushes it out. Just like the egg has to be broken in order for the chicken or duckling to appear and develop, so does the placenta is broken. The placenta needs to break in order to remove the fetus (and thus get a baby, puppy, kitten, foal, calf, kid, etc.)
This is true, but you fail in attempting to understand what the placenta is and does.
OP was, as the name of this forum suggests, a question. I suggest that either a) the question was answered and explored, or b) OP was posted as a declarative sentence, which is intended to remain one come hell or high water.
Threads, like placentas in the real world, have a function and then when no longer useful become defunct.
It’s only possible to entertain this idea by means of gross wilful ignorance of evolution and biology in general.
If the placenta has purpose beyond birth, why is it the case that no placental mammal on the planet does it? It’s preposterously unlikely that an important function of an organ would have been lost simultaneously and independently in all the branches of mammalian life.
If the placenta ever had the sort of function that you are proposing, it would very likely be completely impossible to restore it now, after millions of years of non-use.
Evolution tends to obliterate functions that fall completely out of use (it’s not guaranteed that this will happen, but after millions of generations of non-use, in a context where non-use doesn’t matter, it’s really very likely that mutations will have broken something).
Eh, no, the diagram is flawed. What that picture is pointing out is the placental fetal/maternal attachment site. The placenta is the whole sac that contains the fetus.
You’ve failed to properly see the pictures and other diagrams provided, or to carefully read and understand what is written.
Eh, nope… check the diagram. I think you’re confusing the placental fetal/maternal exchange part with the whole placenta (the attachment site). The umbilical vessels (and urachus) run from the abdomen to the placental attachment site (or placenta in non-discoid placental animals).
Stop treating the placenta as if it is solely a human thing. It is not, it happens in all mammalian species.
Could the placenta have become vestigial? Not as long as humans are being born.
Your arguments have merit, but are assuming that the placenta decides to die instantly at birth.
There is cause and effect for everything.
What causes the placenta to stop working?
Have we adapted to shut them off? Possibly.
Do you have any proof of that specific genetic evolution?
When very-likely and probably are the extent of your certitude, it is conjecture.
I would drop it like a bad habit, if it weren’t true. Wouldn’t you?
