The Evolution of Our Soles

C

Canute

Registered Senior Member
I just came across this from Koestler ('Janus' p202)

"There is, for example, the hoary problem of why the skin on the soles of our feet is so much thicker than elsewhere. If the thickening occures after birth, as a result of pressure and friction, there would be no problem. But the skin of the sole is already thickened in the embryo which has never walked... (gives more examples)...These are inherited characteristics. But is it conceivable that these callosities should have evolved by chance mutation just exactly where the animal needed them? Or must we assume that there is a causal, Lamarckian connection between the animals need to protect these vulnerable spots and the genetic mutations which satisfies that need?

Have we found an answer to this since he wrote it?
 
Animals with thicker skin on their feet would presumably be able to run better over rough terrain, so they would be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass the trait of thicker skin on the feet on to their offspring. Duh.
 
I don't think you've considered the issue properly. That's no answer. If it was the question would never have arisen.
 
Maybe that is because you assume that skin needs external stimuli to grow thicker. And nasor doesn't. He is saying that it can be genetically predetermined which sections of the skin are thicker to start of.

which is reasonable.
 
Apparently this problem is much quoted in the literature (or used to be) as an example of the sort of thing which mutation/selection could not explain, but some form of inheritance of aquired characteristics could. I don't have a view, but wondered if the issue had been settled.

It's not enough to say that it's a mutation subsequently selected for. The whole point of the example (not my choice) is that in this case the mutation (or series of them) seems too unlikely to be random. This does seem to be true. (I can accept eyes and so on, it's not the complexity here that is the problem, it's the curiousness and specificity of the supposed mutation).

Perhaps Nasor's answer is right, but if so I can't imagine why this and some similar examples were ever an issue.
 
I think nasor is right.
It seems to me like its just like any other physical trait, unless I'm missing something...
 
Fair enough. I suppose soles of feet are like any other adaption, (although they do seem more weird than hair and lungs). They just seemed to get picked on rather regularly by those who thought there was more going on than chance mutations.
 
let me rant a bit on this:

that's probably because we all know that the soles of our feet thicken when in heavy use. It therefore accesible experience to everyone. People can then use this general experience to introduce an idea that is actually out of the ordinary. But because it somehow connects with our own experience it is more acceptible.

end of rant.
 
The problem here Canute is the perception of what is probable and difficult, you see the sole as a unlikely mutation, it very hard to define what is and is not likely or how many very likely steps where require to evolve a sole.

I hate question like these because the genetic mechanism for how our soles are thicker is not yet discovered, but when it is, I mean once all of proteinomics is done with and we know the genetic cause of our entire structure and there are no loses ends (that won't be happening for a long time), will Lamarckian and Theologians have a argument against evolution anymore?
 
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
let me rant a bit on this:

that's probably because we all know that the soles of our feet thicken when in heavy use. It therefore accesible experience to everyone. People can then use this general experience to introduce an idea that is actually out of the ordinary. But because it somehow connects with our own experience it is more acceptible.

end of rant.
Click to expand...
I see your point. But note that I was quoting from respectable literature - not from the Fortean Times. (PS. the point was that it is not due heavy use). Anyway - I'm not arguing.
 
I'm not arguing either...but respectable people have agendas too.

But probably I am wrong here. Sometimes my imagination just takes over. And I don't mind if it does.
 
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
The problem here Canute is the perception of what is probable and difficult, you see the sole as a unlikely mutation, it very hard to define what is and is not likely or how many very likely steps where require to evolve a sole.

I hate question like these because the genetic mechanism for how our soles are thicker is not yet discovered, but when it is, I mean once all of proteinomics is done with and we know the genetic cause of our entire structure and there are no loses ends (that won't be happening for a long time), will Lamarckian and Theologians have a argument against evolution anymore?
Click to expand...
You're right, I do find it difficult. But I wasn't trying to make any particular point about the current orthodoxy.

Your second para. seems to ask whether anybody will question strict neo-Darwinism once it's been conclusively proved, which is an odd question.

PS. I've never heard anyone argue against evolution per se, theologian or otherwise.

Anyway - I fully understand that soles are not thought to be special in any way.
 
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
a baby also starts of with hair, although it never needed it. Or lungs...
Click to expand...

IMO, this is the operative argument. nose, fingers, nipples, stomach acid, skin in general, finger nails, most of the bodies muscles, tendons, bones, etc, are not needed if the baby were to live it's entire life floating around, fed by it's mother. These things are only usefull apon being born, at which point, they are very helpful in surviving long enough to reproduce. And then again to be successfull enough *to* reproduce. A guy w/ no calluse on his soles would cut his feet early on in life. this would lead to scar tissue, which is very painful to walk on. I have seen that men w/ limps tend to have a harder time picking up women than men w/o limps.

Muscles are very useful in things like standing, walking, talking, throwing, f***ing, etc, but are next to useless in the womb. but we have them coming out of the womb, and through use, the get bigger and denser. does this mean that having muscles are an inherited trait from our parents? no, it means that having muscles are a part of being a genetically normal human being.

same goes for callouses, IMO.
 
Thanks - but no thanks. I'll take your word for it. (I've no problem with the idea of God - just the sort of discussions you get on theology forums).
 
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
once all of proteinomics is done with and we know the genetic cause of our entire structure and there are no loses ends (that won't be happening for a long time), will Lamarckian and Theologians have a argument against evolution anymore?
Click to expand...

of course they will, after all when have their arguments ever taken fact into account? They'll dismiss it all with a wave of their hands and keep on living in their dream world.
 
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
I hate question like these because the genetic mechanism for how our soles are thicker is not yet discovered, but when it is, I mean once all of proteinomics is done with and we know the genetic cause of our entire structure and there are no loses ends (that won't be happening for a long time), will Lamarckian and Theologians have a argument against evolution anymore?
Click to expand...

if we are going to quote this a lot then let me so modest to make a remark about it.

Obviously proteomics is not going to solve the big problem of development of a structure. Neither is knowing the genetics. We have done that for many years now and came to the conclusion that we should ascent to the cellular level now and see how cells use all these kinds of information to differentiate, interact, etc.

thank you for your attention...
 
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Mystech your got it right 100%! you go to theology forums often or something?
Click to expand...

I know the religious mind :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top