/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10788055]

Why do limbs not grow back when missing? Why does the body not do this on things like mammalians?

[Anonymous No.10788063]

>>10788055
>Why do limbs not grow back when missing?
Axolotls can do this

[Anonymous No.10788075]

Too complex of a body part to regenerate. Doing so would require enormous amounts of time, energy and material so it's better to stay limbless than actually regenerating them

[Anonymous No.10788086]

>>10788075
>Doing so would require enormous amounts of time, energy and material
That was true for cavemen, yes. But now that we have automation, welfare and mcdonalds evolution should be in overdrive.

[Anonymous No.10788088]

>>10788055
Limb regeneration wouldn't have given us an advantage as a species. It sucks not having you arm or leg, but to humans collectively, in a natural selection context it makes no difference if a few people lose their limbs.

[Anonymous No.10788096]

If we gained the ability to regrow LITERALLY every organ, could we biological immortality by cutting off old body parts and growing newer fresher ones? Could you do this with every organ?

[Anonymous No.10788110]

>>10788055
My muscles don't even grow, so I'm not surprised

[Anonymous No.10788115]

>>10788110
eat and lift more

[Anonymous No.10788120]

>>10788086
>But now that we have automation, welfare and mcdonalds evolution should be in overdrive.

Oh, but it is. Just not the way youd want it to..

[Anonymous No.10788124]

>>10788088
>>10788075
>ad hoc explanations
In other words bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10788127]

>>10788055
The larger the animal the more energy would need to be spent on this. Also the larger the animal the less likely that an entire limb would be removed.

[Anonymous No.10788133]

>>10788120
I'm glad the future is black. They need to be on top too.

[Anonymous No.10788134]

>>10788086
>evolution should be in overdrive.
It's called homeostasis.

[Anonymous No.10788139]

>>10788120
>world population increases
>iq goes down globally
gee

[Anonymous No.10788165]

>>10788096

If we could regrow limbs we could probably just maintain our organs without the need for cutting them out

[Anonymous No.10788168]

>>10788139
None of those graphs are accurate.

[Anonymous No.10788192]

>>10788165
I was just thinking almost every animal that's attained biological immortality has some way of permanently removing older cells from the body. Either through shedding or molting or something similar.
If we could "molt" old body parts and completely replace them with younger ones that'd solve the aging problem.

Like you said, even a few vital organs would drastically improve lifespan.
Why can't they remove half a liver, crisper some lizard DNA into it, place in incubator for a few months while it grows into a full sized liver, then place it back in the original body? How many organs could we do this to? And how many would you require to double, triple, or quadruple a persons lifespan?

Also, cybernetics will allow us to replace old and worn out limbs with prosthetic, but cybernetics won't replace organs. If you want extreme long lived people to be productive and functional, they'll need both cybernetic prosthetic AND vat grown organs.

[Anonymous No.10788203]

>>10788192
Lizards don't live as long as humans.

[Anonymous No.10788250]

>>10788110
stop being french

[Anonymous No.10788286]

>>10788203
they don't intentionally remove organs in order to replace them with new ones either

[Anonymous No.10788619]

cancer

[Anonymous No.10789864]

>>10788619
rude, apologize worm!

[Anonymous No.10789870]

>>10788063
>Axolotls can do this
Why would you make this post when OP explicitly specified how he's talking about mammals? Everyone is aware there exist animals that can grow back limbs. He's asking why we can't, or why mammals in general can't.

[Anonymous No.10789884]

In nature, if a mammal gets a limb severed, it has great chances of dying, so the regrowth mechanism would be useless in most cases