Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our closest worm kin regrow body parts, raising hopes of regeneration in humans

washington.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 167 posts

Re: Our closest worm kin regrow body parts, raising hopes of regeneration in humans

#71

Post by sfink »

From what I've understood from things I've read on the past, we do have pretty much full regenerative ability already. It is blocked by various things, such as the epidermis. If you chop off a finger, a blastula of stem cells will develop on the tip, at least until the skin grows over and stops it. If you could hold back the skin, then... well, you'd die of an infection in very short order. Waiting for regeneration is just not feasible in the natural world.

There's also the potential for cancer, of course, but personally I don't buy that objection. You can take cancerous cells and revert them to stem cells and they'll stop misbehaving (unless their genetic damage is very specifically triggering them to grow without bound, but I think this is rare. Usually it's a gene activation problem.)

And complexity of the regenerated part isn't much of a problem. You can reroute the nerves on a salamander to get a fully functioning arm poking out of its back. Some things can regenerate half their hearts fast enough to survive. I don't know exactly how the information is transmitted and expressed, but it's there.

No, I can't prove my assertions. They are based on half-remembered readings of the book The Body Electric from long ago, written by a guy who did experiments to back this craziness up. He was enough of a nutcase that not many people followed after, though his key findings were replicated. And he lost the thread at some point, going on a crusade against emf fields that didn't seem to be based on real science. So it goes.

Re: Our closest worm kin regrow body parts, raising hopes of regeneration in humans

#72

Post by JumpCrisscross »

marvy wrote: post #68
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Forbid recreation for those who chosen immortality How do you police sex in a democracy?

The same way you police it in a dictatorship, or any other form of government. Just do what China does for its one child policy, except that it would be a zero child policy. I doubt this is a good idea though.

> I doubt this is a good idea though

I agree. Overpopulation is an overstated problem [1]. Rich societies reproduce at below their replacement levels. Pursuing higher quality of life by expanding capability (including by tapping extraterrestrial potential) is more sustainable than by constraining population.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opinion/overpopulation-is-...

Re: Our closest worm kin regrow body parts, raising hopes of regeneration in humans

#73

Post by rmtew »

kazinator wrote: post #43

"Why can't we break off half a microchip, and then rebuild the missing part so it works again? We have all the mask artwork and silicon wafers ..."

The old UK sci-fi television series, Blakes 7, which aired in 1970's had this as one of their predicted technologies.

Entire portions of machinery would regenerate after being exploded in sabotage.

Grids of "radiation mine wire" would after being cut, would have the ends of the cable seek each other out and it would grow to join up again. The strategy to bypass this grid/minefield of interlaced wire, would be to fire the blaster across it clearing a path and then to run through it within 8 seconds before it regenerates.

While it was a bit fantastical for the time, I'm sure some hand-waving could justify nanotech as the way this TV tech might be realised.

Re: Our closest worm kin regrow body parts, raising hopes of regeneration in humans

#74

Post by xux »

A lot of people are focusing on the mechanics, but it seems like humans don't generate body parts just like cells don't generate organelles. The entity is not _meant_ to exist by itself, but form a cohesive living group.

A cell doesn't need to repair itself, it can simply clone itself and then die. A human being doesn't need to regenerate itself because it can reproduce and be cleared away. Evolution evolved to ensure the survival of the species, not the individual.

The human being is constantly generating itself by multiplying cells. Similarly, the species is constantly generating itself by multiplying individuals.

Re: Our closest worm kin regrow body parts, raising hopes of regeneration in humans

#75

Post by sakopov »

Jerry2 wrote: post #63

Few years back I remember reading a story about the guy who lost his finger in an accident and then regrew it by dipping it into some kind of a powder. Edit: found it! > The magical formula to regrow a finger apparently includes a doctor, a pig, and some “pixie dust.” This is no fairytale, though; this is a medical breakthrough being explored at the University of Pittsburgh, Pa. In Science Channel’s video, “How to Gr…

Perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't this how scientists regrow organs? The matrix is used as the structure which gets implanted with the person's stem cells which activates growth. In the end the organ isn't even rejected by the body. However, growing limbs out of the same material is just mind-bending.

Re: Our closest worm kin regrow body parts, raising hopes of regeneration in humans

#76

Post by abledon »

marvy wrote: post #66
abledon wrote: post #41

One answer I've read in The Spark In The Machine[1], is that our cells' organizational energies (or Qi in Chinese Medicine) is not strong enough as we grow older. Only when someone is super young (when their qi is super strong) can they regrow body parts and very small ones (the tips of the fingers!)[2] """ Doctors have seen the effect in humans without quite understanding how it happens. "Kids will actually regrow a…

I am kind of doubtful about this Qi business. I followed the amazon link you gave and it made it even more doubtful. Nevertheless, I gave you an upvote, because I had no idea fingertips could ever regrow; that's really cool! I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the third link. Are you saying Qi is electric?

Yes! the term "Qi" is just another way to denote the organizational electric energies our bodies use to orchestrate cellular function. This video does a way better job at describing it: https://vimeo.com/154294365 (2 minutes)

Re: Our closest worm kin regrow body parts, raising hopes of regeneration in humans

#77

Post by m0llusk »

avodonosov wrote: post #35

It would be good to regenerate at least teeth.

Regenerating body parts doesn't happen because it is hugely expensive in terms of biochemical resources. Teeth are the most materially expensive parts of the human body. That is why teeth are often the most long lasting and best preserved human remains.

Re: Our closest worm kin regrow body parts, raising hopes of regeneration in humans

#78

Post by elihu »

traviswingo wrote: post #9

I'm a huge believer that humans can cherry-pick the best traits of many different species and apply them to ourselves. It might sound like science fiction right now, bit give it time and we humans will have unlocked some crazy things that we claimed to be "impossible." It's always impossible until it's done. And to be honest, I think the second something is thought of, it becomes possible. I live for this shit.

Yes. Currently, we rely on evolution by random mutation and recombining genes, which works in the long run, but has two problems: mutations are more likely to be detrimental than beneficial, and we have no way to appropriate the various advantages that non-human species have.

Deliberately cherry-picking traits seems like it could be quite a boon for the human race. (It would of course need to be done carefully and with proper ethical safeguards against careless experimentation.)

Re: Our closest worm kin regrow body parts, raising hopes of regeneration in humans

#79

Post by maxander »

The "we have the same genes" argument is completely absurd. So alright, some set of DNA sequences in the context of a worm enable the regeneration of worm parts; does it follow that the same set of DNA sequences in the context of a human enable the regeneration of human parts? Of course not! In the same way that the knowledge of how fix a bike has little bearing on being able to fix a cellphone, or that the touchscreen drivers on said phone wouldn't provide a usable interface if loaded onto your gameboy. DNA is just data; its functional value is almost entirely dependent on its surroundings. For that matter, we're a bit physically different than worms; trying to port their mechanisms to human physiology is likely comparable to trying to graft wings onto your arms in order to fly.

Not to say that regeneration is implausible (after all, generation is possible), or that there's nothing to be learned from worm regeneration, but this article is fluff.

Post reply on HN