Deaf couple wants deaf baby guaranteed via IVF

[Buffalo]

And yes, -humans- may have never been deaf, but I think we can assume that EVERYTHING was 'deaf' at some point, before humans and other more advanced species existed.

Octopi are advanced species because they have the ability to change colors to blend in the background. They have the ability to squeeze into tight spaces. They can figure out how to open a jar with a treat in it. Yet, they are deaf.

Let us say if the primates of 85 millions years ago has the knowledge and ability to screen out whatever they don't want, they would screen us out as we are mutants to them. We are very weak compare to them. I say let the evolution go its way. Who knows that the Deaf people might evolute into something better than the rest of mankind? We might even develop sonar ability just like the dolphins. We got to have a big forehead just like the dolphins for that. Now doesn't that sounds like the Roswell aliens (big head, big eyes, no ears!)?

 

[jenni-m]

That is quite an assumption to make, and cannot be supported in any way scientifically.

Nor does deafness imply that one has less ability. Adaptation results in compensation, and that means that ability is not lost, but simply gained in another manner. Likewsie, adaptation is a definate sign of progress.

But it is NOT 'gained in another manner'. It is compensated via problem solving skills, which everyone has, and not a gained ability.... I'm sorry, but I think you are fighting for a cause here, rather than reasoning.

But that is just my opinion, nothing personal. I know people cannot agree on everything.

Oh, and:

That is quite an assumption to make, and cannot be supported in any way scientifically.

There is even LESS (or even no) scientific evidence pointing to things happening any other way... so unless you are a Creationist of some sort... there is way more evidence to support it than there is to rule it out.

Further edit:
If you are a Creationist, don't be offended. I have nothing against it, but it is not scientifically supported (yet), except for some highly debatable pseudoscience done by people with agendas to prove something without the possibility of it being falsifiable...

 

[jillio]

But it is NOT 'gained in another manner'. It is compensated via problem solving skills, which everyone has, and not a gained ability.... I'm sorry, but I think you are fighting for a cause here, rather than reasoning.

But that is just my opinion, nothing personal. I know people cannot agree on everything.

Oh, and:


There is even LESS (or even no) scientific evidence pointing to things happening any other way... so unless you are a Creationist of some sort... there is way more evidence to support it than there is to rule it out.

Further edit:
If you are a Creationist, don't be offended. I have nothing against it, but it is not scientifically supported (yet), except for some highly debatable pseudoscience done by people with agendas to prove something without the possibility of it being falsifiable...

Compensated for via adaptation. And I'm going to have to disagree with you that everyone has problem solving skills. Problem solving skills are something that is taught, not something inherent. However, adaptation is a natural process. For example, take a look at the infant who is born deaf, yet very shortly after birth has already adapted to use his/her visual sense to gain information that a hearing baby gains auditorily. That is a natural adaptation toi environment and circumstance, and has absolutely nothing to do with problem solving skills.

There is actually no evidence that human or animal organisms were, at one time, all deaf, and that hearing is an evolutionary occurrance. That is what you were proposing. However, there is evidence to support the opposite. In fact, through the evolutionary process, it is those things which are no longer necessary for survival that are lost, not things that are gained. If you follow exacting evolutionary principles, it would be much more likely that all creatures were once hearing, but as the environment has changed so that hearing is not necessary for absolute survival, deafness becomes ever more present.

And no, I am not a Creationist. But you have your evolutionary principles, and the progression of the phylogenetic scale reversed.

 

[jenni-m]

Compensated for via adaptation. And I'm going to have to disagree with you that everyone has problem solving skills. Problem solving skills are something that is taught, not something inherent. However, adaptation is a natural process. For example, take a look at the infant who is born deaf, yet very shortly after birth has already adapted to use his/her visual sense to gain information that a hearing baby gains auditorily. That is a natural adaptation toi environment and circumstance, and has absolutely nothing to do with problem solving skills.

1. Humans do have inborn problem solving skills.
2. Using the vision to compensate is a 'forced' tendency to use something that is present instead of something else (which isn't there). It is still not an added ability, and involves natural problem solving. The type of adaptation -I- am thinking of, would be something like growing antennae which sense vibration. Not going to happen.

I do not consider myself as having adapted to having a mutated COL2A1 gene. I LEARNED to compensate for the health problems it causes me.

There is actually no evidence that human or animal organisms were, at one time, all deaf, and that hearing is an evolutionary occurrance. That is what you were proposing. However, there is evidence to support the opposite. In fact, through the evolutionary process, it is those things which are no longer necessary for survival that are lost, not things that are gained.

We are more than likely evolved from single cells. Life -probably- first began in some kind of water, or fluid, and remained there for quite some time. Maybe organisms could 'hear', but it would not have been 'air hearing' like humans have, if it were present at all.

Edit:
Also, things are generally only 'lost' [unless] (I made a mistake and said 'if' before) they are totally not needed anymore, and even then they might remain in some way. We are not headed towards a non hearing population any time soon. Actual adaptation has to happen first, which -includes- sociological evolution.

 

[jillio]

1. Humans do have inborn problem solving skills.
2. Using the vision to compensate is a 'forced' tendency to use something that is present instead of something else (which isn't there). It is still not an added ability, and involves natural problem solving. The type of adaptation -I- am thinking of, would be something like growing antennae which sense vibration. Not going to happen.

I do not consider myself as having adapted to having a mutated COL2A1 gene. I LEARNED to compensate for the health problems it causes me.



We are more than likely evolved from single cells. Life -probably- first began in some kind of water, or fluid, and remained there for quite some time. Maybe organisms could 'hear', but it would not have been 'air hearing' like humans have, if it were present at all.

Edit:
Also, things are generally only 'lost' [unless] (I made a mistake and said 'if' before) they are totally not needed anymore, and even then they might remain in some way. We are not headed towards a non hearing population any time soon. Actual adaptation has to happen first, which -includes- sociological evolution.

You are obviously confused between the concepts of natural adaptation and problem solving skills. Problem solving requires the ability to produce logical thought, and is not present in infants. Using vision to compensate is not a "forced" tendency. It is natural adaptation, as it occurs without any outside influence. Adaptation is not something added. That is genetic mutation. There is a big difference.

And something is not always lost just because it has become completely unneccessary to environmental survival. Different individuals move along the phylogenetic scale at a faster rate than do others. Wisdom teeth are no longer necessary, and the majority of the population still has them to the degree that they do not erupt, but are left as bony impactions,a nd have to be surgically removed. However,there is also a percentage of the population that has moved even further than that along the scale, and do not have wisdom teeth at all.

 

[jenni-m]

You are obviously confused between the concepts of natural adaptation and problem solving skills. Problem solving requires the ability to produce logical thought, and is not present in infants. Using vision to compensate is not a "forced" tendency. It is natural adaptation, as it occurs without any outside influence. Adaptation is not something added. That is genetic mutation. There is a big difference.

Not confused, no. Seeing it differently, yes. A baby born without arms will naturally use feet to do things, without being told, even though the brain and body is technically still 'mapped' neurologically to having arms, some remapping will occur in the brain over time, but the old will remain present in some way also. It does not require 'logic', only a presented 'problem', then trial and error.

And something is not always lost just because it has become completely unneccessary to environmental survival. Different individuals move along the phylogenetic scale at a faster rate than do others. Wisdom teeth are no longer necessary, and the majority of the population still has them to the degree that they do not erupt, but are left as bony impactions,a nd have to be surgically removed. However,there is also a percentage of the population that has moved even further than that along the scale, and do not have wisdom teeth at all.

I am not sure what you are getting at with this example. As I said, things no longer needed may remain. But wisdom teeth are not needed, yet they are not lost, at the same time things that ARE lost, generally are lost there is no longer a need. The wisdom teeth example does not go against that theory. This statement you make is enigmatic to me...

 

[jillio]

Not confused, no. Seeing it differently, yes. A baby born without arms will naturally use feet to do things, without being told, even though the brain and body is technically still 'mapped' neurologically to having arms, some remapping will occur in the brain over time, but the old will remain present in some way also. It does not require 'logic', only a presented 'problem', then trial and error.



I am not sure what you are getting at with this example. As I said, things no longer needed may remain. But wisdom teeth are not needed, yet they are not lost, at the same time things that ARE lost, generally aren't unless there is no longer a need. The wisdom teeth example does not go against that theory. This statement you make is enigmatic to me...

No, it doesn't require logic, which is why it is called adaptation instead of problem solving. That mapping is only true if the chilkd were born without arms, and lost them due to accident or disease.

No the wisdom teeth example fully follows the progression of evolution. You example of organisms once being deaf and then gaining hearing is the reverse of the natural process of evolution.

 

[Steel X]

I find that to be stupid as well. I guess they just want a baby to be in the same community as them and want their baby to learn sign language and such but hey...even if the baby is hearing, you can still teach them sign language as if they hear, at least it can help them speak use the phone for the deaf or whatever, etc.

The point is, if you are truly parents, you would love your child NO MATTER WHAT. Deaf or Hearing wont really change anything into the world. It is no big deal.

 

[jenni-m]

No, it doesn't require logic, which is why it is called adaptation instead of problem solving. That mapping is only true if the chilkd were born without arms, and lost them due to accident or disease.

I hate to use a wiki, but I am not up to real digging for research at the moment...

An adaptation is a positive characteristic of an organism that has been favored by natural selection and increases the fitness of its possessor.[1][2] Of course, an adaptation must have been adaptive at some point in an organism's evolutionary history, but such an organism's environment and ecological niche can change over time, leading to adaptations becoming redundant or even a hindrance (maladaptations). Such adaptations are termed vestigial.

Adaptation vs. acclimation

"Adaptation" is also sometimes used to refer to a change in an individual organism over the course of its life that makes it more suited to the environment. For an example, see Adaptation (eye). More specifically, however, such changes are referred to as acclimation or acclimatization, the former generally being a very short-term response such as shivering, the latter being a longer-term change such as sun tanning.[3]

There is a great difference between selective adaptation and acclimatization. Adaptation occurs over many generations; it is a gradual process caused by natural selection. Acclimatization generally occurs within a single lifetime and copes with issues that are less threatening. For example, if a human was to move to a higher altitude, respiration and physical exertion would become a problem, but after spending time in high altitude conditions one may acclimate or acclimatize to the pressure and function and no longer notice the change. This ability to acclimate is an adaptation, but not the acclimatization itself.

A counter-adaptation is an adaptation that has evolved due to the selective pressure of another adaptation. This occurs in an evolutionary arms race, where a new adaptation giving one species an advantage is countered by the appearance and spread of a new feature that reduces the effectiveness of the first adaptation.

Adaptation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No the wisdom teeth example fully follows the progression of evolution. You example of organisms once being deaf and then gaining hearing is the reverse of the natural process of evolution.

See above...

 

[jillio]

I find that to be stupid as well. I guess they just want a baby to be in the same community as them and want their baby to learn sign language and such but hey...even if the baby is hearing, you can still teach them sign language as if they hear, at least it can help them speak use the phone for the deaf or whatever, etc.

The point is, if you are truly parents, you would love your child NO MATTER WHAT. Deaf or Hearing wont really change anything into the world. It is no big deal.

They have already stated that if they have ahearing child, they willlove it and embrace it in the same way. The point is that hearing parents are being allowed to screen out deaf embryos, and if this is acceptable,then deaf parents screening out for hearing embryos should be jsut as acceptable.

 

[jillio]

I hate to use a wiki, but I am not up to real digging for research at the moment...

An adaptation is a positive characteristic of an organism that has been favored by natural selection and increases the fitness of its possessor.[1][2] Of course, an adaptation must have been adaptive at some point in an organism's evolutionary history, but such an organism's environment and ecological niche can change over time, leading to adaptations becoming redundant or even a hindrance (maladaptations). Such adaptations are termed vestigial.

Adaptation vs. acclimation

"Adaptation" is also sometimes used to refer to a change in an individual organism over the course of its life that makes it more suited to the environment. For an example, see Adaptation (eye). More specifically, however, such changes are referred to as acclimation or acclimatization, the former generally being a very short-term response such as shivering, the latter being a longer-term change such as sun tanning.[3]

There is a great difference between selective adaptation and acclimatization. Adaptation occurs over many generations; it is a gradual process caused by natural selection. Acclimatization generally occurs within a single lifetime and copes with issues that are less threatening. For example, if a human was to move to a higher altitude, respiration and physical exertion would become a problem, but after spending time in high altitude conditions one may acclimate or acclimatize to the pressure and function and no longer notice the change. This ability to acclimate is an adaptation, but not the acclimatization itself.

A counter-adaptation is an adaptation that has evolved due to the selective pressure of another adaptation. This occurs in an evolutionary arms race, where a new adaptation giving one species an advantage is countered by the appearance and spread of a new feature that reduces the effectiveness of the first adaptation.

Adaptation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


See above...

Exactly. Adaptation is not the result of actual genetic change in the organism. It can vary as the environment dictates, even during one lifetime. However, evolution occurs at the genetic level.....people no longer produce 4 molars, and some no longer produce 3 moilars, because the genes are not encoded to do so as a result of evolution.

 

[jenni-m]

Exactly. Adaptation is not the result of actual genetic change in the organism. It can vary as the environment dictates, even during one lifetime. However, evolution occurs at the genetic level.....people no longer produce 4 molars, and some no longer produce 3 moilars, because the genes are not encoded to do so as a result of evolution.

And that goes against what I said?
I am sorry, but I am confused about that...
And adaptation does not occur in one lifetime, that is wholly against the article I posted. Acclimation (coping) may happen in one lifetime, but that is -due to- an already present adaptation which allows for it to happen, either biological 'redundancy' or 'heartiness', for example the brain being able to increase or decrease heart rate and respiration as needed, or mental compensation, visual compensation, foot skills, etc... it is still because we are -already- built for coping. We are 'robust' in acclimatization.

If you put a hermit crab in dry air and leave there, it will suffocate and die. It does not acclimate, because it has not adapted an ability to do so.

 

[jillio]

And that goes against what I said?
I am sorry, but I am confused about that...
And adaptation does not occur in one lifetime, that is wholly against the article I posted. Acclimation (coping) may happen in one lifetime, but that is -due to- an already present adaptation which allows for it to happen, either biological 'redundancy' or 'heartiness', for example the brain being able to increase or decrease heart rate and respiration as needed, or mental compensation, visual compensation, foot skills, etc... it is still because we are -already- built for coping. We are 'robust' in acclimatization.

If you put a hermit crab in dry air and leave there, it will suffocate and die. It does not acclimate, because it has not adapted an ability to do so.

I think maybe you should go back and read what you posted. Adpatation does occur in one lifetime, and even in periods shorter than that. What doesn't occur is actual genetic change that makes adaptation a permanent and evolutionary principle.

A Hermit crab dies because it is not genetically capable of living without water. Humans can't adapt to life without water, either. However,they can adapt to conditions such as blindness and deafness quite well. Physical survival is not dependent upon sight or hearing. It is, however, dependent upon water, Those are very different circumstances.

 

[jenni-m]

I think maybe you should go back and read what you posted. Adpatation does occur in one lifetime, and even in periods shorter than that. What doesn't occur is actual genetic change that makes adaptation a permanent and evolutionary principle.

A Hermit crab dies because it is not genetically capable of living without water. Humans can't adapt to life without water, either. However,they can adapt to conditions such as blindness and deafness quite well.

You are missing the point, it is the difference between adapting and acclimating. If the hermit crab -could- live in a non humid air environment, it would have -adapted- to do that, via genetic mutation, over the course of many generations.

OR one day it may -adapt- an ability to -acclimate-, where it does not normally prefer to be in dry air, but lets say it gained the ability to pull even more moisture from its 'air gills' (I don't know if this is the correct term, land hermit crabs have 'gills' which draw moisture from air and use it to hydrate themselves and get oxygen from it, but will drown in actual standing water)

At this point, let us say for example that a hermit crab ends up being born missing one gill. Normally that would be a hindrance, possibly kill it or shorten its life. But since it now has the ability to control how much moisture it can take in through the gills, it can attempt to bring in twice as much through one gill. This would -also- be an acclimation in spite of a 'loss', and might present its own problems, such as not being able to exert itself as much, or not being able to exist in dry air indefinitely and still be healthy.

 

[jillio]

You are missing the point, it is the difference between adapting and acclimating. If the hermit crab -could- live in a non humid air environment, it would have -adapted- to do that, via genetic mutation, over the course of many generations.

And that is the whole point. As a Hermit Crab exists, genetically, it can't adapt because it genetic composition requires water. However, as a human being exists genetically, hearing and or sight are not required for physical survival, therefore, a human being can adapt to life without such. You are confusing that which is common for most with that which is essential for survival. We can only adapt to the degree that our genetic make up allows.

OR one day it may -adapt- an ability to -acclimate-, where it does not normally prefer to be in dry air, but lets say it gained the ability to pull even more moisture from its 'air gills' (I don't know if this is the correct term, land hermit crabs have 'gills' which draw moisture from air and use it to hydrate themselves and get oxygen from it, but will drown in actual standing water)

Only if, over time, the entire species undergoes a genetic mutation.

At this point, let us say for example that a hermit crab ends up being born missing one gill. Normally that would be a hindrance, possibly kill it or shorten its life. But since it now has the ability to control how much moisture it can take in through the gills, it can attempt to bring in twice as much through one gill. This would -also- be an acclimation in spite of a 'loss', and might present its own problems, such as not being able to exert itself as much, or not being able to exist in dry air indefinitely and still be healthy.

And, if it found a way to exist with only one gill, and still function to the degree that it did with 2 gills, it would go beyond acclimation and become adaptation.

But, we digress. If we allow Hermit Crabs with 2 gills to select crab embryos with 2 gills, shoulkd we not allow Hermit Crabs with 1 gill to select crab embryos with 1 gill? That is the point of the discussion.

 

[jenni-m]

And, if it found a way to exist with only one gill, and still function to the degree that it did with 2 gills, it would go beyond acclimation and become adaptation.

Yes, it would, but not in the way you are trying to say it. The adaptation does not happen because it was missing a gill... it is an -other- adaptation which also has the benefit of allowing an acclimation in that scenario, not necessarily specific for that purpose, since such an adaptation could take thousands of years to happen.

So until the species itself adapts (over generations) an ability to acclimate, it cannot, no matter if it has two gills or one gill.

 

[jenni-m]

But, we digress. If we allow Hermit Crabs with 2 gills to select crab embryos with 2 gills, shoulkd we not allow Hermit Crabs with 1 gill to select crab embryos with 1 gill? That is the point of the discussion.

Yeah, I'm sorry for getting so off topic.

IF the embryo is already conceived or predicted to be conceived in such a way, yes, I agree it it goes both ways.

However, this is a large gray area, I don't know if it is 'right' to do either one, even if there is a 'legal' right to do so.

I would rather prevent conditions such as mine, not just because of possible deafness, but because it can cause actual pain and debilitation and often may require painful and even dangerous surgeries. Deafness is not as severe, but where do we draw the line on what is 'severe' enough to 'mess with'? Which one of us has that right? Who do you trust to decide what is allowed and what isn't?

 

[jillio]

Yeah, I'm sorry for getting so off topic.

IF the embryo is already conceived or predicted to be conceived in such a way, yes, I agree it it goes both ways.

However, this is a large gray area, I don't know if it is 'right' to do either one, even if there is a 'legal' right to do so.

I would rather prevent conditions such as mine, not just because of possible deafness, but because it can cause actual pain and debilitation and often may require painful and even dangerous surgeries. Deafness is not as severe, but where do we draw the line on what is 'severe' enough to 'mess with'? Which one of us has that right? Who do you trust to decide what is allowed and what isn't?

I would personally say that we draw the line at genetic conditions that are incompatible with life when it comes to embryo selection for IVF. When it comes to natural conception, an individual should undergo genetic counseling, have full understanding of what their chances are of passing a condition on to offspring, and then make a fully informed decision whether they want to risk it or not.

 

[jenni-m]

I would personally say that we draw the line at genetic conditions that are incompatible with life when it comes to embryo selection for IVF. When it comes to natural conception, an individual should undergo genetic counseling, have full understanding of what their chances are of passing a condition on to offspring, and then make a fully informed decision whether they want to risk it or not.

Who decides what is 'incompatible'? Some think deafness alone already is incompatible (as I am sure is already well known here...)

But otherwise, I agree. At least we agree on something, haha. Sorry for earlier... I just get that way at times, get things in my head and can't let them go until I express it.

 

[jillio]

Who decides what is 'incompatible'? Some think deafness alone already is incompatible (as I am sure is already well known here...)

But otherwise, I agree. At least we agree on something, haha. Sorry for earlier... I just get that way at times, get things in my head and can't let them go until I express it.

Incompatible in that it can be medically determined that the genetic diffiulty is of such a degree that physical survival is impossible. By incompatible with life, I mean no chance of survival. That is the only objective measure we could use. Everything else, such as quality of life, is subjective.

No problem. Nothing to apologize for. I do the same thing with students, often playing Devil's Advocate, to get them to think their ideas all the way through. As long as you are defending your position logically and with forethought, you are thinking and stretching your mind. Its when you stop, and say, "Well, that's just the way it is and I don't have to prove anything to you!" that you have just stopped learning.