3 armed boy to have surgery

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



ladygrim
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5032906.stm


Three-armed boy to have surgery
Jie-jie
Jie-jie cries when his arms are touched
A baby boy born with two left arms is set to undergo surgery to remove one of them in Shanghai.

However, the team at the Shanghai Children's Medical Center are unsure how best to proceed, and have yet to set a date for the operation.

Neither arm is fully functional and tests have so far been unable to determine which was more developed.

The boy, Jie-jie, cries when either of his left arms is touched, but smiles and responds normally to other stimuli.

The arm closer to the body is very slim and is always bent.

The other one is normally shaped but does not move unless it is pulled, and does not have a palm.


It's quite difficult to decide how to do the operation on him
Dr Chen Bochang

Jie-jie, who is in stable condition in the intensive care unit, was born on 1 April at a small hospital in Anhui Province.

He is also reported to have just one kidney, and may have problems that could lead to curvature of the spine.

Dr Chen Bochang, head of the orthopaedics department at Shanghai Children's Medical Center, said: "His case is quite peculiar.

"We have no record of any child with such a complete third arm.

"It's quite difficult to decide how to do the operation on him."

Dr Chen's hospital is one of China's most experienced in dealing with unusual birth defects, including separating conjoined twins.

silver_tears
There is no way that kid is 2 months old in that pic. He looks to be at least like 1 year old blink

Alpha Centauri
Give it 20 years and this guy will be the world's best drummer.

You heard it here first.

-AC

ladygrim
he is quite a chunky baby i thought that to

PVS
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Give it 20 years and this guy will be the world's best drummer.

You heard it here first.

-AC

not quite, since the assumtion is that he doesnt want his third arm.
i fail to see the imminent danger which is forcing them to do it right now.

LanceWindu
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Give it 20 years and this guy will be the world's best drummer.

You heard it here first.

-AC

laughing out loud

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by PVS
not quite, since the assumtion is that he doesnt want his third arm.
i fail to see the imminent danger which is forcing them to do it right now.

I'd keep it. Imagine the time signatures he'd be able to play in. Phenomenal.

-AC

Arachnoidfreak
mmmm tasty evolution

Dawson
Yes, but, assuming that his arm remains bent, he'd never be able to play on a drumline. His arm would get in the way of the harness.

Alpha Centauri
Yeah, because I was clearly serious.

-AC

Dawson
What makes you think I was?

PVS
well i am serious. if the arms present no threat to the kid's health, why cut it off?

Alpha Centauri
I didn't, it just seemed to be going the way of a debate as to how technically gifted a three armed drummer would be.

I sort of made it as a passing comment. Although maybe if he has it cut off he can donate it to Rick Allen.

-AC

Arachnoidfreak
a four arm drummer would be better than a three armed one, symmetry makes things easier

GCG
In that case, i would want his autograph from all 3 arms.

silver_tears
It clearly hurts him if he cries everytime one ofthe arms is touched.

Alpha Centauri
If all of his arms hurt, there's clearly a problem elsewhere.

-AC

Eis
Jie-Jie, funny.

Originally posted by PVS
well i am serious. if the arms present no threat to the kid's health, why cut it off?
I can't always tell if you're serious or not. no expression

Arachnoidfreak
I say put him on a regular diet of painkillers and let him grow up with three arms.

Chopping one off will probably kill the mobility in the arm that's left anyway.

GCG
Thats not right.

Arachnoidfreak
Originally posted by GCG
Thats not right.

Umm...so? The kid would probably thank me for it in a decade.

Eis
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Umm...so? The kid would probably thank me for it in a decade.
Going through childhood with a third arm? I probably wouldn't be able to handle it.

PVS
Originally posted by Eis
Going through childhood with a third arm? I probably wouldn't be able to handle it.

was that an intentional pun?

Eis
Originally posted by PVS
was that an intentional pun?
Yeah, but I still meant it. stick out tongue

WrathfulDwarf
I really don't see the humor in some of the posts. The kid is in pain. I hope his surgery goes well and the pain stops for him.

BackFire
Dude, I want a third arm. I could masturbate, play with my balls, AND tickle my nipples all at the same time! Heeeaven......oohhhhhhhhh, I'm in heeeavvven!

Arachnoidfreak
Originally posted by Eis
Going through childhood with a third arm? I probably wouldn't be able to handle it.

I would be best friends with a guy that had 3 arms. Who would tease him anyway? He would kick their ass in a second, and if he took any martial arts classes he and his sensei would have a field day experimenting with the possibilities

PVS
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I really don't see the humor in some of the posts

ok, watch this:

Originally posted by BackFire
Dude, I want a third arm. I could masturbate, play with my balls, AND tickle my nipples all at the same time! Heeeaven......oohhhhhhhhh, I'm in heeeavvven!

did you see it now? eek!

Alpha Centauri
Nobody is sitting here saying "Yes! F*cking yes! The kid is in pain, brilliant."

It's a bad situation, sure. Nobody is saying it's good.

-AC

Arachnoidfreak
I am! Well, it would be with a healthy dose of morphine.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by BackFire
Dude, I want a third arm. I could masturbate, play with my balls, AND tickle my nipples all at the same time! Heeeaven......oohhhhhhhhh, I'm in heeeavvven!



laughing

Lord Urizen
I don't get it though...what is the actual debate?

He should get the surgery, there are Siamese Twins who get surgery all the time to releive thier condition.....

crazylozer
Where are the "evolution doesn't exist" people now??!

PVS
Originally posted by crazylozer
Where are the "evolution doesn't exist" people now??!

how does a birth defect help to prove evolution?

Arachnoidfreak
Originally posted by PVS
how does a birth defect help to prove evolution?

It sn't just a birth defect, it's a random mutation, the basis for evolution. if that extra arm turns out to benefit the kid and he lives long enough to have children and pass down the third arm mutation....it's going to be a fun future for humans

PVS
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
It sn't just a birth defect, it's a random mutation, the basis for evolution. if that extra arm turns out to benefit the kid and he lives long enough to have children and pass down the third arm mutation....it's going to be a fun future for humans

plenty of animals are born with such defects, but you dont see too much in the wild because they fail the darwin test.

there is no concievable reason for humans to 'evolve' to have three arms. its also anotomically incompatible, proof being that both arms are barely functional.

mutation like that is a genetic **** up. evolution is not based on random **** ups. evolution is based on adaption.

Pandemoniac
I would give my right arm to have 3 arms!

Philip_ll
if i had 6 arms, would that make me arachniboy?

Arachnoidfreak
Originally posted by PVS
plenty of animals are born with such defects, but you dont see too much in the wild because they fail the darwin test.

there is no concievable reason for humans to 'evolve' to have three arms. its also anotomically incompatible, proof being that both arms are barely functional.

mutation like that is a genetic **** up. evolution is not based on random **** ups. evolution is based on adaption.

Yes it is based on random **** ups. The adaption bit is what weeds out the good **** ups from the bad ones. They go hand in hand.

Who is to say both arms won't be fully functional by puberty?

The defects in animals get weeded out because they (I feel so goddamn stupid explaining such a simple concept here) don't have hospitals to keep the people with defects healthy. eek!

PVS
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Yes it is based on random **** ups. The adaption bit is what weeds out the good **** ups from the bad ones. They go hand in hand.

hey, fine. if you want to make up your own evolutionary theory i can niether stop you nor likely prove it wrong.

Arachnoidfreak
Um, I'm not making it up. Random mutations and natural selection make up evolution. If you refuse to believe it that's your problem.

PVS
wrong. you are combining macromutation and micromutation to suit your point.
though the theory you apparently believe in does exist (saltationism), it is not the defining theory behind evolution. you would do well to not insist that it is. also, most who agree with the evolution theory disagree entirely that such random tremendously altering mutations are the basis for evolution.

Arachnoidfreak
Macroevolution and Microevolution are both Evolution. duhr.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution5.htm

some natural selection stuff... http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/be2.shtml



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Shut. The. ****. Up.

PVS
no, macroevolution and microevolution are both mutations.
throwing a tantrum over it isnt going to warp reality and make it
so that mutation of any kind equals evolution. and your wikipedia reference
(how appropriate) does nothing to refute that.

PVS
how strange that you post a link from think quest, since the very article only proves you wrong:

"There is another important distinction to be made between different types of mutations. The type of mutation most people think of when presented with the word "mutant" is called a macromutation, or a mutation that involves a very large change. A frog born with eyes in its throat or with extra legs would be an example of a macromutant. Macromutations are equivalent to taking a blind leap over a precipice and hoping to land on a ledge. They are virtually never beneficial (no well-documented case exists) and are not the forces of change in natural selection. The (erroneous) belief that macromutations drive evolutionary change is called saltationism, and is generally discredited today. The second type of mutation is called a micromutation, or a mutation that involves a very small change. An incredibly vast majority of all mutations fall into this category. These mutations can be (and generally are) harmful in effect, but are not drastic changes, but rather fine gradations. Micromutations are what evolutionists discuss when studying natural selection."

Arachnoidfreak
My point was that mutations and natural selection are the basis of evolution, and your excerpt from a website I posted (funny how you claim one website I posted means nothing but you try to use another against me) don't prove me wrong. Nothing will prove me wrong.

To say a major defect like an extra arm will not cause any evolutionary change in the species is a completely valid point. Try to tell me that random mutations don't make up evolution and I will make a fool out of you.

PVS
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
My point was that mutations and natural selection are the basis of evolution, and your excerpt from a website I posted (funny how you claim one website I posted means nothing but you try to use another against me) don't prove me wrong. Nothing will prove me wrong.

i never said it meant nothing. i just find it funny how the misinformed immediately click their wikipedia bookmark so that they can quote passages and seem like experts on the topic. what i DID say was that nothing in the article supported your theory that all mutation equals evolution, and it clearly doesnt.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
To say a major defect like an extra arm will not cause any evolutionary change in the species is a completely valid point. Try to tell me that random mutations don't make up evolution and I will make a fool out of you.

ALL random mutations do not make up evolution. SOME random mutations are thought to make up evolution. quote a valid source which claims otherwise and i will "shut the **** up". and dont be so damn predictable and post an essay which states that evolution is made up of random mutations, because its not the same absolute statement which you just made.

if you even bothered reading the article YOU posted, or at least read the part which i quoted for you, you might know that. but i guess your quest for knowledge must be sacrificed and abandoned just so you can "make a fool out of" people...or at least claim to.

Arachnoidfreak
When was my theory that ALL mutations equal evolution? I'd like you to quote that bit.

I specifically remember saying that the 'bad' mutations are weeded out by natural selection. Therefore those mutations don't add up to evolution. DUH.

I don't have to post an essay. You're making up points that I was never arguing.

Here you go, let me display my point again, since you don't seem to understand it:

Evolution is made up of a combination of natural selection and random mutations.

Refute that and I'll give you a cookie.

PVS
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Yes it is based on random **** ups. The adaption bit is what weeds out the good **** ups from the bad ones. They go hand in hand.

can i have a glass of milk as well?

Arachnoidfreak
Maybe you don't understand the language. A '**** up' would be a mutation. A 'good **** up' would be a good mutation. A 'bad **** up' would be a bad mutation. I thought you would have figured that out. Therefore, what I said still stands.

Evolution is made up of a combination of natural selection and random mutations. Still not something you can refute.

PVS
a GOOD **** up? laughing out loud

you said that evolution is based on "random **** ups" as in genetic errors. a **** up is an error. can we agree on that? with the assumption that we do:

what you are trying to sell (3 armed baby= evolution): "The (erroneous) belief that macromutations (3 armed baby, 6 legged horse, 2 headed goat etc..) drive evolutionary change is called saltationism, and is generally discredited today. "

and now here is the point you need to get into that thick head of yours:

"The second type of mutation is called a micromutation, or a mutation that involves a very small change. An incredibly vast majority of all mutations fall into this category. These mutations can be (and generally are) harmful in effect, but are not drastic changes, but rather fine gradations. Micromutations are what evolutionists discuss when studying natural selection."

you're backpeddling in useless, considering you already stated that this article is an example of evolution. unless you can convince the mods to erase your posts here, you are clearly in the wrong for all to see. sorry erm

Arachnoidfreak
Someone doesn't realize that ANY mutation, good or bad, is a **** up. A copying error during DNA transfer, a change in the genetic material, ANYTHING outside of the 'normal' is a **** up. Whether it's good or bad is determined by how beneficial it ends up being to the species.

I'm not trying to sell that a 3-armed baby is evolution. It could have been if the arms worked and are beneficial, but the damn thing is in pain all the time and one of them doesn't even function.

What I am telling you is that Evolution consists of random mutation and natural selection. What do you not understand? Should I highlight it for you? Talk to you in ikkle little baby words so you understand? Try a different language entirely?

PVS
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
It sn't just a birth defect, it's a random mutation, the basis for evolution.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
I'm not trying to sell that a 3-armed baby is evolution.


are we done yet? messed

Arachnoidfreak
Taking my words out of context, you're awesome. thumb down

You know specifically that my argument is that random mutations are the basis of evolution. Forget the 3-armed baby.

PVS
those words are not taken out of context and you know it.
unless "taken out of context" means "proved your statements to be incorrect and inconsistant".
you could have stood corrected but you chose the childish cop-out method.
fine then.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Forget the 3-armed baby.

*reads quote*

*looks at title of thread*

*points and laughs*

Arachnoidfreak
Since when is having an extra arm NOT a random mutation?(Hint: Never)

Since when is a random mutation NOT a part of evolution?(Hint: Never)

You're kind of playing with semantics just to have save your ass. That's ok though.

"It could have been if the arms worked and are beneficial, but the damn thing is in pain all the time and one of them doesn't even function." <<This is the context you took the quote out of. Hence "out-of-context"

And 'Evolution consists of a combination of random mutations and natural selection" still hasn't been refuted. Im waiting.

PVS
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Macroevolution and Microevolution are both Evolution. duhr.

"The (erroneous) belief that macromutations drive evolutionary change is called
saltationism, and is generally discredited today. "

how long do you wish to continue embarrassing yourself. you could have just stood corrected and i would have dropped it immediately without even a hint of gloating. but nooooooooooooooooo. you just cant be reasonable can you?

Arachnoidfreak
Aha, see, a slight miscommunication.

Macromutation is the major change of physical appearance through a mutation...macroevolution is evolution from one species to another.

Not exactly the same thing. Your quote of me is pretty much useless. Macroevolution is still a part of evolution. Duh.

PVS
wait a minute. i get it. i typed "macromutation and micromutation" and for some reason you just glazed over it and read "macroevolution and microevolution" just so you could say "duhr".

now, go back, READ SLOWLY, get the meaning of what i said and what the articles you posted say, and understand....please

edit:

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Aha, see, a slight miscommunication.

no, i communicated quite clearly. you just need to work on avoiding misunderstandings by way of properly reading.

Arachnoidfreak
No wiki for you, maybe a different ecyclopedia entry? http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc1/macromutation

Most biologists believe that adaptation occurs through the accumulation of small mutations. However, an alternative that has been suggested for this process is macromutation, essentially when a large-scale mutation produces a characteristic. This theory has generally been disregarded as the major explanation for adaptation, since a mutation on this scale is regarded as more likely to be detrimental then beneficial. However, beneficial macromutations have been known to occur: for example, the addition of body segments among arthropods may be regarded as a macromutation.

See also: evolution


Where's that pesky quote tag...oh yea!


Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak


I'm not trying to sell that a 3-armed baby is evolution. It could have been if the arms worked and are beneficial, but the damn thing is in pain all the time and one of them doesn't even function.

There's that pesky context I was talking about.

And there's STILL no refute for "Evolution consists of a combination of natural selection and random mutations"

PVS
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Most biologists believe that adaptation occurs through the accumulation of small mutations. However, an alternative that has been suggested for this process is macromutation, essentially when a large-scale mutation produces a characteristic.

now the quote that set you off...

Originally posted by PVS
wrong. you are combining macromutation and micromutation to suit your point.
though the theory you apparently believe in does exist (saltationism), it is not the defining theory behind evolution. you would do well to not insist that it is. also, most who agree with the evolution theory disagree entirely that such random tremendously altering mutations are the basis for evolution.

now, what about my quote is incorrect? nothing.

Arachnoidfreak
Taking things out of context again? I never said that macromutations are the basis of evolution, I said RANDOM mutations.



Hey, awesome! An exception! Hmm, I must have mentioned something similar...oh yea!

PVS
oh ok, its the tireless rebutter. my bad.
you just want your A+ and gold star and a framed picture of
you hanging on the wall that reads "winner of teh thread".

i'll try one last time.
you said that all mutation was the basis for evolution.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
It sn't just a birth defect, it's a random mutation, the basis for evolution.

thats an absolute statement, and it is not true. deal with it and move on with your life, champ. adding the words of a widely discredited, though still obscurly existant theory of evolution only makes you look desperate.

Arachnoidfreak
You are not understanding something. You seem to ignore the fact that I mentioned natural selection about 50 thousand times. I even clarified my statement for you in nearly EVERY post. YES, all random mutations are a part of evolutions, the detrimental mutations DO NOT get passed on through natural selection...detremental as in MOST macromutations, not ALL.

Evolution consists of a combination of random mutation and natural selection. <<<THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO REFUTE

PVS
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Evolution consists of a combination of random mutation and natural selection. <<<THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO REFUTE

why should i? its a true statement (according to widely accepted theory).

unfortunately its not what you said initially, and i find it quite pathetic
that you would backpedal like that and then claim that you were right all along.

that statement you JUST posted does not imply that all mutation contributes to evolution. though natural selection will eliminate all undesirable mutations, it does not mean that macromutation plays any part in evolution at all.



"It sn't just a birth defect, it's a random mutation, the basis for evolution."

Arachnoidfreak
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Yes it is based on random **** ups. The adaption bit is what weeds out the good **** ups from the bad ones. They go hand in hand.

^^This statement implies and is meant to mean: Evolution consists of a combination of both random mutations and natural selection. That's why I clarified it back on page 3.

Macromutation is a random mutation. If it's beneficial it stays, and if it is not, it goes. The problem is that most of macromutation is not beneficial. That is not to say that it CAN'T be beneficial. Therefore a beneficial macromutation, which is admittedly rare, can actually play a part in evolution.

PVS
*sigh*

im just going to ignore you now.

you can either read this and understand FINALLY:

"There is another important distinction to be made between different types of mutations. The type of mutation most people think of when presented with the word "mutant" is called a macromutation, or a mutation that involves a very large change. A frog born with eyes in its throat or with extra legs would be an example of a macromutant. Macromutations are equivalent to taking a blind leap over a precipice and hoping to land on a ledge. They are virtually never beneficial (no well-documented case exists) and are not the forces of change in natural selection. The (erroneous) belief that macromutations drive evolutionary change is called saltationism, and is generally discredited today. The second type of mutation is called a micromutation, or a mutation that involves a very small change. An incredibly vast majority of all mutations fall into this category. These mutations can be (and generally are) harmful in effect, but are not drastic changes, but rather fine gradations. Micromutations are what evolutionists discuss when studying natural selection."

...or just keep pulling false facts out of your rectum. i dont give a damn.

Arachnoidfreak
By reposting that, you ignored everything I wrote. Good job. thumb up

Last time I checked "virtually never" still meant that there is a possibility they can be...again shown by a source I already posted. And again proving me right. If the third arm was beneficial, it would be a huge step in evolution. But it most likely isn't, which I already said.

Now this is just going around in circles because you refuse to accept that the third arm is a random mutation.

grey fox
Originally posted by Philip_ll
if i had 6 arms, would that make me arachniboy?

Nah , it'd make it bloody hard to buy a shirt....AND expensive to buy gloves.

PVS
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
By reposting that, you ignored everything I wrote. Good job. thumb up

Last time I checked "virtually never" still meant that there is a possibility they can be...again shown by a source I already posted. And again proving me right. If the third arm was beneficial, it would be a huge step in evolution. But it most likely isn't, which I already said.

Now this is just going around in circles because you refuse to accept that the third arm is a random mutation.

backpeddling is childish, especially when attempting to disprove that you said something....when you in fact said it, and i have quoted that many times.

you made a false statement,
i called you on it,
you threw a tantrum,
then you were proven wrong,
and finally you altered your statement to a sound one

...and somehow, by your logic you proved that you were right all along as i was wrong. that is why i will no longer take you seriously.
kthx

Arachnoidfreak
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Um, I'm not making it up. Random mutations and natural selection make up evolution. If you refuse to believe it that's your problem.

Here's my statement, at 12:11. Here's your response.

Originally posted by PVS
wrong. you are combining macromutation and micromutation to suit your point.
though the theory you apparently believe in does exist (saltationism), it is not the defining theory behind evolution. you would do well to not insist that it is. also, most who agree with the evolution theory disagree entirely that such random tremendously altering mutations are the basis for evolution.

And here is my statement again, THE SAME STATEMENT

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak

Evolution consists of a combination of random mutation and natural selection. <<<THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO REFUTE

And your response goes from "wrong" to:


Originally posted by PVS
why should i? its a true statement (according to widely accepted theory).

Arachnoidfreak
This debate isn't going to be resolved until we get an actual biologist in here, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

PVS
wow, i love your abridged version of our discussion way more than the actual thing. reality just sucks anyway. but i must:

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
It sn't just a birth defect, it's a random mutation, the basis for evolution.

full post:

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
It sn't just a birth defect, it's a random mutation, the basis for evolution. if that extra arm turns out to benefit the kid and he lives long enough to have children and pass down the third arm mutation....it's going to be a fun future for humans

random mutations are not the basis for the theory of evolution.
micromutations, which this article has NOTHING to do with, are a factor of evolution, along with natural selection.

"ZOMG I SAID THAT!!!" *quotes furiously*

yeah, AFTER the posts i called you on, which is what you've been trying to prove was not justified. all the while wasting my time. thats reality.

Lugia's_Trainer
MAN I WOULD LLOOVVEE to have 3 arms mannrobot

Arachnoidfreak
Originally posted by PVS
wow, i love your abridged version of our discussion way more than the actual thing. reality just sucks anyway. but i must:



full post:



random mutations are not the basis for the theory of evolution.
micromutations, which this article has NOTHING to do with, are a factor of evolution, along with natural selection.

"ZOMG I SAID THAT!!!" *quotes furiously*

yeah, AFTER the posts i called you on, which is what you've been trying to prove was not justified. all the while wasting my time. thats reality.

LOLWTFLMAO11!1!one

Random mutation ARE the basis(YES BOTH micromutations AND macromutation), ALONG with natural selection. ANY MUTATION that is >>beneficial<< to the survival of the species is evolution. Macromutation is USUALLY not accepted because it is very rare that they are beneficial. That's the ONLY reason. Yet, if it IS beneficial then it helps evolution. Who wouldve thunk it!?! Natural selection, another part of the basis of evolution, weeds out the mutations that are not beneficial. You know this. I said this from the very beginning(hey, notice that word 'benefit' in the quote you JUST posted! eek! ). Im tired of repeating it. Look it up, Im not coming in here anymore to post. It's gotten kind of ridiculous now.

PVS
..according to a widely discredited theory which you cling to, which i have been saying all along. you go on to tout macromutation as part of the basis of the theory. "the theory" meaning the generally accepted theory...which is a flatout lie, but fine then.


:edit: oh yea. forgot to reciprocate: ZOMGLOLOLOLOLWTF!!!111 U ROFLZ MY WAFFLZ!!!!

Lord Urizen
roll eyes (sarcastic)roll eyes (sarcastic)roll eyes (sarcastic)roll eyes (sarcastic)roll eyes (sarcastic)

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
This debate isn't going to be resolved until we get an actual biologist in here, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Arachnoid don't take this the wrong way....but if you're saying that you need an actual biologist in here for the discussion. Does that mean you're not sure of what you're saying? I mean...if you know you're making a firm stand on the topic. Why would you need certification? Your own arguement should do the trick. Again...not taking sides. Just making an observation.

Philip_ll
lol@needing an actual biologist in this room

Philip_ll
Originally posted by grey fox
Nah , it'd make it bloody hard to buy a shirt....AND expensive to buy gloves.

True, but the name "Arachniboy", would make a good comic book hero dont you think.

Morgoths_Wrath
SHANGHAI, China (AP) -- Doctors on Tuesday successfully removed an unusually well-formed third arm from a two-month-old Chinese boy.

Neither of the boy's two left arms is fully functional, but doctors decided to remove the one growing closer to his chest after tests showed it was less developed, said Dr. Chen Bochang, head of the orthopedics department at Shanghai Children's Medical Center.

"The surgery was quite successful," Chen said following the three-hour operation.

"Now we're just waiting for the patient to wake up.

The boy, identified only as "Jie-jie," would require long-term physical therapy to build strength in the hand on his remaining arm, Chen said.

The boy also was born with just one kidney and may have problems that could lead to curvature of the spine, local media reports said.

Jie-jie cried when either of his left arms was touched, but smiled and responded normally to other stimuli, the reports said.

big grin

PVS
so much for a legendary drummer sad

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath


SHANGHAI, China (AP) -- Doctors on Tuesday successfully removed an unusually well-formed third arm from a two-month-old Chinese boy.

Neither of the boy's two left arms is fully functional, but doctors decided to remove the one growing closer to his chest after tests showed it was less developed, said Dr. Chen Bochang, head of the orthopedics department at Shanghai Children's Medical Center.

"The surgery was quite successful," Chen said following the three-hour operation.

"Now we're just waiting for the patient to wake up.

The boy, identified only as "Jie-jie," would require long-term physical therapy to build strength in the hand on his remaining arm, Chen said.

The boy also was born with just one kidney and may have problems that could lead to curvature of the spine, local media reports said.

Jie-jie cried when either of his left arms was touched, but smiled and responded normally to other stimuli, the reports said.

It's always great to read good news.

Vinny Valentine
Poor Kid.

At least at his age, when he grows up he wont remember much of it, if any.

DarkC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Give it 20 years and this guy will be the world's best drummer.

You heard it here first.

-AC
He'd black out from pain halfway through the first song though, haha.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.