Why are conjoined twins a thing?

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If God is all-powerful and all-loving, why would he create con-joined twins? A God who would allow conjoined twins is either lazy or a cruel jokester. The picture I chose for this example is very light. Most of the pictures are completely horrific.

I guess it's better than being born inside your sibling. There are people who didn't know they were twins until scans or surgery revealed a fetus or something in their head or stomach or ...

THAT'S creepy.

 

[Acim]

Fair enough. You're free to attach any meanings you like on why chemicals react the way they do.

But again, I don't see why is has to be anymore complicated than it is.

And I explained why it is more complicated. It's because science, in many cases, like ancient religion before it, is not explaining the why for those who are curious about the why.

It would be like answering the question: because God works in mysterious ways and then following that up with "I don't see why is has to be anymore complicated than it is" as if that is perfect explanation.

Btw, I don't believe God works in mysterious ways.

 

[Acim]

There are detailed sources that can explain it much clearer than I can

I've looked at the detailed sources. They don't (usually, most often) explain why. They describe how and what.

I find science routinely does this, and it passes for "why." If being honest, it would be seen as not addressing why. Then the rhetoric may go to "why even ask why?" Which may not have a great answer, but at least it is a concession on the first issue of we aren't actually getting a why explanation on the first count.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I'm not sure what part is confusing.

There were either one embryo that did not succeed in becoming identical twins or there were two embryos that fused together in utero. That's really all that's necessary for this to happen.

 

[Mickdrew]

I've looked at the detailed sources. They don't (usually, most often) explain why. They describe how and what.

I find science routinely does this, and it passes for "why." If being honest, it would be seen as not addressing why. Then the rhetoric may go to "why even ask why?" Which may not have a great answer, but at least it is a concession on the first issue of we aren't actually getting a why explanation on the first count.

Well no, science does answer some why questions.

If you asked why chemicals reacted a certain way, a scientist would tell you it's because chemical X has property Y, which interacts with Z to give us the result.
(Yes, you can just keep asking why to that in an infinite loop - but then again, you can do the same for any religious answer, can't you? )

What you're specifically asking for is an "ultimate purpose" or a "meaning" behind something happening - which is a concept that humans invented.
Asking for a purpose only makes sense if there is an intelligence behind an action. If there isn't one, then asking for the meaning to a chemical reaction is as silly as ancient philosophers speculating why the sun is yellow (and just as meaningless, ironically).

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have, they don't explain why (to my satisfaction). They describe how and what. Usually in ways I find far fetched.

There may be things that we do not fully understand and there are things that we do not fully understand; but the general process is well-known. In time we will know more about twins as well as many other things. They are not far-fetched IMHO, only that we have incomplete information about them at the moment.

 

[VioletVortex]

I guess it's better than being born inside your sibling. There are people who didn't know they were twins until scans or surgery revealed a fetus or something in their head or stomach or ...

THAT'S creepy.

That's called a "fetus in fetu", and it is the one thing responsible for "male pregnancy". It happens in both genders, but it's weirder when it happens in males, because it's like they are pregnant.

The "fetus" is a parasitic tumor with human characteristics. It can't survive on its own, and it definitely isn't sentient.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Yeah, I'm tired from long night of work and didn't feel like looking it up

 

[Acim]

Well no, science does answer some why questions.

If you asked why chemicals reacted a certain way, a scientist would tell you it's because chemical X has property Y, which interacts with Z to give us the result.
(Yes, you can just keep asking why to that in an infinite loop - but then again, you can do the same for any religious answer, can't you? )

What you're specifically asking for is an "ultimate purpose" or a "meaning" behind something happening - which is a concept that humans invented.
Asking for a purpose only makes sense if there is an intelligence behind an action. If there isn't one, then asking for the meaning to a chemical reaction is as silly as ancient philosophers speculating why the sun is yellow (and just as meaningless, ironically).

Not necessarily ultimate purpose, but yes meaning. I disagree that there would have to be intelligence behind the explanation, even while there is (necessarily) intelligence in the explanation.

You're quick example (chemical X has property Y....) is good example of meaning that doesn't necessarily have to be framed through intelligence (though I find that debatable). I think I could come up with similar questions that would have similar answer, but are not the same. This thread would be one of those. Or as I thought about it for a moment before typing this paragraph the answer to why did that 'mountain' spew hot liquid (lava) into the air, is example of action that doesn't (necessarily) need intelligence behind the action for the explanation to show why.

What I'm saying is there is many of scientific explanation that sticks to what, tries to pass that off as why, and yet... no, not really explaining why.

You're 'well no, science does answer some why questions' coincides with my 'They don't (usually, most often) explain why.'

And because I've investigated this for years, I feel prepared to discuss it. I find it to be philosophical and getting at heart of what science does, doesn't do. But because of the ongoing confusion (where why is thinking it's being explained, when really it isn't), it is a confounding issue.

And yes, you can do the same for many (but not all) religious answers. Again, I'm not talking about infinite why loop, though acknowledge one could conceivably do that as a response to every plausible explanation.

Saying that humans invented meaning, when all of science is a) human invention and b) providing meaning (in some cases) doesn't help the cause.

 

[Acim]

There may be things that we do not fully understand and there are things that we do not fully understand; but the general process is well-known. In time we will know more about twins as well as many other things. They are not far-fetched IMHO, only that we have incomplete information about them at the moment.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I mean(t) by far-fetched. When lots of jargon terms are used to describe the what, and try to pass that off as the why, that is what I'm saying is far-fetched. It's not that I don't understand the terms, as pretty much all of them have to be explained somewhere, so it's not the understanding of WHAT is being said, but seeing if it actually makes connection to why. I'm saying in most instances, it does not. For sure, in some instances, it does.

I think I've seen religions that deal with minutiae and also attempt to explain 'why' and then don't really.

Art's nice, cause it lets the audience determine the why all on their own. The others (science and religion) are doing this, but not admitting to it, and yet claiming they are addressing the why.

 

[Aupmanyav]

@Acim , The 'why's' of all 'what's' are the four forces of the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction#Overview_of_the_fundamental_interactions

 

[Sqwerl]

Here is the why.

"Twinning occurs one of two ways: either a woman releases two eggs instead of the usual one or she produces only one egg that divides after fertilization. If she releases two eggs, which are fertilized by separate sperm, she has fraternal twins. When a single, fertilized egg divides and separates, she has identical or paternal twins.

In the case of conjoined twins, a woman only produces a single egg, which does not fully separate after fertilization. The developing embryo starts to split into identical twins during the first few weeks after conception, but stops before the process is complete. The partially separated egg develops into a conjoined fetus." - University of Maryland Medical Center

 

[Mickdrew]

Not necessarily ultimate purpose, but yes meaning. I disagree that there would have to be intelligence behind the explanation, even while there is (necessarily) intelligence in the explanation.

You're quick example (chemical X has property Y....) is good example of meaning that doesn't necessarily have to be framed through intelligence (though I find that debatable). I think I could come up with similar questions that would have similar answer, but are not the same. This thread would be one of those. Or as I thought about it for a moment before typing this paragraph the answer to why did that 'mountain' spew hot liquid (lava) into the air, is example of action that doesn't (necessarily) need intelligence behind the action for the explanation to show why.

What I'm saying is there is many of scientific explanation that sticks to what, tries to pass that off as why, and yet... no, not really explaining why.

You're 'well no, science does answer some why questions' coincides with my 'They don't (usually, most often) explain why.'

And because I've investigated this for years, I feel prepared to discuss it. I find it to be philosophical and getting at heart of what science does, doesn't do. But because of the ongoing confusion (where why is thinking it's being explained, when really it isn't), it is a confounding issue.

And yes, you can do the same for many (but not all) religious answers. Again, I'm not talking about infinite why loop, though acknowledge one could conceivably do that as a response to every plausible explanation.

Saying that humans invented meaning, when all of science is a) human invention and b) providing meaning (in some cases) doesn't help the cause.

Science is a human-invented process to gain knowledge about the universe - I don't deny that.
My point is that the concept of meaning or purpose was also invented by us - and that isn't necessary to gain knowledge about the universe many times.

I understand the rest of your post, though. Thank you for clarifying

 

[Acim]

Science is a human-invented process to gain knowledge about the universe - I don't deny that.
My point is that the concept of meaning or purpose was also invented by us - and that isn't necessary to gain knowledge about the universe many times.

I understand the rest of your post, though. Thank you for clarifying

You're welcome.

I don't think knowledge about the (physical) universe is actually knowledge, more like understanding. And without meaning, I'm not even clear on what is being understood. Doubt anyone could explain it without resorting to meaning/purpose.

 

[psychoslice]

I am sorry to disappoint you, but in my opinion there is no god, and this world isn't perfect, there is no such thing as perfection, and so we have such things as conjoined twins, cancer, and all the other diseases.

 

[Mickdrew]

You're welcome.

I don't think knowledge about the (physical) universe is actually knowledge, more like understanding. And without meaning, I'm not even clear on what is being understood. Doubt anyone could explain it without resorting to meaning/purpose.

That response surprised me o:
I don't think that's true at all. If someone taught you how our solar system and our sun was formed following the big bang, would that not be considered knowledge? I doubt that understanding and knowledge is mutually exclusive because you would now know about the formation of stars and hydrogen fusing from being pulled together by gravity - allowing life to be possible here. Doesn't any knowledge gained require you to gain greater understanding?

I am sorry to disappoint you, but in my opinion there is no god, and this world isn't perfect, there is no such thing as perfection, and so we have such things as conjoined twins, cancer, and all the other diseases.

To be fair, the op would probably agree with you.

 

[Acim]

That response surprised me o:
I don't think that's true at all. If someone taught you how our solar system and our sun was formed following the big bang, would that not be considered knowledge? I doubt that understanding and knowledge is mutually exclusive because you would now know about the formation of stars and hydrogen fusing from being pulled together by gravity - allowing life to be possible here. Doesn't any knowledge gained require you to gain greater understanding?

Knowing about doesn't strike me as knowledge. Perhaps it is semantical, but given that I've experienced what I see as knowledge, I don't think it's just words. My experience with knowledge was there was zero doubt, and it permeated my being.

What you are talking to, is 'best educated guess' where doubt is almost seen as a great thing. You happened to choose something that truly no one knows and yet, unless I can provide evidence otherwise, then it passes for 'knowledge about.' Yet, even with very obvious, observable scientific 'fact,' (as in experiment could be done to day, with me present) I still see it as educated guess, and still see doubt as being something that is considered great to hold, though a bit ridiculous if it's more than a smidgeon.

To elaborate, in a way I'm comfortable doing, you are speaking to scientific theory which clearly passes as 'fact' and is based on sense of knowing. To me, that is misusing the word, but I would say I'm likely to misuse the word in that way (if discussing science with anyone). Yet, I'm also one who does consistently point out that science (of the physical kind) is ultimately based on faith. Based on faith in (physical) self, to put it simply. Faith in this case being the primary dictionary definition of 'trust, or confidence in,' and applying that to both intellectual understanding / ability to rationalize, plus faith in sensory perception.

All that works, and so I see no issue (honestly) with referencing it as faith. But to the point I'm bringing up, it is debatable if there is any such requirement to hold that version of knowledge to gain greater understanding. Because of the fundamental faith aspect that is indoctrinated into us (regarding our physical selves in an allegedly physical world), then it is challenging to argue otherwise. Not impossible, but challenging.

And part of the debate would be, for me, discovering the why, even if fellow humans/scientist types don't see the purpose. If going to tell me how human twins can be conjoined and what the process entails to form that, cool. But, I'm still wondering why and as I started this whole tangent off with, I don't see that occurring, which tells me that it's likely no one really actually knows, er, understands. I'm thinking many don't care, or don't see reason why it matters. Or perhaps I mean, how it matters.

 

[viole]

Why do you assume God did it?

He also asked why "He allowed it". Which is the relevant question.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Acim]

He also asked why "He allowed it". Which is the relevant question.

I don't see this relevant question in OP that you are bringing up. OP says:

If God is all-powerful and all-loving, why would he create con-joined twins? A God who would allow conjoined twins is either lazy or a cruel jokester.

 

[Jainarayan]

He also asked why "He allowed it". Which is the relevant question.

Ciao

- viole

That makes it all the worse, to blame God for everything, as if God is a puppetmaster and micro-manager. I refuse to believe any God does that.