Natural selection

[[Cymru]]

Could you say that humans, disregarding the more probable nuclear war that could happen sometime in the future wiping us out first, are basically cheating natural selection?

Every plant, animal, mammals other than humans live and die with one similarity. They live breed and die according to natural selection. Humans it can be assumed, DONT.

With a normal animal or plant, the strongest would breed with the strongest, the strongest ones live longer to breed more etc.

Somethings always coming in the news about how some animal/plant has a mechanism which fights certain diseases viewed as deadly to humans. i.e.

Sharks who seem to escape brain degradation thoughout their lives (Deep Blue Sea FILM for easy reference=)

How animals dont become obese, except for those held in captivity and affected by human intervention.

Crocodiles. They are possibly one of THE longest surviving animals. Found to have a certain peptide in their blood that fights, it seems, almost every conceivable infection, thus they do not get infections.

Examples like this show how other animals develop certain qualities through natural selection.

Humans are increasingly shielding themselves from disease, unltimately leading to us not being able to combat a massve amount of diseases due to our immune systems lack of interaction with them.

For the human immune system to evolve, sexual partners must have very different genes for fighting disease, this then leads to the offspring having a combination of both genes and thus able to fight off more diseases.

Animals tend to use huge percentages of their muscle mass, whereas humans can only use a fraction of their muscle mass effectively.

I suppose all this can, in argument, be dealt with using human intelligence. Though most measures against disease are stumbled upon rather than calculated.

Anyway, this is just my view on how humans, though intelligent on the grand scale of things, we will probabaly be our own destructors.

Anyhoo, lets just hope our intelligent neighbours, the dolphins survive the nuclear dawn we'll all probably die of and go on to be our successors.

we should kill off people with physical/mental disabilities. They are damaging our gene pool.

isn't it wonderful when someone who obviously isn't very bright rambles round a vague topic without saying anything ...

[skiddy]

Originally posted by Cocaine
we should kill off people with physical/mental disabilities. They are damaging our gene pool.

Bye Slidey

[ELeeming]

Originally posted by Cocaine
we should kill off people with physical/mental disabilities. They are damaging our gene pool.

Not really, as these people are less likely to breed, and hence the gene pool is protected. Same with homosexuality. Well not really as it's not genetic, but you see what I mean.

[W]

We're still being selected. It's just that the criteria for selection has changed. You obviously do not understand evolution.

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally posted by W
We're still being selected. It's just that the criteria for selection has changed. You obviously do not understand evolution.

Only at a very extreme level. For example those with extreme deformities which threaten the life of an individual eg. infant sudden death syndrome which we still dont understand

I'm not saying we should kill everyone with some kind of disability (cause that would be most of the population) instead people should get their heads out of the sand about genetic modification and allow it as a means of correcting the problem.

However over all ever since human beings have begun to use tools, the natural selection of our species has been interfered with.
For example the use of optics has allowed a decline in the genes in vision. In the cave age, if you had poor vision, you died. Now, if you have poor vision you use glasses.

[WarFalcon]

I know, lets use an infantile technology to modify ourselves when there is no appreciable problem on the horizon for hundreds of years at the earliest.

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
I know, lets use an infantile technology to modify ourselves when there is no appreciable problem on the horizon for hundreds of years at the earliest.

In what way is it infantile?
And have you ever heard of 'A stitch in time saves nine'?

If we engineered out all the disease genes (both recesive and dominant) we will only have to worry about genetic mutation and not hereditory disease in years to come. Also many people in future generations will not need to suffer physical or mental handicap.

In short:
You sir, are a genius

Originally posted by Cmdr_Cyrax


In what way is it infantile?
And have you ever heard of 'A stitch in time saves nine'?

If we engineered out all the disease genes (both recesive and dominant) we will only have to worry about genetic mutation and not hereditory disease in years to come. Also many people in future generations will not need to suffer physical or mental handicap.

In short:
You sir, are a genius

Just like you, Cmdr!

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally posted by ÐiSCoRPoRaTioN


Just like you, Cmdr!

Of course. :eek:

[Snurx]

Yay. Since i think all off you are sick that even are discussing this, i will just post this:

[Vermillion]

Natural Selection is periodic, and brought about by times of crisis. During times of plenty, all can survive, it is only when forced into competition that the rule of the survival of the fittest comes into play.

Humanity is in a time of plenty, be it a natural one or one of our own creation. Thus it is irrelevant to talk about the continuation or cessation of natural selection. As for getting rid of 'hereditary diseases', the wonder of the recessive gene is that is almost impossible to filter out through simple natural selection.

[W]

Originally posted by Cmdr_Cyrax


Only at a very extreme level. For example those with extreme deformities which threaten the life of an individual eg. infant sudden death syndrome which we still dont understand

I'm not saying we should kill everyone with some kind of disability (cause that would be most of the population) instead people should get their heads out of the sand about genetic modification and allow it as a means of correcting the problem.

However over all ever since human beings have begun to use tools, the natural selection of our species has been interfered with.
For example the use of optics has allowed a decline in the genes in vision. In the cave age, if you had poor vision, you died. Now, if you have poor vision you use glasses.

Nonsense, you don't understand evolution either.

Originally posted by Vermillion
Natural Selection is periodic, and brought about by times of crisis. During times of plenty, all can survive, it is only when forced into competition that the rule of the survival of the fittest comes into play.

Humanity is in a time of plenty, be it a natural one or one of our own creation. Thus it is irrelevant to talk about the continuation or cessation of natural selection. As for getting rid of 'hereditary diseases', the wonder of the recessive gene is that is almost impossible to filter out through simple natural selection.

Same goes for you.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by W
Same goes for you.

Actually, I do, and if you believe what I said was in error, I would be most interested to see your correction...

[W]

Originally posted by Vermillion


Actually, I do, and if you believe what I said was in error, I would be most interested to see your correction...

Natural selection is who survives for PROCREATION. What individuals survive have nothing to say if you don't procreate, you have to bring your genes onward, or your genes die with you no matter how long you live.

No matter what happens, no matter if it's "times of plenty", as long as our genes is brought to the next generation trough procreation, natural selection occurs. If in no other way than what females are selected by males and vice versa.

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

I suggest you all go here and read up on your evolutionary theory, before you argue about it.

[Taratang]

Originally posted by Cmdr_Cyrax
If we engineered out all the disease genes (both recesive and dominant) we will only have to worry about genetic mutation and not hereditory disease in years to come. Also many people in future generations will not need to suffer physical or mental handicap.

I hate to rain on your parade, but there's no such thing as a 'disease gene', despite what channel 5 news may tell you.

Diseases which are generally described as hereditory are generally caused by the mutation of a 'healthy' gene, though i use the term 'healthy' cautiously, since some gene mutations are beneficial. (e.g. A person who is heterozygous for gene which causes sickle cell anaemia, is almost completely immune to malaria - a huge selective advantage in certain countries)

Onto the original post:
The source you no doubt copied&pasted this from is severely misinformed.

1) 'Natural Selection' does occur in humans. As W pointed out, the criteria have merely changed. i.e. You don't necessarily have to be the strongest/most intelligent/most attractive person to find a partner.

2) Humans have many natural immunities to diseases that animals do not. Citing a few examples of animals being immune to something we're not is irrelevent. Also, 'Deep Blue Sea' is a work of fiction, and although the experiments that were carried are to a degree plausible, the actual plot wasn't.

3) Many species of animals are perfectly capable of becoming obese on their own. Some depend on it for survival for various reasons.

4) "Humans are increasingly shielding themselves from disease, unltimately leading to us not being able to combat a massve amount of diseases due to our immune systems lack of interaction with them."

Antibiotics and other treatments of disease are an addition to, not a replacement for existing defenses. The problem of overusing antibiotics leading to resistant strains is another issue of course.

"For the human immune system to evolve, sexual partners must have very different genes for fighting disease, this then leads to the offspring having a combination of both genes and thus able to fight off more diseases."

5) Completely false. Genes do not 'fight off' diseases. For a start, if you are implying that the offspring could have more genes than the parents you are seriously mistaken. Regarding hereditory diseases, it is simple to screen for common diseases, and warn parents if their child may potentially express a certain disease. Regarding transmissable diseases, genes have little to do with it. To my knowledge, there isn't a gene that is widely known to make you more vulnerable/resistant to the flu.

P.S. Nuclear war is unlikely.

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Natural Selection is periodic, and brought about by times of crisis. During times of plenty, all can survive, it is only when forced into competition that the rule of the survival of the fittest comes into play.

Humanity is in a time of plenty, be it a natural one or one of our own creation. Thus it is irrelevant to talk about the continuation or cessation of natural selection. As for getting rid of 'hereditary diseases', the wonder of the recessive gene is that is almost impossible to filter out through simple natural selection.

Sorry, I was not really clear.
The point I was trying to make is: Yes we are generally suited to our environment at the moment, due to the plentiful resourses. 'the bar is set low so almost everyone can jump over it.'

However we should use genetic modification to erradicate genetic disease, improving the populations gene pool increasing survivability should 'the bar be raised' ie, if there were a world war, we tried to conolise a hazardous planet etc.

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally posted by Taratang


I hate to rain on your parade, but there's no such thing as a 'disease gene', despite what channel 5 news may tell you.

Diseases which are generally described as hereditory are generally caused by the mutation of a 'healthy' gene, though i use the term 'healthy' cautiously, since some gene mutations are beneficial. (e.g. A person who is heterozygous for gene which causes sickle cell anaemia, is almost completely immune to malaria - a huge selective advantage in certain countries)

Heh, i dont watch C5 news.

I see what you are getting at, my defininition was at fault.
What I mean is unbenifictial copies of an allele should be removed from the gene pool. Take for example ataxia; a neurological disease caused by the mutation in the frataxin producing allele. The 'unhealthy' copy is recesive and Ataxia has no benificts of greater significance than the side effects of the disease. The recesive mutation would be a candidate for erradication from the human gene pool.

The example you gave of the sickle cell gene is one example of a gene that may be of benefict and therefore its removal is debatable.

Is it the idea of erradicating certain copies of an allele that cause disease or the specifics of selection of which genes the problem?

Also I know 'unhealthy' genes can be traced back to mutations of 'healthy' copies. Yes a disease could again spring up from mutation but by removing a 'unhealthy' gene from circulation that was passed on from the parents, this could significantly reduce the incidence of desease within the population (particuarly recessive diseases.

[W]

Originally posted by Cmdr_Cyrax


Heh, i dont watch C5 news.

I see what you are getting at, my defininition was at fault.
What I mean is unbenifictial copies of an allele should be removed from the gene pool. Take for example ataxia; a neurological disease caused by the mutation in the frataxin producing allele. The 'unhealthy' copy is recesive and Ataxia has no benificts of greater significance than the side effects of the disease. The recesive mutation would be a candidate for erradication from the human gene pool.

The example you gave of the sickle cell gene is one example of a gene that may be of benefict and therefore its removal is debatable.

Is it the idea of erradicating certain copies of an allele that cause disease or the specifics of selection of which genes the problem?

Also I know 'unhealthy' genes can be traced back to mutations of 'healthy' copies. Yes a disease could again spring up from mutation but by removing a 'unhealthy' gene from circulation that was passed on from the parents, this could significantly reduce the incidence of desease within the population (particuarly recessive diseases.

I think his point was that most diseases was not hereditary, and as such genes had little effect on it.

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Cmdr_Cyrax
In what way is it infantile?
And have you ever heard of 'A stitch in time saves nine'?

Its infantile in that our genes have just barely been mapped. The science of genetic engineering is very young and unrefined.
I've also heard 'haste makes waste'

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally posted by W

I think his point was that most diseases was not hereditary, and as such genes had little effect on it.

I think I said genetic diseases, which are hereditory.

damn, I didn't
soz.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by W
Natural selection is who survives for PROCREATION. What individuals survive have nothing to say if you don't procreate, you have to bring your genes onward, or your genes die with you no matter how long you live.

Yes, quite true.

Also in no way contradicting what I wrote.

Please read a little more carefully in the future.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Cmdr_Cyrax
However we should use genetic modification to erradicate genetic disease, improving the populations gene pool increasing survivability should 'the bar be raised' ie, if there were a world war, we tried to conolise a hazardous planet etc.

Do you have even the remotest concept of just how potentially lethal viral engineering actually is?

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally posted by Gayle28uk

Do you have even the remotest concept of just how potentially lethal viral engineering actually is?

yes.