the de-Evolution of Humans...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: the de-Evolution of Humans...

  1. #1

    the de-Evolution of Humans...

    My g/f and i recently had a heated discussion about the human gene pool. so ofcourse i'm going to read up on the subject and try win the argument (guys, y'know how it is ) - anyway, just thought it was an interesting article, seems to make a lot of sense to me...

    Evolution of the human
    What is evolution? It is change. Change during our lifetime and change after it has expired. Darwin strongly believed in survival of the fittest. An evolutionary process that removes the weakest from the gene pool. Humans evolve a bit differently. Since we are not overly strong, nor do we have any form of natural defense or offense (unless you consider burping and farting offensive) we evolve by survival of the smartest. An entire race based on intellectual survival. Since we couldn’t survive on out own we needed to develop tools and weapons to defend ourselves with.
    With the intellect of humans we have created science. Science has given us cures for disease, neat gadgets and other things in life. We have created great cures for disease that would have taken evolution another few thousand years to achieve. So science is accelerated evolution? In a way it is. Since we now have a 99% survival rate evolution has taken a nose dive. It’s like everyone is urinating in the gene pool now. What was once clean and pure is now getting polluted corrupted. But that does not answer what life is. No not yet.

    Evolution is a major part of what life is. We live, we learn and we evolve. Adaptability is one form of evolution. A human can adapt to many different environments during a lifetime. From harsh colds, to extreme heat. That is a part of our evolutionary chain leading back millions of years. Since we have generally long lives we needed someway to adapt to our environments. A bacteria on the other hand adapts to an environmental change through death and rebirth. The survivors evolve and adapt after a mass cycle of death. Like the antibacterial we use in our homes. It kills 99.9% of bacteria. What about the 0.1%? They live on and mutate to become more resistant to the antibacterial, eventually becoming immune.

    So how does the bacteria have to do with what life is? It has a lot to do with the cycle of life, but on a much faster and larger scale. Humans live naturally 60 to 100 years. About 200 years ago that was more like 40 to 60 years of age. What happened was our scientific minds created more and more cures to disease. We learned to live longer. This has an effect on the gene pool. There was a rush to get married young 200 years ago. Humans would have 8 to 12 children per family in hopes 2 or 3 would survive long enough to marry and procreate. In modern times there is no rush so we marry at around 30 and have 1 to 5 children now. What this means is evolution now has lost 10 years and a bigger mix of gene combinations to try out. Slowing down our natural evolution.

    So now we have slower evolution. But there’s more to it now. Instead of having 12 children and 2 or 3 of the strongest survive, we have 1 to 5 children and they ALL survive. Sure that’s mentally good for us. But now not only do the strong survive, but the weak can live on as well. The weak can then go on and wreak havoc on our gene pool. Millions of years of evolution dumped down the drain in the name of science. So now with the generations of people pissing in the gene pool we’ve gone U-turn in our evolutionary process. But here comes the ethical side. We can’t just go on and kill off the weak, the dumb or the ugly. They’re alive and have the right to live a natural life. We can’t take away their ability to breed either. Science to the rescue.

    So since science has given us better and longer lives, perhaps it can fix the accidental corruption of the gene pool. We didn’t try to poison our futures, and corrupt the gene pool. We as a race wanted to prolong our existence. Gene therapy is the way to fix our unfortunate dilemma. But we need to put aside it’s economical aspect. We need to start thinking of the future and survival of our race. Sure we’ve got the “I won’t be here in 50 years” mentality, but we need to wash away our arrogance. Focus more time and attention to gene therapy. In simple terms gene therapy is taking the bad gene and replacing it with the good gene. Natural evolution is over. We’re in the age of de-evolution.

    There is no immediate solution. But the first step to anything is realization. We must realize there is a problem and to not deny there is a problem. Denial is a serious epidemic as well. “I’m not fat”, “my son is not a killer”, “He’s not cheating on me”. Once we stop denying ourselves things, we can move forward as a race. Otherwise the human race is in serious trouble…
    Taken from -> http://www.chaosrift.com/articles/evolution.html
    When you connect to your ISP, you are potentially opening your computer to the world. There are \'naughty people\' out there who enjoy breaking into other people\'s computers. Give some thought to the security of your computer...
    http://www.AntiOnline.com/sig.php?imageid=360

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    I would have issues with the first statement, every thing about humans make us better at doing what prehistoric humans needed to do to survive. We where scavengers so no need to waste energy on claws, they slow you down in the long run anyway. We have a mix of teeth so we can eat anything we find. No body hair so we can cover distances faster than any other animal (with the poss. exception of the elephant). Standing upright so we can see greater distances. good eyes so we can find the dead animals (or at least the birds circling).

    As for the future of our race, well I doubt evolution is reversing, but it is poss. slowing down for humans, on the other hand how many babies do sharks have? they have been around for a very long time and a low population hasn't hurt them (well until we intervened). Also note that the average height is going up and the average life span is increasing (the second is probably due to science though). I doubt that we need to resort to tweaking our genes to survive as a race. There have always been plagues and unstoppable bugs we have gotten a lot better at dealing with them. if it happens again we will be set back a little much like the dark ages but we will continue, I would worry about us killing us off before I would worry too much about bacteria evolution doing us in,

    As for the future of our race, well I doubt eveloution is reversing , but it is poss slowing down for humans, on the other hand how many babies do sharks have? they have been around for a very long time and a low population hasn't hurt them (well untill we interviened). Also note that the average hight is going up and the average life span is increasing(the second is probably due to science though). I doubt that we need to resort to tweaking our geenes to survive as a race.

    As for killing off the dumb and the ugly...well evolution has never done that for us...the ickly yes, the dumb have an amazeing ability to survive. Remember beauty is in they eye of the beholder at one time it was considered very appealing to be overweight. Now if we are talking about actual genatic disorders I will agree that gene theropy is the way to go.
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  3. #3
    Priapistic Monk KorpDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,628
    Did you know that Darwin was wrong? The strong aren't the only ones to survive. I mean think about it, what Darwin didn't count on was stupid people propigating faster than nature can kill them off.

    But as far as gene therapy goes, we need to understand more about ourselves and our "condition" before we start tweaking with genes. IMHO.
    Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.
    - Samuel Johnson

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    On this one I agree wit hyou fully, but I feel that it is an area that needs to be explored. Too much good can come out of gene thropy to block reasearch in this area, a cure for downs, Muscular Distorfy (sp?), and Lou Gariags dasiese to name a few.
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  5. #5
    Priapistic Monk KorpDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,628
    Oh don't get me wrong I'm all for stem cell research and that level of medicinal research but when you push the bleeding edge, you usually end up bleeding.. ya know?
    Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.
    - Samuel Johnson

  6. #6
    Disgruntled Postal Worker fourdc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    797
    In New England we had a problem with a porcupine overpopulation so Fisher Cats were introduced as that was the only species that would prey upon porcupines. Now fisher cats eat anything as it has no fear.

    If memory serves me correctly when cattle was introduced in Australia, they had a dung buildup as none of the indigenious dung beetles ate cattle dung. So they introduced a European beetle. Now they have to figure out a way to contain the beetle.

    Some scientists and doctors thought thalidomide would cure mourning sickness in pregnant women and a lot of children were born with defective limbs.

    Newton wrote about physics but his law would apply to biology as well. For every action there is an equal reaction.

    For every plus, there will be a minus. Do the research but hold off on the tinkering of the overall gene pool. I work with students that have "disabilities", some of them usually have a talent or skill bank to make up for it. If you doubt me, one name.... Stephen Hawkings
    ddddc

    "Somehow saying I told you so just doesn't cover it" Will Smith in I, Robot

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,914
    The article that pr0letariat pasted sounds to me like something from a utilitarian bio-ethics journal. For those of you who don't know what Utilitarian Bio-ethics are:

    This pilosophy embodies the antihuman essence of fascism, expresses the contempt for individual freedom and for the disabled and the frail that has in the past marked every form of totalitarianism.
    Source: Dean Koontz - Authors Notes in One Door Away From Heaven
    For a non-fiction book on the subject, check out Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in American by Wesley J. Smith. I have yet to read it, but it's on the top of my "to buy" list and comes highly recommended.

    I think that stem cell research and gene therapy is a great idea. However, I'm not sure if humanity is ready for gene therapy. Once we are fully capable of modifying (engineering) gene's for specific causes, i.e to save people with MS, ALS and other diseases, what is to stop humanity from playing with the genome while a child is still in the womb. Modifying the genetic sequence to produce the perfect baby. It's a great theory, but it's like a spear. Created with the best of intentions (to hunt for food), but used in the worst of situations (war). What would stop governments from engineering "super soldiers".

    I agree with KorpDeath on this one, we have to leave some things alone until we have a much better understanding.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    Originally posted here by fourdc
    In New England we had a problem with a porcupine overpopulation so Fisher Cats were introduced as that was the only species that would prey upon porcupines. Now fisher cats eat anything as it has no fear.

    If memory serves me correctly when cattle was introduced in Australia, they had a dung buildup as none of the indigenious dung beetles ate cattle dung. So they introduced a European beetle. Now they have to figure out a way to contain the beetle.

    Some scientists and doctors thought thalidomide would cure mourning sickness in pregnant women and a lot of children were born with defective limbs.

    Newton wrote about physics but his law would apply to biology as well. For every action there is an equal reaction.

    For every plus, there will be a minus. Do the research but hold off on the tinkering of the overall gene pool. I work with students that have "disabilities", some of them usually have a talent or skill bank to make up for it. If you doubt me, one name.... Stephen Hawkings

    There are a large number of sucesses as well as failures in intordueing animals (the sucessis have a lot more research done before they are implamented that may be the difrence). Look at the Pray mantis introduction into the midwest t ocut down on pestisides. the Flacons introduced into Chicago to controll the pigion population, the black rhinos reintorduced t othe northern african planes to help save the white rhionos.

    As for the gene theropy...yes it needs to be researched before implamented, but thats waht is in danger right now, people want todo away with the reasearch.


    [edit]
    Is it jsut me or do most of us seem to be arugeing through agreement on this one...it seems that we all agree on the basic idea that reasearch is good but the result could be used poorly.
    [/edit]

  9. #9
    Speaking of Genes did anyone read about how scientists finally finished mapping the human genome? I did some searching but couldn't find any articles about in on the web yet.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,914
    Scientists Finish Mapping Human Genome

    Scientists from all over the world have made an announcement they say could open a whole new era in biology and medicine. They have completed the map of the human genetic code. It's a project that started in 1990, cost under $3-billion, and finished about two years faster than expected. Researchers here in Tucson have played a big part in mapping the human genome.
    There ya go schoolsucks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •