Evolution Is Dead.

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by Fitzpatrick
... like we aint going to grow 10 feet high or shrink....

I think you are wrong - just look at the average mediaval man - just 170cm high. Today it is well over 180cm.

That may have to do with a better diet today.

Evolution isn't dead, the process is still on going. We still pass genes from generation to generation. Some genes get lost and don't effect the next generation. Those genes that do pass on may change and over hundreds of generations, when the DNA has spread into enough people, may provide a noticeable difference to the modern human.

We do today have a certain effect on a future evolution though, people born with genetic disabilities would probably have died if humans were still in an animalistic state and may have been unable to pass on the genes that caused their disabilities. Today they stand a higher chance of surviving into adulthuood and passing on their genes that carry the disability.

Don't get me wrong we should care for the disabled and let them have children but from an evolutionary view it could be detrimental to our future, unless we hopefully, find cures.

Well protecting the old, trying to get a longer life span, use of drugs or other means. I think they had a good run, let them pass away. I dont know anymore.

Who would make the assumption that your DNA strand is the same as your parents. .....wait....that doesnt make sense.

Some people also make an assumption that the same DNA you're born with is the same DNA you pass on. If that were the case, then how come you've got the fingerprints of viruses in your DNA that your body had never come into contact with?

Wouldn't that argue FOR the assumption that the DNA your born with is the DNA you pass on? ..... Never mind it makes sense, just the grammar. "The DNA your born with is the same as the DNA when you die" ....when you said "pass on"...made it seem like passing it onto fruther generations.



Disabilites are a bad thing for a species. I know they are life and such. But why even let them breed? Sure, they are entitled to it. But if you look at the race as a whole and the future, like it was said, disabilites could be detrimental (sp?) to the future. I would rather it be survival of the fittest, you would have a "cleaner" human strain in the long run.

[edit on 26-2-2005 by E L E M E N T]

[edit on 26-2-2005 by E L E M E N T]

We pass on half of our DNA to our offspring, that half is made of totally random genes.

TFL... Thanks Captain Obvious. (Kidding, chill out and laugh)

But you should try to contribute more then that to a post, 1 sentance respnses can get you into trouble.

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by Fitzpatrick
... like we aint going to grow 10 feet high or shrink....

I think you are wrong - just look at the average mediaval man - just 170cm high. Today it is well over 180cm.

dident stone age men used to be about our size and then we shrunk,

Also as genes intermix the height of a population will change and the average may go up but i think that a rise of 10cm is a bit differnt than that of 4 foot

I re-read my post and I don't see any problem with what I'm trying to explain.

Put more simply: Your father or mother gets the 'Blah Blah' virus which leaves an imprint on his/her DNA, and this is eventually passed on to you through the "non-coding" regions. Therefore your parents DNA was modified before you were born and a definite evolution occured. This particular change was not a result of a random mutation.

What I'm getting at is immunity. I believe this is one proof of an adaptive system free of randomness.

Originally posted by E L E M E N T
Think about it, we have no natural predators anymore. Nothing to force us to evolve, we protect the weak and such. I did not say mentally we are done evolving, just physically.

Bleh, we have no natural predators at the moment. "At the moment" is the key. Remember that.

It's all about better nutrition and medicine. Men in the victorian age were only about 5'6", that was average. I tried on a jacket of a man that was made in the early 1900's and I couldn't even get it around my shoulders and I only weigh about 115 lbs. I'd say the average man is now 6' and an average woman is 5'5"

People are taller, more healthy and maturing earlier because we have very good nurition now.

Lots of us would have been snuffed out by natural selection now if not for modern medicine.

Originally posted by electric
I re-read my post and I don't see any problem with what I'm trying to explain.

Put more simply: Your father or mother gets the 'Blah Blah' virus which leaves an imprint on his/her DNA, and this is eventually passed on to you through the "non-coding" regions. Therefore your parents DNA was modified before you were born and a definite evolution occured. This particular change was not a result of a random mutation.

What I'm getting at is immunity. I believe this is one proof of an adaptive system free of randomness.

Sorry, but this isn't true. This is only true if the virus infects germ-line cells. Viruses that infect somatic cells don't have their genetic information passed on.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Sorry, but this isn't true.

There's no need to be sorry. I don't make up my posts as I go.

“Because of these viral gene insertion events, genetic material from inactive viruses accounts for roughly 3 percent of the human genome. Cullen says that 30-50 copies of HERV-K exist in the human genome, and that some of the copies appear to be active at a low level in normal testicular and placental tissue. The HERV-K genes show even more activity in certain cancers, especially those involving the testes, "but there doesn't seem to be a harmful effect from the activity of these genes," Cullen said.”

www.hhmi.org...

Originally posted by electric
There's no need to be sorry. I don't make up my posts as I go.

Certainly that you make up your posts as you go was not implicit in my statement. But the following statement by you:

Put more simply: Your father or mother gets the 'Blah Blah' virus which leaves an imprint on his/her DNA, and this is eventually passed on to you through the "non-coding" regions. Therefore your parents DNA was modified before you were born and a definite evolution occured. This particular change was not a result of a random mutation.

in my mind implied that viruses necessarily left their genetic imprint on heritable DNA, and this is not true. The cold virus, flu, most viruses in fact, don't leave a heritable imprint. Furthermore, insertion of viral genome into it's host genome isn't an example of 'definite evolution.'

My statement:

This is only true if the virus infects germ-line cells.

accounts for and includes the case you've cited in your statement contained below:

Because of these viral gene insertion events, genetic material from inactive viruses accounts for roughly 3 percent of the human genome. Cullen says that 30-50 copies of HERV-K exist in the human genome, and that some of the copies appear to be active at a low level in normal testicular and placental tissue. The HERV-K genes show even more activity in certain cancers, especially those involving the testes, "but there doesn't seem to be a harmful effect from the activity of these genes," Cullen said.”

Now.... I didn't say that viral genomes aren't inherited and passed on, I said they are inherited and passed on (within the genome) if and only if infection of GERMLINE tissue occurs. You can catch all the upper respiratory viruses that exist, and you won't pass them on to your children via heritable DNA.

Well, you did quote my entire post and say it wasn't true. Anyway, I'll move on..

By 'fingerprint' and 'imprint' I'm not referring to a viral organism inserting part or all of its genome into the human genome. I'm referring to modifications that will take place in the "non-coding" or "regulatory" sections of the human genome.

Cells involved in reproduction could themselves inherit these modifications. They're then passed onto the offspring.

Given this possibility, there is a modification which was not a result of a random mutation, as I previously stated. Whether or not this particular change will effect the offspring obviously depends on whether it's interpreted for gene regulation and subsequently protein production.

Evolution definitely occured because the result was an imperfect copy. I'm willing to go a bit further and say that parasites and viral organisms are an essential part of evolution.

Originally posted by electric
By 'fingerprint' and 'imprint' I'm not referring to a viral organism inserting part or all of its genome into the human genome. I'm referring to modifications that will take place in the "non-coding" or "regulatory" sections of the human genome.

Non-coding and regulatory and distinctly different regions within the genome. Furthermore, insertion or disruption of non-coding regions is distinctly NOT evolution.

Cells involved in reproduction could themselves inherit these modifications. They're then passed onto the offspring.

ONLY as a direct result of infection with a virus. Somatic cells don't pass DNA information on to germ line cells. Again disruptions in non-coding seqeunce are not really evolution. They don't result in a different phenotype.

Whether or not this particular change will effect the offspring obviously depends on whether it's interpreted for gene regulation and subsequently protein production.

Even then, it may or may not affect an organism.

Evolution definitely occured because the result was an imperfect copy. I'm willing to go a bit further and say that parasites and viral organisms are an essential part of evolution.

Evolution occurs in POPULATIONS, not individuals.

Mattison
What about chagas? It can infect a person, and be manifest in their children, through their genes. I don't know if there are others, scientists assume so, I would cautiously agree. It could be that all genetic diseases were 'caught' by ancient man at some point.

Is evolution dead? Most assuredly not. I can and will go into depth, but first I have to go out for bread.

Edit: The Darwin Awards are eloquent proof of the point I was going to spend ten pages on.

[edit on 26-2-2005 by WyrdeOne]

Originally posted by mattison0922
Non-coding and regulatory and distinctly different regions within the genome. Furthermore, insertion or disruption of non-coding regions is distinctly NOT evolution.

Says who?

I can show that a rock could be capable of evolution providing two simple rules are met. 1) The rock must be able to produce imperfect copies of itself. 2) Rocks with undesirable traits must not be able to reproduce.

Sure, it's a crude form of evolution whos output is more likely to favor different combinations over useful traits, but it's still a working system of evolution.

Any modification at all is an evolution, and the mutation must start with a single subject. You don't know how a simple mutation effecting a so-called non-used portion of coding will effect a subject many generations later. I witness this fact using something called a cellular automata. Perhaps the assumption that there exists a non-used region is false to begin with.

There haven't been enough comparisons done between entire genomes to prove whether or not these theories, which are probably shared by others, are correct or incorrect. On a fundemental level, the evolutionary system is probably very basic, and most probably applies to everything.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Mattison
What about chagas? It can infect a person, and be manifest in their children, through their genes. I don't know if there are others, scientists assume so, I would cautiously agree. It could be that all genetic diseases were 'caught' by ancient man at some point.

Chagas..... parasitic disorder if memory serves me correctly. I know that it can be passed CONGENTIALLY, from mother to child, but to my knowledge is not passed on through the genes.

Originally posted by electric
I can show that a rock could be capable of evolution providing two simple rules are met. 1) The rock must be able to produce imperfect copies of itself. 2) Rocks with undesirable traits must not be able to reproduce.

If you believe you can show rocks evolve, then you don't understand the first thing about evolutionary theory.

Sure, it's a crude form of evolution whos output is more likely to favor different combinations over useful traits, but it's still a working system of evolution.

Rocks don't have heritable traits. Maybe time to revisit the bio101 and geo101 texts.

Any modification at all is an evolution,

Modification is variation within a population. I will again state individuals don't evolve, populations do.

I witness this fact using something called a cellular automata.

I conduct research with actual cells.

Protozoan Trypanosoma cruzi - Chagas - intracellular parasite, especially fond of the heart.

According to Discover Year in Science 2004, a molecular biologist from the University of Brasilia took DNA samples from the hearts of 13 sufferers of the disease. He found that in each case, sequences of the parasite's DNA had hijacked one particular region in a specific chromosome of the hosts heart tissue.

The biologist went on to infect chicken eggs, and found that a quarter of the chicks born had altered DNA, and all their offspring evidenced the parasites DNA modification without ever being in direct contact with the parasite. The parasite actually worms its way into your DNA. There's no way of knowing exactly what the infected DNA does to us, but it's got to be doing something.

It could prove to be a useful delivery mechanism for genetic therapies and various other treatments. There's always a silver lining.

Edited to clear up one bit of confusing terminology.



[edit on 27-2-2005 by WyrdeOne]

We have no Natural Predators? Yeah right ..

What about Virusses, Bacteria and not to mention our biggest foe of all, human kind itself.

Crocks, lions and all those others are still natural predators of the human species too, only diff is, we can OR protect ourselves with guns or are smart enough to stay away from them for 1 on 1's.

And even if your standing eye to eye with a Lion, if your carrying a gun, do you think it'll stop the Lion from trying to tear you appart?

We have many natural predators, humans are physicaly weak, our technology and brain are for our protection, it doesn't make us stronger then the natural predators, it just makes us fitter to survive.

You only need to look at Korea to see the difference proper nutrition has on height. In the North where they hve poor nutrition they are really short, in the South where they have good nutritition they are quite tall.

And why does protecting the weak and elderly have to be a negative for evolution? By protecting the Elderly you protect knowledge and experience, which has certainly been important for Humans in evolution. Also disabled people make have weak bodies but they can have extraordinary minds, like Stephan Hawking for example. By protecting and cultivating are main resource, our intelligence, we are ensuring our advancement. Viruses and Disease can evolve faster than we can so we need intelligence to beat it.

We need to think laterally, Evolution isn't always surviving in your original environment, what about when some fish decided to get out of the sea and walk on land? What about when Apes decided to walk on two legs or use communication or tools to get the job done instead of brute force and agile reflexes. Who knows maybe we will figure out a way of dumping our bodies all together and just existing as a mind controlling a robot or something else bizarre.