Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   We are too humane.
Orlando Dibisikitt
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 64 (213862)
06-03-2005 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by EZscience
06-03-2005 10:53 AM


Re: Modes of future human evolution
sorry about the 'deleterious allele' thing.. you have to understand that it's along time since I studied such things and most of my genetic terminology is long since forgotten. Please also understand that I'm thinking as I go along here so please have patience if I say stupid things.
Presently I'm thinking that the problem isn't the faulty gene itself but the pathology it causes. For example, the problem with Phenylketonuria manifests itself in the lungs. Therefore, I'm not 100% sure that wiping any gene out is a good idea, (only about 99%). Other methods to work around the problem would be just as valid as any tinkering with the genetic pool and a lot less open to issues of morality. Imagine being able to whip out the lungs and replace them with some other mechanical device which could provide the body with oxygen. In a senario like this, the existance of such a gene becomes irrelevant. What if the functions of the nervous system could be reproduced in some other more mechanical means thereby making Huntington's and other simlar afflictions irrelevant. Again, getting rid of the gene in the first place would probably be a good thing but, as you say, this presents so many moral problems in terms of eugenics etc...
Also, no matter how well we could refine our gene pool, wouldn't other genetic mistakes start happening? Some would be good and some would be bad as they are now?. Maybe the fact that we use such a fragile medium with which to pass our code on is, in some ways, a hinderance to further evolution???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by EZscience, posted 06-03-2005 10:53 AM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by EZscience, posted 06-03-2005 12:49 PM Orlando Dibisikitt has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 62 of 64 (213880)
06-03-2005 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Orlando Dibisikitt
06-03-2005 12:22 PM


Re: Modes of future human evolution
OD writes:
Imagine being able to whip out the lungs and replace them with some other mechanical device which could provide the body with oxygen. In a senario like this, the existance of such a gene becomes irrelevant.
Sounds great in theory, but what about cost?
What do you think our beloved medical establishment would charge for that? Think Blue Cross would cover it ?
My point is that all these 'after the fact' fixes you propose are always going to be very expensive and not options for everyone. Prevention is always cheaper than cure.
OD writes:
Also, no matter how well we could refine our gene pool, wouldn't other genetic mistakes start happening?
Yes, of course, unless we somehow managed to eliminate the possiblity of mutations in human germ cell lines.
OD writes:
Some would be good and some would be bad as they are now?.
This raises an important point because whether some alleles are deleterious or not will often depend to some degree on the genetic background of the individual and sometimes on environmental factors (e.g. keep foods with phenylalanine out of the diet of PKU children and phenylketonuria is not a problem). So 'deleterious' is often a relative thing, even when applied specifically to one gene. And don't forget than many mutations can be 'neutral' - they may lead to a slightly different protein product, but one that is functionally equivalent in most ways. Thus mutations can also create genetic diversity without necessarily being subject to selection for or against.
This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-03-2005 11:51 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Orlando Dibisikitt, posted 06-03-2005 12:22 PM Orlando Dibisikitt has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 63 of 64 (214074)
06-04-2005 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by New Cat's Eye
06-02-2005 7:52 PM


Re: Modes of future human evolution
quote:
So, as we have become more humane, the differential survival of groups has had less of an impact on population structure. This supports the idea that being humane has a negative impact on how much evolution is occurring, and that being humane is preventing change.
This is backwards. Your premises are correct: genetics now plays a relatively small role in determining which humans reproduce (and how many offspring they have). Cultural, economic and other environmental factors play a larger role. What this means, however, is not that evolution has stopped for humans, but that it has increased. The major function of natural selection is not to produce change, but to prevent change. By helping more people to survive and reproduce, we are increasing the variation in our species.
My own guess is that the kind of mutation that would have the strongest selective advantage in the current human environment is one that made people want to have more children, since choice dominates the reproductive rate in much of the world. Whether such a mutation is possible I don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-02-2005 7:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2909 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 64 of 64 (214351)
06-04-2005 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Orlando Dibisikitt
06-02-2005 12:45 PM


Re: Likes soup
I think maybe we can become something resembling gods, (if thats the word to use). Chiefly I think this because Humans do do somethings which animals don't. one is the manufacturing of machinery ,computers etc and another is purposful self alteration. Put these together with sufficient skill and you could have evolution at will.
minds could go into machines etc. Who is to say that this isn't something that can't be classed as evolution.
Humans as gods scares me. Anyone who wants to be a god is automatically disqualified for the job.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Orlando Dibisikitt, posted 06-02-2005 12:45 PM Orlando Dibisikitt has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024