|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
 Posted - 11/13/2001 : 21:31:20
|
I'm fairly new to this forum so this may have been bought up before, but I was wondering about peoples opinions on this thought I had last night whilst I was watching a documentary about Charles Darwin.
If natural selection favours those who are more suited to the enviroment and "gets rid of" species that are not so suited, by treating diseases such Polio, Asthma etc, are we not bypassing this natural selection. In the wild, these people would not survive (I am not saying kill all those people who are not 100 percent fit and healthy.) With the advent of modern medicine, what will be the result to the Human gene pool if these diseases which would normally be wiped out due to natural selection are continually allowed to pass on these faulty traits.
I hope this made some kind of sense.
"Damn you people. Go back to your shanties." --- Shooter McGavin
|
|
|
Dog_Ed
Skeptic Friend
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2001 : 21:55:25 [Permalink]
|
Good post. I'd guess that there are several different processes going on: truly genetic diseases are no longer weeded out of the population as fiercely as they were 10,000 years ago, so that's a negative effect. Many pathogenic organisms, though, tend to evolve (I think) so that they become more and more benign, because if their host is not too disadvantaged by them then their own chance of survival is better. And aggressive eradication of smallpox and, hopefully, some other diseases will make genetically-determined resistance to them moot.
How all these dynamics are working out in the real world, though, I'm couldn't say.
"Even Einstein put his foot in it sometimes" |
 |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 01:04:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I was wondering about peoples opinions on this thought I had last night whilst I was watching a documentary about Charles Darwin.
If natural selection favours those who are more suited to the enviroment and "gets rid of" species that are not so suited, by treating diseases such Polio, Asthma etc, are we not bypassing this natural selection
Isn't that 'funny', I just finished sending an email to my brother so he could help me on a paper I have to write for my class. I told him I was thinking of writing it about Darwin. We have just been learning about him in the class. I taped that PBS show but haven't seen it yet.
I don't exactly know what you are saying or what your question is. I will check further in my book or ask the teacher but I don't think getting rid of disease is exactly what natural slection is. At least that is not what we talked about in class so far. It's about choosing mates for certain qualities.
Gee I hope more people write on this topic, my report is due soon. Hint, hint!
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 07:03:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm fairly new to this forum so this may have been bought up before, but I was wondering about peoples opinions on this thought I had last night whilst I was watching a documentary about Charles Darwin.
If natural selection favours those who are more suited to the enviroment and "gets rid of" species that are not so suited, by treating diseases such Polio, Asthma etc, are we not bypassing this natural selection. In the wild, these people would not survive (I am not saying kill all those people who are not 100 percent fit and healthy.) With the advent of modern medicine, what will be the result to the Human gene pool if these diseases which would normally be wiped out due to natural selection are continually allowed to pass on these faulty traits.
Good question. The problem of “devolution” is a menacing one indeed. As civilization and medicine progress, the physically and mentally inferior are no longer harshly selected out of the gene pool, resulting in an overall lowering of our ability to naturally perform certain vital functions. Eyesight and birth capability are perhaps the most obvious factors to begin failing. Dramatic advances in optical correction (spectacles, contacts, surgery) and various birthing and reproductive methods (drugs, induced and assisted vaginal births, Cæsarean births, fertilization techniques, etc.) over the last few hundred years have made it such that those who ordinarily could not function or reproduce effectively are now doing so in droves, resulting in considerably lower average capability to either see or give birth without artificial aid. It has also been noted that, on the average, those with lower intelligence are breeding at higher rates than those with higher ones. Such “dysgenic” breeding over time eventually lowers the population intelligence, given that intelligence is at least partially genetically determined.
Some people claim that eugenics is the answer, that we should take positive steps to correct these trends by ensuring that the mentally and physically fit have more offspring than the feeble. Of course, the main problem with this it would be damn hard to implement without violating what we view as fundamental human freedoms and civil rights.
Many of these problems were discussed by Darwin himself in The Descent of Man. Excerpts of relevant quotations have been assembled for public consumption by one Soshichi Uchii.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 08:34:20 [Permalink]
|
Afew years ago I might have agreed that human physical evolution has been short-circuited by culture. In most human societies, we now support the infirm, correct certain defects, cure diseases with drugs rather than natural resistance, and so on. It certainly seems like evolution has at least ceased, if not reversed.
But these days I'm not so sure that this issue is quite so cut-and-dried. It's possible to argue that human evolution is continuing, but on a different plane or planes than before.
Consider the case of a disease like smallpox. Evolutionary biologists consider disease processes themselves to be evolving all the time. For example, the common-cold rhinoviruses have probably been with our species for eons, and have reached a state of near-symbiosis: we host them without suffering devastating consequences, they don't make us deathly ill. Both species (if a virus can be considered a species) benefit, at least compared to more virulent diseases.
Smallpox is a different story. It's almost certainly a relatively recent mutation that developed long after mankind spread around the world. It causes terrible suffering and kills a large percentage of its hosts, which limits its spread in the population. The relationship with its host hasn't reached equilibrium. This is demonstrated by the devastating impact it had in the New World after 1492.
So it would seem that, by developing a vaccine for smallpox, we've interrupted this natural process, whereby susceptible hosts die off, leaving a resistant population and a less virulent disease. Natural selection has failed.
But considered another way, it can be argued that we have merely evolved differently. Rather than develop resistance the hard way, we've used the power of our minds to give ourselves immunity. Smallpox has been eradicated, except for the stocks in the laboratory (which we all hope are not in the hands of evildoers). A different mechanism is responsible, but of course our human minds are also part of nature. There's nothing sacred about "natural selection" as the driving mechanism of evolution; any mechanism will do. So maybe we don't have genes that produce resistance to smallpox infection; but we do have genes that produce large brains capable of abstract thought, which in turn allow us to overcome the same infections at a much lower cost in suffering, and at astonishingly high speed.
Of course, some of the more traditional evolutionary mechanisms are still in effect, such as sexual selection (perhaps even more so today, when most people marry their own choice of mates, rather than accepting arranged marriages).
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 16:29:46 [Permalink]
|
Great reply, but with the more serious deiseases that we do treat, wouldn't they have been eventually wiped out by Natural Selection , i.e. Someone with Down Syndrome would not survive infancy in the wild, therefore these people would not be able to have offspring. Eventaully the anomoly would be bred out. These days, people with this affliction (and others) can reach the age where they do have children, so even if their kids don't get Down Syndrome, the faulty gene may be passed on to future generations where as before it would not have.
"Damn you people. Go back to your shanties." --- Shooter McGavin |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 16:48:34 [Permalink]
|
Another way to look at this: the germs cannot compete with human's brains. We've found way's to either eradiate them or protect ourselves against them. We keep samples in labs (sort of a bacteria/virus "zoo"), only to use as a research baseline.
Lisa
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 17:25:36 [Permalink]
|
I think we are not far off from altering our genes and that we will be able to completely eradicate Down's Syndrome etc. There won't be anything natural about the direction we want to evolve ourselves.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 18:03:23 [Permalink]
|
Eliminating people through disease would eliminate a great number of scientific and artistic geniuses. An individual's ability to withstand all illnesses is only part of the story. Individuals who are genetically endowed for survival might not be genetically endowed for great genius and civilizations might never have occurred. After all, cockroaches will eventually win out over humans over the long run. Does this make cockroaches more valuable than human geniuses? Survival is only a part of it. Human geniuses have made it easier to survive the plagues by developing cures or preventive measures.
The individuals who will survive genetically are those who have the most offspring who survive to puberty. Big deal!
ljbrs 
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 18:32:43 [Permalink]
|
Interesting thought @tomic, what will we look and be like in 500 years...if we make it that far. Maybe we will naturally select ourselves out of existence.....maybe a (physically flawed) genius who ultimately is kept alive due to breakthroughs in medicine will create an ultimate weapon or disease that will knock us all off...
Doesn't matter how genetically perfect you are if there a nuclear fireball heading towards you.
"Damn you people. Go back to your shanties." --- Shooter McGavin |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 18:53:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Interesting thought @tomic, what will we look and be like in 500 years...if we make it that far. Maybe we will naturally select ourselves out of existence.....maybe a (physically flawed) genius who ultimately is kept alive due to breakthroughs in medicine will create an ultimate weapon or disease that will knock us all off...
Uhhhhh at first I thought you were serious
Maybe an asteroid will hit the Earth or the sun will go nova on us or maybe the galaxy will be eaten by a giant space caterpillar. In the meantime we will advance ourselves until then. The thing about changing our genes is that there may be no sickness at all to cure anyone of. No geniuses kept alive due to medicine because everyone will be born healthy.
I get the feeling you are just wanting to dwell on the pessimistic possibilities and not on the optimistic. There are no guarantess and there never were any but with the breakthroughs we have seen in medical science it is not hard to imagine a time when there are no sick babies, no sick adults. Hell, we will probably be able to engineer ourselves to live in almost any environment.
The human gene pool will be what we want it to be.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 20:08:20 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, I look back on that comment I made and I do realise that it was very pessimistic (maybe beacause I am sitting at work and I can't help it). I wasn't trying to say that medicine was a bad thing, far from it, modern medicine continues to amaze me. My worry is what will ultimately happen to the human race if we are allowed to continue unchecked by circumventing the laws that have been in place for 3 1/2 billion years.......
It is just that we have completely changed the rules of the game.
"Damn you people. Go back to your shanties." --- Shooter McGavin |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 20:36:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Great reply, but with the more serious deiseases that we do treat, wouldn't they have been eventually wiped out by Natural Selection , i.e. Someone with Down Syndrome would not survive infancy in the wild, therefore these people would not be able to have offspring. Eventaully the anomoly would be bred out. These days, people with this affliction (and others) can reach the age where they do have children, so even if their kids don't get Down Syndrome, the faulty gene may be passed on to future generations where as before it would not have.
FYI
Down's Syndrome, aka Trisomy 21, occurs when an extra copy of chromosome 21 appears in one of the gametes (non-disjunction) after meiosis and is inserted in the genome of the developing zygote after fertilization. In this sense, Down's is kind of a form of mutation, adding information to the genome. It is not, however, strictly a genetically caused condition, and so not subject to selection pressures. In other words, it is unlikely to disappear through evolutionary channels. It is not known what causes the non-disjunction, but it is positively correlated with age of the mother. Also, I believe only Down's females are fertile.
There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn't my fault, I swear to god! - Jake Blues
Edited by - PhDreamer on 11/14/2001 20:39:13 |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 20:46:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Eliminating people through disease would eliminate a great number of scientific and artistic geniuses.
That's not a bad thought. It appears that many of our great masters of the arts and letters had Syphilis.
I still say this discussion is not about Darwins' evolution as stated in the topic header.
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 20:56:23 [Permalink]
|
This is what I like about this website...I learn something everytime I log on.
Also, judging by the knowledge of some of the people on this forum, I have a lot to learn as well....LOL
"Damn you people. Go back to your shanties." --- Shooter McGavin |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 21:41:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My worry is what will ultimately happen to the human race if we are allowed to continue unchecked by circumventing the laws that have been in place for 3 1/2 billion years.......
It's easy to see why people would worry. It's unknown territory and the effect on us could be profound. We won't be completely unchecked I'm sure. Nature is always devising ways to kill us.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
