Mutation and Human Evolution

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 11:05 AM

Originally posted by mattison0922
Thanks for the link. Did you happen to notice this statement a couple of paragraphs down from the one you posted:

Plausible explanations for the extraordinary DNA-repair capability of D. radiodurans remain elusive in the early analyses of DNA repair genes.

Sounds kind of like these scientists are scratching their heads with this one.

yes, i knew, but i cared more about a reference to DNA damage by aridity than D.radiodurans

However, I DO also know that the spores of many species, including the species I am currently studying, Phytophthora infestans, are stored and remain viable in a state of dessication. However, again, I am talking about spores, not bacterial resting structures, and while there are likely to be similarities, there are also likely to be differences.

Too bad this is a fringe subject, so information is scarce and what's there is likely tainted by hearsay, but i'll keep trying.

These are all valid points. Perhaps you should consider getting info from... a more primary source.

Yes, that's why i hesitated posting here at first, because of my puny source material, i will keep searching for better stuff and re-post if it's worthile.

regards, LL

posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 02:00 PM
Sorry for the delay in responding, Sofi... it's been a busy week.

Originally posted by soficrowByrd - Inconsistencies and apparent contradictions in the language used to describe "electromagnetism in biological systems" does not result from a lack of scientific rigor. There are several reasons why the language is inconsistent: the study spans several disciplines, and each discipline has its own vocabulary;
also, studying and describing the biological effects of electromagnetism - or anything related to electropollution - is "discouraged" in our economy.

Sofi, I don't think the source of your information has ever actually worked as a researcher in ANY discipline.

Let me speak as a researcher who is doing research in a multidisciplinary field (museum studies and anthropology) and who is setting up a project that's even MORE multidisciplinary (physical rehabilitation, anthropology, and engineering.) The very FIRST thing a researcher does is read up on the literature, which means you become familiar with the terms in the other field and how they're used.

In thinking about body attitudes of people who have suddenly become disabled, I don't simply wander around and make up terms such as "physio-borged" to describe how they relate to their prosthesis. That would indicate that I hadn't bothered to read up on what other research had been done that might relate to this study.

For example, in this article about electromagnetic shock effects in cells is by a group of physicians and pathologists and you can clearly see in the abstract that they are using terms that any physicist or anyone familiar with electronics would understand. They haven't developed a "special language" and the terms are consistant across disciplines.

Now... laymen doing "lay research" (not hands-on, IRB approved, double-blind studies, but simply reading up on some things and thinking about them and drawing conclusions) may indeed make up terms. I see this all the time.

One of the lines in that quote you gave suggests that you've gotten information from a lay researcher site -- one that is compiling information from news sources (which may not be checked) and a tiny number of articles (I will typically scan 300 articles for one project and select out 20-50 for a more extensive reading.)

It was this that made me think that Ms Patrick, whose work you are citing, is simply a lay-researcher and has not done any real work in the field.

More to the point, research on electromagnetism in biological systems is fraught with career-killing landmines, and governed by unwritten economic-political policies.

Those physiologists and the others who wrote the 5700+ papers in this search sure didn't end up with their careers being killed:

...Newly created sources of electromagnetic fields and radiation are a significant part of our developed world, and industry - and create what is called "electropollution" or "electrosmog." So describing exactly what the effects of electromagnetic pollution are on biological systems is threatening to the economy.

Ms. Patrick really isn't up to speed on this one. You see, research on the impact of these electromagnetic fields and the impact on cites and people has been going on since the 1960's at least. That was one of the things we discussed (in long, stoned-out conversations.) When installing computer systems in the 1980's, we techs were aware of electromagnetic fields because nearby power lines would cause monitors to have problems.

..This state of affairs has created numerous conflicts of interest in the scientific-military-industrial complex. In consequence, scientists have difficulty finding the funds to research electromagnetism in biological systems. Publishing negative results publicly is verboten, and guaranteed to extinguish even the most established star.

Ms Patrick also didn't bother to check and find out that in the past 8 years, more than 6,700 grant-funded research projects have been done, and that large governmental organizations such as the National Institute of Health have approved funding for research on health problems and electromagnetism.

The fact that the authors' careers survived a first publication in scientific journals and they went on to do other supporting work in the field and at the same university leads me to believe that Ms. Patrick's conclusions are based on something she was told by someone who simply made up facts.

Interestingly, many chemical reactions seen in biology are "forbidden" according to the laws of quantum mechanics. The key to understanding these 'forbidden chemical reactions' - and protein folding, molecular formation, and the like in non-living systems - lies in unravelling the "mystery" of how electromagnetism works in biological systems at the atomic level.

Eh, not so much "forbidden" as "not understood how they work." The recent article you cited about the spin wthin electrons having an impact on certain chemical reactions is an excellent one, and should produce some groundbreaking research and a possible Nobel Prize in the future.

NOTE: I am not saying that all mutation results directly from electropollution. I am saying that electropollution has become a critical component in the complex system that is our ecosphere, and has indirect effects on biological systems.

I think some careful sorting and reading through old science literature is needful, here. For instance, shielding methods in cables have changed over time, and so the amount of electromagentic radiation in the environment has changed in many subtle ways.

Remember that "mad cow disease" (prion diseases) are not new and in fact have been present (scapies) for centuries.

May I suggest that you trim things down from a global perspective (because you don't have the computer power -- no one does -- to account for ALL the environmental and genetic variables across the globe) and focus on a more grasp-able arena as a start (homes in a rural setting pre 1970 versus post 1970) and look into building code changes and sewage/dump law changes and other things that can impact the whole situation.

With a broad scope, you may jump on the wrong cause-and-effect and miss the real markers.

posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 03:36 PM
Byrd - thanks for your response. I need to reread your post and follow up the links, but I think my first point still stands:

Our economy depends on communications systems and power supplies that release microwave and electromagnetic radiation - hence there is a real 'reluctance' to identify or confirm problems and biological impacts, and to fund research that intends to do so.

The second point is that biological processes are powered by/respond to microwave and electromagnetic pulses, so environmental contaminations are pretty much guaranteed to muck up said processes.

...Sorry about my writing style and sources. I do my best.

posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 03:42 PM
mattison - Sorry, have to a do just a bit at a time.

Cancer was rare in the early 1900's and usually caused death; it became more common as the century progressed.

"Forty-one thousand (41,000) Americans died of cancer in 1900; a death rate of approximately 64 per 100,000 Americans. The 1990 death rate per 100,000 is nearly three times the 1900 figure. In 1994, over one million two hundred fifty thousand (1,250,000) Americans will be diagnosed with cancer and predictions are that five hundred forty-seven thousand (547,000) Americans will die from this plague in 1995 (a 1500 person per day average)."
Original source: The American Cancer Society, Cancer Statistics

Also see text and links at: 1925 Cancer Data Showing The Link To Toxic Tobacco Smoke


Mortality from Cancer in the U.S.
year --- deaths/ 100,000
1967--- 157.2
1970--- 162.9
1982--- 187.3
1987--- 198.2
1988--- 198.4
1989--- 201.0
1990--- 203.2
1991--- 204.1
1992--- 204.1
Source: Vital Statistics of the United States vol.II 1967-1992 1900 cancer was practically unheard of in this country. By 1950, there were about 150 cases of cancer per 100,000 population. In 1971, Nixon introduced the War on Cancer, opening the floodgates of massive research funding backed by the government. This situation escalated until by the 1980s, over $50 billion per year was being spent to "find the cure." And yet we have the plain data in the chart above. What is going on?

Source: To the Cancer Patient

Today, 1 in 2 American men and 1 in 3 women can expect to get cancer at least once in their lifetime, and as of January 2005 cancer now is the leading cause of death in the USA.

About 156 people an hour will learn they have cancer this year, according to 2004 data from the American Cancer Society.


A 1 percent decline in cancer death rates per year (since 1999) has been accredited to earlier detection, prevention efforts and better treatments; however, cancer still remains a recurrent disease among Americans.

Time Weekly's 2003 A to Z Health Guide describes cancer as a chronic disease. The Lancet, World Bank and World Health Organization report that chronic disease -including cancer- now is epidemic worldwide.

Cancer is recognized officially as having genetic and environmental causes.

...The majority of diseases (most cancers, heart disease) are determined by a combination of genes and environmental factors.

Source: Future changes in diagnostics, treatment and the NHS: Challenges for the health insurance market place.


The majority of diseases involve both genetics and the environment.

Most diseases are related in some way to our genes. The information contained in our genes is so critical that simple changes can lead to a severe inherited disease, make us more inclined to develop a chronic disease, or make us more vulnerable to an infectious disease.

Source: Genetics: GlaxoSmithKline

It is highly unlikely that 1 out of every 2 men and 1 of every 3 women in the USA have the same father, and they definitely do not have the same mother. So given the epidemiology, cancer obviously cannot be genetic in the sense of originating from the same bloodline.

Unless someone is suggesting a worldwide secret program that inseminated half the women on this planet with the same genetically defective sperm, we can assume that "genetic" refers to new mutations. Scientifically speaking, the word "genetic" includes mutation; "environment" can refer to the external world or the internal environment of the cell or body; and the term "environmental cause" includes both pollution and infectious cause.

Pollution and other environmental factors are well-recognized as causing mutation and disease, especially cancer and other chronic disease.

Scientists now know that the environment has a significant impact on our health.

Source: Chronic Disease and the Environment. See links for cancer and birth defects here.


CDC: Human Diseases Result from Gene-Environment Interaction

Developing fetuses and children are especially vulnerable.

Environmental degradation leads to disease. Children are uniquely vulnerable to environmental toxicants due to greater relative exposure, less developed metabolism, and more cell production, growth, and change. The environmental insults of childhood may manifest themselves over a lifetime of growth to adulthood and senescence. In addition to physiologic vulnerabilities, children may have great social vulnerabilities as well. Poverty, malnutrition, and environmental injustice are our collective responsibility. We must develop policies to create safety, opportunity, and sustainability and we must carry into the next century a child-focused vision and value system.

...emerging science in this field indicates that asthma causation may be linked to the fetal and newborn environment during development of the immune system. This preliminary information provides an exciting potential approach to prevention and may indicate that current interventions are applied too late. ...There is growing scientific evidence to suggest that humans have introduced into the environment a range of organic chemicals that adversely effect humans and wildlife by disrupting endocrine system function. ...Since 1960, the death rate from cancer in children has plummeted 62% and cure rates have risen to over 80%, making child cancer the most curable chronic disease. There has been an avalanche of fundamental findings at the molecular level on how cancer develops and grows, and this knowledge may soon lead to greater abilities to prevent and control cancer. Now is a time to "stay the course" and to turn this hard-won knowledge into effective interventions for our children. Now also is the time to discover and prevent childhood exposure to environmental toxicants that will lead to cancer in adulthood. ...Research is needed to better characterize the potential neurological toxicity of the environmental chemicals to which children are frequently exposed. Both acute and delayed consequences of these exposures need to be assessed.

Source: Children's Environmental Health: Research, Practice, Prevention and Policy, 1997.

Infections also play a role in causing cancer. In 1911, Peyton Rous demonstrated that a virus could cause cancer. Today, more infectious microbes that contribute to modern cancers are being identified with regularity.

Some infectious diseases have been known to play a role in cancer in animals since the beginning of the 20th century. But only recently has infection with certain viruses, bacteria, and parasites been recognized as a risk factor for several types of cancer in humans.

Source: American Cancer Society: Infectious Agents and Cancer

Most likely, at least some of these infectious viruses, bacteria, and parasites have mutated over the past century - as have human genes. Often we're witnessing mutation meets mutation.

Besides human genetic mutations and cancer-causing infectious agents, several factors contribute to cancer and other diseases: nutrition and metabolism, lifestyle behaviors, diseases and medications, and other microbial, chemical, and physical exposures like radiation and EMF's. Timing most likely is critical, in terms of developmental age, and cell division or differentiation.

Sequencing and analyzing the human genome is generating genetic information that must be linked with information about nutrition and metabolism, lifestyle behaviors, diseases and medications, and microbial, chemical, and physical exposures. Genetics must be included in protocols for health promotion and disease prevention research (e.g., host–pathogen interactions, risk factors for chronic diseases, and drug or vaccine development). Using the field of toxicogenomics as an example, risk assessment and risk management must move beyond consideration of one chemical, one environmental medium (air, water, soil, food), and one health effect (cancer, birth defect) at a time. This will require that multiple molecular signatures and biomarkers be integrated with a comprehensive public health view. It is important to take advantage of the fact that there are multiple sources for the same agent, multiple media/pathways of exposure, multiple risks/effects of the same agent, and multiple agents causing the same effects in order to understand the status and trends of disease, formulate ecological models of health, and take into consideration social, cultural, and environmental justice. This is a golden age for the public health sciences. But the best way to reap the benefits of all the developments and advances in genetics and genomics is to bring this information together with other crucial non-genetic variables. One framework for pulling this all together comes from regulatory decision-making that begins with hazard identification, then moves to risk characterization, and finally focuses on risk reduction. Currently, attention is focused on identifying genetic variations and their accompanying disease susceptibilities.

Implications of Genomics for Public Health: Workshop Summary (2005)

The crisis is that the rate of cancer-causing mutations appears to be escalating, and all the different factors are present, and combining in ways that cause cancer more and more often.

Also note: The human genetic mutations involved in cancer appear to be inheritable - suggesting that Darwin and LaMarck are both right.

Seventeen out of every 20 cancer victims shouldn't have cancer, they have been murdered by the callous indifference of the people with power.

Dr. Vernon Coleman, F.R.S.M., Sunday Independent, November 1987.

...Next, I think I will look at the general situation, and review evidence of world change by category. It may take a while to get back to biomacromolecules and the atomic and cellular pathways that impact biology and health.

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 12:03 PM
Long Lance - just saw this. Aflatoxin is a bioweapon, from a fungus. Falls in the same category as mycotoxins and mycoplasma.

Contaminated pet food kills dozens of dogs ..."tests showed high levels of aflatoxin"

Aflatoxin: a potent carcinogen from the fungus Aspergillus; can be produced and stored for use as a bioweapon]Onelook Quick Definition[/url]

***]AFLATOXIN]Aflatoxin Contamination]Food Safety and Food Security in Food Trade[/url] pdf


Aflatoxins are well recognized as a cause of liver cancer, but they have additional important toxic effects. In farm and laboratory animals, chronic exposure to aflatoxins compromises immunity and interferes with protein metabolism and multiple micronutrients that are critical to health. These effects have not been widely studied in humans, but the available information indicates that at least some of the effects observed in animals also occur in humans. The prevalence and level of human exposure to aflatoxins on a global scale have been reviewed, and the resulting conclusion was that approximately 4.5 billion persons living in developing countries are chronically exposed to largely uncontrolled amounts of the toxin. A limited amount of information shows that, at least in those locations where it has been studied, the existing aflatoxin exposure results in changes in nutrition and immunity. The aflatoxin exposure and the toxic affects of aflatoxins on immunity and nutrition combine to negatively affect health factors (including HIV infection) that account for >40% of the burden of disease in developing countries where a short lifespan is prevalent. Food systems and economics render developed-country approaches to the management of aflatoxins impractical in developing-country settings, but the strategy of using food additives to protect farm animals from the toxin may also provide effective and economical new approaches to protecting human populations.

Human aflatoxicosis in developing countries: a review of toxicology, exposure, potential health consequences, and interventions. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Nov;80(5):1106-22. Williams JH, Phillips TD, Jolly PE, Stiles JK, Jolly CM, Aggarwal D. Peanut Collaborative Research Program, Griffin, GA, USA. PMID: 15531656
Full Text

.One of the main links between many of the things we're discussing here is that they are developed and produced by the military in weapons programs...

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 06:59 PM

Originally posted by soficrow

mattison - Sorry, have to a do just a bit at a time.

sofi - just wanted you to know that I am working on a response to this.


posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 05:30 AM
Direct Interference by non-ionising radiation has probably been underestimated

Most of the studies mentioned above concluded that the microwave effect, if it existed, was indistinguishable from the effects of external heating. However, it was recently demonstrated (Kakita 1995) that the microwave effect is distinguishable from external heating by the fact that it is capable of extensively fragmenting viral DNA, something that heating to the same temperature did not accomplish. This experiment consisted of irradiating a bacteriophage PL-1 culture at 2450 MHz and comparing this with a separate culture heated to the same temperature. The survival percentage was approximately the same in both cases, but evaluation by electrophoresis and electron microscopy showed that the DNA of the microwaved samples had mostly disappeared. In spite of the evolving complexity of all the previous experiments, electrophoresis had not been used to compare irradiated and externally heated samples prior to this. Electron microscopy had been used to study the bacteriocidal effects of microwaves (Rosaspina 1993, 1994) and these results also showed that microwaves had effects that were indistinguishable from those of external heating.

Interestingly, the effect apparently requires a build-up time of several minutes to occur:

A review of the data from the various referenced experiments shows a common pattern -- for the first few minutes of irradiation there is no pronounced effect, and then a cascade of microbial destruction occurs. The data pattern greatly resembles the dynamics of a capacitor; first there is an accumulation of energy, and then a catastrophic release. It may simply indicate a threshhold temperature has been reached, or it may indicate a two-stage process is at work.

The real kicker is that this little tidbit, among other things, explains why using cellphones (short calls duration only) is much safer than living near a cellphone relay tower...

alternate link


In the morning, he sent a fax to the agency, explaining how the research fell within the parameters of the grant. The NIH accepted his explanation and assured him that all was well. "They are usually fairly liberal in that regard," Lai says. "To do otherwise would stifle the scientific process."

The incident, he says, was only the beginning in a David-and-Goliath conflict pitting him-and other researchers-against an emerging technology that would rapidly become one of the most lucrative and powerful businesses on the planet: the cell phone industry.

The controversy goes back to a study by Lai and Singh published in a 1995 issue of Bioelectromagnetics. They found an increase in damaged DNA in the brain cells of rats after a single two-hour exposure to microwave radiation at levels considered "safe" by government standards.

The idea behind that study was relatively simple: expose rats to microwave radiation similar to that emitted by cell phones, then examine their brain cells to see if any DNA damage resulted. Such damage is worrisome because DNA carries the body's genetic code and breaks, if not repaired properly, could lead to mutations and even cancer.

Personal comment: people will inevitably argue that rats' brains are much smaller and therefore more suscrptible to radiation (which at the frequencies in question abates fairly quickly in flesh, with characteristic penetration depth) damage than human's melon sized heads - the problem is that characteristic penetration depth basically tells where signal strength is down to ~37% (1/e), couple that with a latency sensitive phenomenon (time of exposure is relevant, perhaps even more so than intensity) and you're bound to make a lot of dreadful mistakes.

Furthermore, brain damage obviously cannot be the only concern, any damage needs to be thoroughly investigated, to asses the risks and find counter-strategies, such as frequency hopping, burst transmissions and so on. supressing these findings is gross unparalleled negligence, the Romans killed themselves with lead pipes, looks like we're bound to repeat the mistake, this time using an entire array of weapons.

PS: to be frank, i'm shocked, if these sources are even remotely reliable. the term 'evolutionary crisis' is not an exaggeration, especially when combining all factors mentioned in this thread so far.

btw, i'm still chasing the ever elusive crystalline mycoplasma, if i find something noteworthy, i'll keep you updated.

[edit on 15-1-2006 by Long Lance]

posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:14 AM
Great stuff Long Lance. Thank you.

Before, I only suspected the EM environment was critical - now I am almost certain of it. Some of my finds will dovetail with yours - I will post when I get them organized and pull the key quotes.

deleted wrong title

[edit on 16-1-2006 by soficrow]

posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:16 AM
My premises here are simple. We have changed our world, fundamentally, down to the atomic level. These changes now are evident in the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe. It's a done deal. Now, because we are an integral part of our world, our world is changing us, starting at the atomic level. Altered DNA is only a byproduct. We are experiencing a natural process, an evolutionary crisis, and we do not understand it.

My hypothesis is that we can survive as a species, if we slow the rate of change, and allow nature to take her course without ill-conceived interference in the natural process.

I have been caught up in the physical sciences here - trying to work through the mechanics of the many processes involved. Asking: What is happening, exactly? Why? How does it work? How does it all work together? In the process, I have been trying to reach beyond the limits of my own education and ignorance - to remember things I have forgotten, go back to stuff I have ignored, catch up, learn new things. And mostly, focusing on the physical.

Now, I want to step back and look at the big picture differently. And I have questions.

How are we evolving? What traits are we selecting for, as a society?

Are we on a path as a society that prioritizes individual short term gain over long term survival as a species?

Because the process of evolution is a long one - even in an evolutionary crisis - and it involves multiple factors, multiple processes, and myriad interconnections and relationships. We do not know what leads where, or how.

Are we selecting for traits that allow the individual to survive economically and socially - and thereby sacrificing traits that may ensure our entire species' physical survival?

Are we glorifying a now obsolete evolutionary model of humanity that cannot possibly survive physically in this altered world?

Are we planning to cull the herd of the changed ones carrying traits that will lead to our species' survival in this altered world?

How do we know what traits might ensure our species' ability to survive physically?

posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 01:01 PM
I know that this is essentially off-topic, but i promised a follow up on this phantom pathogen:

Alternative DNA geometries:

Under "physiological" conditions (a 0.1 molar solution of NaCl), a DNA molecule takes on the form of a disordered coil with a radius of gyration of several micrometers; if any lengths of the molecule come within 1 nm of one other, they strongly repel. But under different conditions--in a highly dilute aqueous solution that also contains a small concentration of polyvalent cations--the same DNA molecule condenses into a tightly packed, circumferentially wound torus.

that's of course, just an example, to show that DNA may come in different formats which, among other things, could undoubtedly complicate detection (ghost pathogen, which doesn't react to f.ex. PCR), especially when combined with hull proteins and other components.


DNA­lipid complexes

Charge-reversal of colloids also plays an important role in our final example of DNA-inspired electrostatics, which is drawn from the field of gene therapy.15 DNA­lipid complexes are important biomedical materials because they have been shown to be effective carriers of DNA inside living cells. When we prepare a solution that contains both DNA strands and positively charged lipids at various mixing ratios, the negatively charged DNA molecules associate spontaneously with the lipid molecules. Usually, lipids are either neutral or negatively charged, so the cell membrane tends to repel negatively charged DNA molecules that one wants to inject into the cell for purposes of gene therapy. By complexation of DNA with positively charged lipids, the electrostatic barrier for DNA injection can be lowered and gene delivery facilitated.

and there's my keyword...('crystal')

It is interesting to compare the physics of the lamellar structure with that of a second type of liquid crystal structure encountered for the colloidal complexes: the inverted hexagonal phase shown in figure 4b. Complexes with this structure perform better than the lamellar case for gene therapy purposes. The hexagonal geometry arises in solutions of DNA and cationic (plus neutral) lipid to which has been added a lipid species that prefers negative curvature at the water interface. The radius of the inverted bilayer is essentially imposed by the requirement of surface charge density matching with the hexagonally packed DNA. In this case, the geometry imposes local electrical neutrality; there is no self-adjusting structural degree-of-freedom, such as the DNA­DNA spacing, that allows the system to deviate from its isoelectric point.

So, to be honest i have no idea if any of what i posted here remotely applies, i just posted this for comprehensiveness' sake and will only revert to the subject (mycoplasma) if i find something truely earth-shattering.

[edit on 21-1-2006 by Long Lance]

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 12:41 PM
The following is by no means a comprehensive listing of GM hazards it's designed to establish both credibility and plausibility for Soficrow's claim that we are indeed experiencing an Evolutionary Crisis.
In 1999, front-page headline stories in the British press revealed Rowett Institute scientist Dr. Arpad Pusztai's explosive research findings that GE potatoes, spliced with DNA from the snowdrop plant and a commonly used viral promoter, the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMv), are poisonous to mammals. GE-snowdrop potatoes, found to be significantly different in chemical composition from regular potatoes, damaged the vital organs and immune systems of lab rats fed the GE potatoes. Most alarming of all, damage to the rats' stomach linings --apparently a severe viral infection -- most likely was caused by the CaMv viral promoter a promoter spliced into nearly all GE foods and crops.,

So, we're talking about a damaged immune system and impaired growth - degenerative disease anyone?
In addition to the foreign proteins which result, cellular processes can be altered due to chromosomal effects at the point of injection leading to unforeseen changes in composition. Tests on these brand new GM crops have of necessity been short-term and limited, but have already shown that rats fed GM potatoes gain weight slowly and display altered digestive tractsEven negative studies only show that the risk of a given effect is small.. Claims of safety based on these limited tests is like saying that water which tests free of bacteria is safe to drink even though is may be laced with lead.


So, the knowledge is there, but the willingness to listen to dissenters isn't, as can be seen in the next paragraph:
When gene engineers splice a foreign gene into a plant or microbe, they often link it to another gene, called an antibiotic resistance marker gene (ARM), that helps determine if the first gene was successfully spliced into the host organism. Some researchers warn that these ARM genes might unexpectedly recombine with disease-causing bacteria or microbes in the environment or in the guts of animals or people who eat GE food, contributing to the growing public health danger of antibiotic resistance -- of infections that cannot be cured with traditional antibiotics, for example new strains of salmonella, e-coli, campylobacter, and enterococci. EU (European Union) authorities are currently considering a ban on all GE foods containing antibiotic resistant marker genes.

Nothing to see here, i guess, any effect induced by GM crops would be drowned out by tons of antibiotics fed to livestock anyway, wouldn't it?

On to 'collateral damage' ie. unintentional targetting of beneficial species:

Earlier this year, Cornell University researchers made a startling discovery. They found that pollen from genetically engineered Bt corn was poisonous to Monarch butterflies. The study adds to a growing body of evidence that GE crops are adversely affecting a number of beneficial insects, including ladybugs and lacewings, as well as beneficial soil microorganisms, bees, and possibly birds.

Heck, who needs bees anyway, we'll hire cheap Mexicans to carry the pollen, right?

Finally, a look at the industry's damage control mechanisms... a real life example of the catastrophic consequences of GM accidents, which you might never have heard of, coincidentially (who would have thought...)

Genetically engineered products clearly have the potential to be toxic and a threat to human health. In 1989 a genetically engineered brand of L-tryptophan, a common dietary supplement, killed 37 Americans and permanently disabled or afflicted more than 5,000 others with a potentially fatal and painful blood disorder, eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS), before it was recalled by the Food and Drug Administration.

If you're willing to take a closer look at the numbing details, i suggest

I'll give you a hint: the company destroyed all records and the GMO, so the ensuing investigation naturally failed.

Another curious development are so called 'terminator' genes, which are designed to kill the crop /organism after a given time, which might, at first be considered a fail-safe mechanism...
The terminator-gene barnase is a universal poison that breaks
down RNA, an intermediate in the expression of all genes. The recombinase,
in theory, breaks and rejoins DNA at specific sites
, but is far from
accurate, so it has the potential to break and rejoin DNA inappropriately,
thereby scrambling the genome in unpredictable, lethal ways.

... when you add horizontal gene transfer (to microorganisms and back) to the equation, you'll notice the devastating potential behind this technology. Of course, these plans were alledgedly shelved, but it's obvious (to me at least) that the industry is not going to write off millions just 'cause people don't like it.

Gene-splicing will inevitably result in unanticipated outcomes and dangerous surprises that damage plants and the environment. Researchers conducting experiments at Michigan State University several years ago found that genetically-altering plants to resist viruses can cause the viruses to mutate into new, more virulent forms. Scientists in Oregon found that a genetically engineered soil microorganism, Klebsiella planticola, completely killed essential soil nutrients. Environmental Protection Agency whistle blowers issued similar warnings in 1997 protesting government approval of a GE soil bacteria called Rhizobium melitoli.

Oops, no comment.

It's obvious that research on the subject is simply biased, bought-off or the result of intimidation, see f-ex.
Dr. Pusztai's pathbreaking research work unfortunately remains incomplete (government funding was cut off and he was fired after he spoke to the media). But more and more scientists around the world are warning that genetic manipulation can increase the levels of natural plant toxins in foods (or create entirely new toxins) in unexpected ways by switching on genes that produce poisons.

Sooner or later something is going to go far too wrong for the standard, under-the-carpet approach, but i'm afraid we'll then hear about a 'natural disaster' or an accident, like, say, Killer-bees.

I'm willing to bet my video card that GM crops are already actively contributing to traces toxins in food, simply due to errors in the transcription / selection process. If the don't catch myco- and aflatoxins, who would expect they'd find the more exotic stuff?

More when i find it,


[edit on 23-2-2006 by Long Lance]

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 04:03 PM
Mankind has changed the fundamental composition of this planet - and various factors are triggering rapid evolutionary change in many different species.

This is good news; those that adapt will not go extinct.

More Evidence Showing Speedy Evolution

There's a growing body of evidence that evolution is no longer something only seen either in this year's flu virus or Cretaceous tyrannosaur bones. It's happening everywhere, right now, and charging full-steam ahead. ...Research on toads, frogs, salamanders, fish, lizards, squirrels and plants are all showing evidence that some species are attempting to adapt to new conditions in a time frame of decades, not eons, say biologists. ...What's more, one of the biggest reasons for all this evolution right now may be that human-induced changes to climate and landscapes give species few other options.

"Basically, a species can do three things," said the University of Sydney's Richard Shine: "go extinct, move or adapt." ..."In the past 20 years, essentially all evolutionary biologists have come to widely recognize the importance and prevalence of (what's) often called 'rapid evolution,'" wrote evolutionary biologist Andrew Hendry of McGill University, who responded to questions via email from the Galapagos Islands. "Many conservation biologists have recently come to the same realization and I expect that the rest will soon follow." ...Rapid evolution is good news for conservation biologists. It implies that the number of species that might go extinct will be less than some current estimates, which predict as many as one-third of all species alive today will be wiped out by 2050.

For a long time, paleontologists thought everything always evolved very slowly. But in 1972, Niles Eldridge and Steven J. Gould proposed that sometimes, when there is pressure to change, species evolve much more quickly. ...Their "Punctuated Equilibrium" hypothesis explained why Eldridge would find layer upon layer of one sort of trilobite in rocks, "then BOOM, another kind of trilobite," said Spencer Lucas, curator of paleontology and geology at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. ...So it's not entirely surprising to a paleontologist to hear that biologists are discovering cases of rapid evolution, he said.

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 02:15 AM
cancer, birth defects, and aparent genetic disarders are all valid evalution topics in a way. though they may be avanues for evalution they have failed. evalution is not done by rowling arond in toxic waste or getting to many microwaves you can not evolve once you are born you can however make suttle changes in your body that might or migh not be carried to your children. such as intelagence if a kid has 2 smart parents sometimes they will b smarter and others dumber. cancer and gene damage while causing birth defects i have yet to see a supier child come from chernoble all have mistakes in there genetic code but to no headway.

evalution is a slow process so what your looking for is as follows.

looks... the better looking the girl the more guys want to have sex with her there for enshureing our species.

brains....the smarther the person the better they can survive to think through there problems.

instinks... though this is seen as a lower function among todays humans but those who can sence others feelings and there true intentions will survive better

sad to say it that charm, bravery, and chivalry will become less and less aparent among evryday people.

(ive had alot of time to think about this and a unique perspective my brother was born severly retarted and died sevral years back and i have though on this subject quite a bit)

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 08:31 PM

Originally posted by engenerQ

evalution is a slow process so what your looking for is as follows.

Thanks for your comments engenerQ, and I'm sorry about your brother.

...The thing is, the idea that evolution is a slow process is being disproved. As the article above says, "some species are attempting to adapt to new conditions in a time frame of decades, not eons, say biologists."

..."In the past 20 years, essentially all evolutionary biologists have come to widely recognize the importance and prevalence of (what's) often called 'rapid evolution,'" 1972, Niles Eldridge and Steven J. Gould proposed that sometimes, when there is pressure to change, species evolve much more quickly. ...called the "Punctuated Equilibrium" hypothesis ...

So yes, many species are evolving far, far more quickly than most scientists previously believed possible.

IMO - humans are mutating and evolving too.

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 11:16 PM
exactly it easy to see fast evalution EX. how viruses become more resistant to new drugs to combat them. but when talking about humans and maj. changes like another oposable thumb or telekenetic powers are slow to show themselves in becoming a domanant praticle trait. but in theroy evry genaration is a step closer to a better genetic adaption but it is easy to see that its not that easy it goes the other way to a certin genaration may be worsethen an other. the fact is as far as human evalution its a very long process b/c of how complex of a organism we are. so we can asume that in less complex things evolve faster then others

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 01:04 PM

Originally posted by engenerQ
but when talking about humans and maj. changes like another oposable thumb or telekenetic powers are slow to show themselves in becoming a domanant praticle trait. but in theroy evry genaration is a step closer to a better genetic adaption but it is easy to see that its not that easy it goes the other way to a certin genaration may be worsethen an other. the fact is as far as human evalution its a very long process b/c of how complex of a organism we are. so we can asume that in less complex things evolve faster then others

Hmmm. You might want to read the thread and some of the references.

In a nutshell, the hypothesis is that we have changed the world biochemically - it responded at a molecular level, then at a microbial level. Now, the altered molecules and microbes are forcing more complex organisms to mutate - some mutations are successful adaptations.

Some research shows that complex organisms are adapting far more quickly than ever thought possible - and we only can hope that humans and other mammals might have the same capacity for rapid mutation and adaptation.

FYI - the relevant mutations are required/occurring at a cellular level, NOT in visible changes like acquiring a second opposable thumb.

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 10:53 PM

Providing the strongest evidence yet that humans are still evolving, researchers have detected some 700 regions of the human genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection, a principal force of evolution, within the last 5,000 to 15,000 years.

The finding adds substantially to the evidence that human evolution did not grind to a halt in the distant past, as is tacitly assumed by many social scientists. Even evolutionary psychologists, who interpret human behavior in terms of what the brain evolved to do, hold that the work of natural selection in shaping the human mind was completed in the pre-agricultural past, more than 10,000 years ago.

"There is ample evidence that selection has been a major driving point in our evolution during the last 10,000 years, and there is no reason to suppose that it has stopped," said Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the University of Chicago who headed the study. ...The selected genes he has detected fall into a handful of functional categories, as might be expected if people were adapting to specific changes in their environment.

Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story

posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 04:04 AM
The hardest thing to do with this kind of thing is establish causality. There are so many other factors in the general environment, from increased electromagnetic pollution to fluoride in the water to Splenda in my Coke Zero. Who knows what causes anything?

Take just one example, the amount of cancer in the general population. While it may be true that cancer was not seen as much at the turn of the century, neither were so many old people. People died of other illnesses before they were diagnosed with cancer. So more old people, more people with cancer. In an odd way, that's kind of a good thing. It shows more people are living longer.

As for attributing human mutation to electromagnetic or chemical pollutants, there are a couple of things in our favor that make it less problematic. Namely, our immune systems and the failsafes built into our DNA that limit the degree of mutation allowed before the organism is incapable of reproducing. Most of our significant mutations are a result of retroviral infection. AIDS is a good example, modifying our DNA without killing us (if our immune systems aren't already compromised),

In any event, I just don't see a need to worry. Extreme mutations won't breed. True, bird flu may kill us all, but I doubt I'll personally be mutating much any time soon. And if the world population is any indication, if these various kinds of pollution are a problem, they can't be a very big problem because there sure doesn't seem to be a shortage of people these days. We're definitely not an endangered species at the moment, or will be any time in the foreseeable future.

So until these "problems" become more obvious and severe, I just don't see why you should fret too much about them. I say calm down, give these pollution-derived mutations a chance to kill off about, oh... half the world's population first. Yeah, half should be just about right. Then we'll deal with them, if necessary.

posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Enkidu
The hardest thing to do with this kind of thing is establish causality. There are so many other factors in the general environment, from increased electromagnetic pollution to fluoride in the water to Splenda in my Coke Zero. Who knows what causes anything?

Establishing "causality" in this way is a legal concern - not a scientific one.

We are, and live in, interconnected complex systems. Everything is multifactorial - and the idea that it's appropriate to identify and deal with single direct-cause-and-effect relationships is largely illusory.

As for attributing human mutation to electromagnetic or chemical pollutants,

These are factors.

there are a couple of things in our favor that make it less problematic.

I'm not saying mutation is a problem. I am saying we have changed our world at the molecular level - and now, we need to mutate, just to survive.

In any event, I just don't see a need to worry.

You might drift over to Environmental Health Perspectives and for a quick overview of the related science.

Extreme mutations won't breed.

Then hopefully, the mutations required for human survival won't be extreme.

I say calm down, give these pollution-derived mutations a chance to kill off about, oh... half the world's population first. Yeah, half should be just about right. Then we'll deal with them, if necessary.

Are you familiar with the doubling dynamic? Or ever heard the story about the lily pond?

...This guy has a lily pond. The lilies double every day - and it takes 30 days for them to cover the whole pond, which will deprive it of oxygen and kill everything living in the pond.

...On day 29, the pond is only half covered. Day 30 it's dead.

You are suggesting we wait til 11:59pm on day 29 to acknowledge the problem. Won't work.


posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 10:48 AM
This article is tres cool.

Time for a Human Interactome Project?

For more than 50 years scientists like Max Delbrück and Conrad H. Waddington have been proposing models based on the idea that macromolecules form complex networks of functionally interacting components, and suggesting that the molecular mechanisms underlying most biological processes correspond to particular steady states adopted by such cellular networks.

Such systems-level conjectures complement molecular biology's reductionist, one-gene/one-function point-of-view in several ways. First, they provide a framework for understanding general biological properties like robustness and adaptability. It is unclear, for example, why more than half of all unique yeast genes (i.e., those without any recognizable genomic homolog) are dispensable for viability. These models also address limitations of the one-gene/one-function paradigm, such as the "gene number paradox": how species as different in complexity as worms and humans could contain approximately the same number of genes.

Systems-level models also provide testable hypotheses to explain, and not merely describe, cellular events like differentiation and homeostasis. Finally, they could aid early drug development, by considering a drug's actions in the context of the cellular networks in which the drug target functions.

Researchers need money - so they push the profit angle - hence the essential reference to "drug targets" and by implication, new drugs.

IMO - the most valuable promise of this Interactome Project is its potential to unravel and understand the role of environmental macromolecules in triggering mutation and evolution. Exciting stuff.

Here's a bit more backgrounf from the article:

An investment of $100 million should be enough to correlate the genome with function, and identify new basic research and drug targets
MapQuest and global positioning systems have radically changed the way we travel. By showing us where we are relative to where we want to go, these tools simplify the job of getting from point A to point B, and make travel in unfamiliar places less stressful. Some years ago I realized molecular biologists face an analogous problem: Cells contain tens of thousands of proteins and other macromolecules, which mediate hundreds of thousands of physical interactions at any given moment. Yet biologists lacked the navigational aids to traverse those interaction networks, aids that travelers today take for granted.

new topics
top topics
<< 1    3 >>

log in