Mutation and Human Evolution

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




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.



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

Sorry for the delay in responding, Sofi... it's been a busy week.



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.
www3.interscience.wiley.com...

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.


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




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.


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.
scholar.google.com...

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.



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.




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.

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.

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.




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.




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.




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.




Developing fetuses and children are especially vulnerable.




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.





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.





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.





...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.

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"





.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...

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

M

Direct Interference by non-ionising radiation has probably been underestimated



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



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



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]

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]

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?

I know that this is essentially off-topic, but i promised a follow up on this phantom pathogen:


Alternative DNA geometries:

www.aip.org...



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.

more:




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




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]

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.




So, we're talking about a damaged immune system and impaired growth - degenerative disease anyone?




So, the knowledge is there, but the willingness to listen to dissenters isn't, as can be seen in the next paragraph:




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:




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...)



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

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...



... 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.



Oops, no comment.

It's obvious that research on the subject is simply biased, bought-off or the result of intimidation, see f-ex.



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,

LL

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

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

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)

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,'" ...in 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.

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

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.

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.

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.






These are factors.





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.





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





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





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.


.

This article is tres cool.

Time for a Human Interactome Project?





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: