It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science and technology. Side effects include: de-evolution!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
"Toasty", you said; "Keeping up with virus evolution is proving to be a real issue for scientists and doctors."

That's nothing but BS. The pharmaceutical companies are out there to make huge amounts of money. The cure for cancer is Vitamin B-17, but for some strange(conspiracy) reason it isn't in any multivitamins or even the vitamin stores themselves. Its not like it is too hard to get. Its found in most all fruit seeds such as the apple, peach, cherry, orange, nectarine and apricot, but of course people usually don't eat the seeds.
www.curezone.com...
Go search for this simple vitamin at: www.vitaminshoppe.com... . It's no where to be found........
The pharmaceutical companies pretty much own the Doctors. They give you expensive prescriptions that seems to only "make you feel better" and never really curing a major problem in a short amount of time. I wouldn't let a doctor(drug dealer) be in charge of my health. Stay healthy simply with good eating habits, natural cures, and give the body the chance to stay healthy under natural situations like it has been done for thousands of years!



[edit on 30-11-2006 by realanswers]




posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   

'Proof' our brains are evolving

University scientists say they have found strong proof that the human brain is still evolving.

By comparing modern man with our ancestors of 37,000 years ago, the Chicago team discovered big changes in two genes linked to brain size.

One of the new variants emerged only 5,800 years ago yet is present in 30% of today's humans, they believe.

This is very short in evolutionary terms, suggesting intense selection pressures, they told Science.


Yes, we are evolving rather quickly, actually. Learning how the weak survive helps the strong survive even longer. And many of our weak are still quite strong by comparison to many animals. I won't speculate as to whether or not we are an evolutionary dead-end (seeing that our brains probably evolved to heighten our sexual stimulus and responses), but I don't think we're in danger of de-evolving any time soon.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by Protector]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   
"Protector", based upon what I know about aliens modifying our genetic structure on many times in our human history, to me a difference in genetic composition relating to brain size doesn't necessarily mean physical evolution. It's probably the result of such alien genetic munipulation of the human race.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by realanswers
"Toasty", you said; "Keeping up with virus evolution is proving to be a real issue for scientists and doctors."

That's nothing but BS. The pharmaceutical companies are out there to make huge amounts of money. The cure for cancer is Vitamin B-17, but for some strange(conspiracy) reason it isn't in any multivitamins or even the vitamin stores themselves. Its not like it is too hard to get. Its found in most all fruit seeds such as the apple, peach, cherry, orange, nectarine and apricot, but of course people usually don't eat the seeds.
www.curezone.com...
Go search for this simple vitamin at: www.vitaminshoppe.com... . It's no where to be found........
The pharmaceutical companies pretty much own the Doctors. They give you expensive prescriptions that seems to only "make you feel better" and never really curing a major problem in a short amount of time. I wouldn't let a doctor(drug dealer) be in charge of my health. Stay healthy simply with good eating habits, natural cures, and give the body the chance to stay healthy under natural situations like it has been done for thousands of years!



[edit on 30-11-2006 by realanswers]


Dude your point has nothing to do with the topic. Your saying that 'big brother' is keeping the cures from us, for economical benefits, but what has this got to do with evolution? Medicine is medicine, cure or not. I would go as far to say that 'successful' medicine has greater side effects for our evolution than one with a placebo effect. Any medicine we take, removes the need for our immune system. We become dependent on it and therefore must invent new 'cures' to stay ahead. Whether or not the cures are kept away from us, the fact that we are relying on medicine in general is what is hurting our evolution. It really is probably a good thing that we don't have a 'cure all' medicine, because imagine the genetic faults that will be allowed to flourish.

You say that you wouldn't take any medicine and would rather keep well from eating healthy etc. That is exactly my point. In terms of where we are with our immunities to virus's compared to 1000 years ago, we are probably falling way behind.

Also if the time ever comes that you suffer from the traumatic effects of cancer, I hope you don't purely rely on your magic seeds, because trust me they ain't gonna cure you of anything.

I don't understand if you agree or disagree with my original post. But I get the idea you missed the point.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I do not think it is over. The best looking and most fit people will still be attracted to each other so we should see more and more better looking people in the future. Intelligent people (we are not born equal) will continue to migrate toward intelligent people so intelligence should continue to develop.

Our Nature survival skill will decline. Hopefully our metabolism will adjust to have food available all the time, so hopefully our cravings/needs will reduce over the centuries. I am getting older and fatter =/.

If we move into space or bodies will evolve to live there. I am betting on round humans =) in the lack of gravity we should become spherical.

If we live on other planets our bodies will evolve to the new gravity and weather conditions.

Our own climate WILL change regardless if it is caused by us or not, it will happen, and I am sure we will evolve to live in whatever climate we have, if it lasts for long periods.

Cosmic rays will continue to change our DNA and cause evolution.

Interracial mixtures will share genetic strengths and weakness so will see some evolution there as well.

my 2 penny

[edit on 30-11-2006 by Xeven]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
I'm hoping that we eventually adapt to our crappy fast food diets.

Steaks, and Baked potatoes with lots of butter and sour cream will be available in the health food aisles..

we will yearn for fresh carrots, but the Surgeon General will demand that warning labels be applied to anything fresh and fiber-y.

This is Woody Allen's Future..it could be ours too..



PS..In a way, I actually mean what I said...I think we may eventually evolve to adapt to our diets..Just like we've always done. Metabolisms will eventually figure out a way to extract real nutrients from a whopper..



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 12:41 AM
link   
~#Warning this post was written offline. Unfortunately it only considers about half
the first page, since thats all that time allowed#~

* My own "reality" does not allow me to accept your argument. Although I do admit that
my own understanding of the subject could be wrong (or right) just as well. But the way I percieve this
subject is quite the contrary towards your understanding. Would you not have to hone your
skills towards hunting and gathering if indeed that is the only way that was available for
you to continue living? Would a hunter and gatherer have the time to figure out, oh say,
nuclear physics between hunting, gathering, and preparing a days meal so that the hunter
gatherer could wake up the next day?
I am not claiming that such a feat could not be achieved.All I am saying is that it is
highly unlikely that any sort of sentient being would bother to try to study anything
at all if all it could do was attemp to survive.
Technology is the achievement that seperates us from most of the flock here on earth. If we didnt have
technology to make us forget the little things in life we would not be allowed the time for
amazing human capabilites to develop like Einstien or Tesla. The majority of
human poulation as we know it would not be able to exist. Natural life could not sustain as
many souls as there are presently today. Even if a percentage is being wasted for absolutely
no reason. My friend, I do not proclaim you to be wrongful, all I am saying is if that if
it was not for technology, you would probably not be able to sit anywhere and complain about
the things that make your life easier than anyone is willing to admit.

* Disclaimer - This post was written as a generalization towards everyone
and no one at the same time. With a slight topping of apoligies for spelling
errors due to times where I should be asleep.


[edit on 12/1/2006 by Pjpuas]

[edit on 12/1/2006 by Pjpuas]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fiverz
There are more multi-racial/ethnic babies being born... more multi-racial/ethnic couples. What happens when genes from these people start combining and others are tossed away?

Will there ever be a point when the vast majority of people in the US (or the planet for that matter) will be the same ... a mix of a thousand different races and ethnicities?

Inheritance doesn't work the way these statements imply.

1. The average genetic variation between the so-called 'races' is less than the average genetic variation between individuals of the same race. See here...

Most (85%) of our genetic variation is within populations rather than among them, even when different sequences of DNA (or proteins) are examined (Barbujani et al., 1997 ). Statistical divisions of humanity based on different kinds of genetic data do not group people consistently into races (Romualdi, 2002 ).

and here...

Templeton... has analyzed DNA from global human populations that reveal the patterns of human evolution over the past one million years. He shows that while there is plenty of genetic variation in humans, most of the variation is individual variation. While between-population variation exists, it is either too small, which is a quantitative variation, or it is not the right type of qualitative variation -- it does not mark historical sublineages of humanity.

and here...

Most traits are influenced by separate genes and inherited independently one from another... Someone with brown hair might carry A, B or O blood; sub-Saharan Africans tend to have dark skin but so too do Dravidians from India, Aborigines from Australia, and Melanesians from the South Pacific. Large numbers of West Africans are lactose intolerant as are Japanese, but East Africans aren't. German and Papua New Guinean populations have almost exactly the same frequencies of A, B and O blood... For each trait we can classify people into "races" by that trait, each giving us different and overlapping races depending on the trait selected.

Nor does natural selection work with such finality as the statement about genes getting 'tossed out' might suggest. We all carry around cargoes of 'unexpressed' genes, which have no direct effect on us but are inherited by our children -- and may be expressed in them. That's why a child's eye colour, for example, may be different from either of her parents'.

Then again, we are a population of six billion. No other animal of comparable size exists in numbers anything like as large. You'll have to get down to the level or dogs or rats before you find another animal population that big. Six billion individuals make a pretty big gene bank.

So don't worry. There's not much chance of too many useful genes being tossed out, not just yet.

Oh, and by the way, that incredible population size makes quite a good guarantee that evolution hasn't, and will not cease.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   
The old familiar face of American eugenics. Hitler was also quite fond of citing examples from the animal kingdom to justify the creation of his master race. He began his progrom of genocide with the disposal of the handicapped. Not sure that reflects the best qualities of humanity.

Environment determines what types of creatures survive, not necessarily the 'best' of these creatures: rather, the furriest in the cold, the best at smelling blood among sharks. Cockroaches exemplify a pinnacle of evolutionary tenacity among animals and are said to be the only expected survivors of a nuclear war.

Should have left Stephen Hawking on a mountain-side at birth, with the other Spartan babies that didn't measure up. Science is the single greatest contributor to the quality of human life. We can thank it for plumbing, music, medicine, an endless number of discoveries and heroics that have countered such stupidities as the inquisition and preserving food with arsenic.

Evolution may just have a few surprises in store for people who like to cite survival as the fittest as their reasoning for eliminating those people who test their tolerance.
Mammals were much smaller than dinosaurs and reptilians when they first appeared and its presumed they were succesful as a genus of creature because of their tendency to unite against threats. Rats will attack en masse.

In fact, our best defense against the possibilities of the catastrophic consequences of global warming will be sheer numbers. My money's on those who support one another, as far as survival is concerned. We are not dumb animals, we're sentient creatures and transcending the limits of environment is the name of the game.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I'm surprised it took that long for someone to mention eugenics. I go back and forth on my opinion of it. Of course I don't support the nazi version, but sometimes I think it would be better if we stopped giving such heavy medication and similar support. Of course, people who are too old to have more children anyway would not affect the evolution of humanity any more than they have, and they seem to be the ones needing the most help. There's nothing wrong with living a longer life.

Whenever I think about the subject, I always conclude that we will master the manipulation of our DNA before we become extinct or too feeble to survive. Unfortunately, in the position we have brought ourselves into, a GATACA situation seems to be the only chance for our survival. We'll die before we can evolve to perfect the digestion of a Quarter Pounder.

For at least a few generations within the next couple hundred years (assume we make it past the fuel crisis and any wars), we will have to closely monitor and control reproduction. The parents' own genes could be used, only the more desirable variants of critical genes would be used (ie, not the one that causes a heart condition or autism). The rest would be as random and natural as it is today. A heart condition or color blindness would not be passed on, and after a few generations, most detrimental conditions would be removed at the genetic level.

Do we sound like nazis for discussing this? That is the stigma that seems to have been placed on genetic modification and unnatural selection.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmileyMan34
Do we sound like nazis for discussing this? That is the stigma that seems to have been placed on genetic modification and unnatural selection.


Interesting. Whenever these things are criticized they are called "playing God". Perhaps the damage that these technological and scientific breakthroughs are causing is twofold: One, they are killing God. (Not literally, but giving some sort of evidence that he may not exist.) And two: killing Mother Nature. (Again not literally, but taking Her role away from our evolution, which means she may as well not even exist...maybe.) I dunno...

I do think it would be in the best interest of the human race to regulate who and who cannot procreate. But who's going to be the one to decide who is worthy of passing on their genes and who is not? Not that I believe that should happen. I'm fine with the way things are. I couldn't care less if the human race destroys itself after I die because they let a bunch of idiots and weaklings spill their genes into future generations, I'll be dead!

[edit on 1/12/06 by an3rkist]



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by clearwater
Evolution may just have a few surprises in store for people who like to cite survival as the fittest as their reasoning for eliminating those people who test their tolerance. Mammals were much smaller than dinosaurs... Rats will attack en masse.

It may not be as widely known as it should be, but when evolutionary biologists use the word 'fitness', they don't mean physical fitness or brute strength. For a biologist, fitness is a measure of an organism's ability to survive and reproduce. So...


Environment determines what types of creatures survive... the furriest in the cold, the best at smelling blood among sharks. Cockroaches exemplify a pinnacle of evolutionary tenacity...

...you're quite right here. For mammals in cold climates, furriness is fitness. For sharks and investment bankers, a good nose for blood in the water is fitness. And so on...


We are not dumb animals, we're sentient creatures and transcending the limits of environment is the name of the game.

Doesn't mean we've stopped evolving, though. 'Transcending the limits of the environment' means creating a different environment with different selective pressures and hence different criteria for fitness. Evolution is a bit like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, who had to keep running to stay in the same place.

And that's why eugenics, as a principle, is rubbish. It's bad enough that the complexity and unpredictability of life make it impossible to know what qualities to select for; in the very act of selecting for those qualities you create a new environment and hence, different criteria for selective fitness. Poor little eugenicists, they just can't win.

As for the moral aspect -- who could take the guilt of living in a Utopia that was founded on mass murder, even if such a thing could be achieved? How long would such a society last? Well, we know the answer to that: roughly ten years (1935-45).

Eugenics is, in evolutionary terms, an incredibly unfit doctrine. Those who espouse it, Nazis and suchlike, tend to die out rather quickly.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Eugenics may be rubbish, but genetic modification of human beings is something we as a species should -- and in my opinion, definitely will -- get into sooner or later. As someone pointed out earlier on this thread, we're going to need transgenic people to deal with the conditions we encounter away from our home planet. In the meantime, we could use transgenics to improve adaptation to our own planetary environment; I'd like to see my grandchildren born with functioning gills, for instance.

But it's not the utility of transgenic human experimentation that makes me think we should and will engage in it. It's the beauty and the excitement and the audacity and the sheer all-round adventurousness of it. It's like mountaineering and space exploration: we'll do it because it's there; it must be done because it can be done.

Now I'm a civilized man and I don't care for the idea of leaving a trail of transgenic monsters and cripples along the line of march of science. I hope and believe we'll have the risks well in hand before we unleash the full might of our people-sculpting creativity.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join