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.

 

We are all mutants say scientists

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

We are all mutants say scientists


news.bbc.co.uk

Each of us has at least 100 new mutations in our DNA, according to research published in the journal Current Biology.

They looked at thousands of genes in the Y chromosomes of two Chinese men. They knew that the men were distantly related, having shared a common ancestor who was born in 1805.

By looking at the number of differences between the two men, and the size of the human genome, they were able to come up with an estimate of between 100 and 200 new mutations per person.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

"These are exciting times," he added.


Exciting times?
Ummm, I wouldn't really say that, i'd say something needs to be done ASAP.

I'd say these are alarming times.

Essentialy, they have destroyed evolution, Big Pharma is now controls our evolution. We might never know what we would have naturally evolved into.

They hijacked the evolutionary process!

Anyway, I got dibs on Wolverine! That's me!

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
What? Destroyed evolution? Big Pharma?
Did you understand the article?

The mutations occur naturally and are what DRIVES evolution.
Perhaps I'm confused, and I'm totally missing your point.

[edit on 2-9-2009 by tjack]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by tjack
 


Mutants via evolution? Then is mutant the correct word then?
In your context and interpretation of the article no it's not.

In my reading between the lines yes.

There was a scientist that came on the Colbert Report once, he said that it's big pharma that control our evolution now.

That's why I said that, it reminded me of that statement.

These changes don't occur naturally.

I know you will say oh it very much may happen trhough adaptive evolutionary changes, but I don't buy it.

It's chemicals, it's asparthame, fluroride, fluroescent lamps, carcinogens left and right, anti-biotics and everything in between.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Evolution happens through a mutation that is beneficial to the creature, and so this creature spreads it mutated genes through reproduction.....blah blah blah throw in a few million years and here we are.


Straight from the mouth of a Christian


So the way I was taught it is yes, evolutions is through mutation...Doesn't sound right somehow....but thats just because we automatically think of a mutation as a bad thing.


[edit on 2-9-2009 by StevenDye]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I don't see where you are getting idea that Big Pharma is now in control of our genetic evolution? All that article says is that the scientists are quantifying genetic mutations more accurately - I suppose then they could cross reference that with environmental and developmental factors and look for patterns.

But it says nothing about meddling with the genome...



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I saw the title to this and thought, "What are scientists doing with my in-laws?"

Dang, I wanted the Wolverine one!

Can I get Prof. Xavier? Just don't want the whole wheelchair thing.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by StevenDye
Evolution happens through a mutation that is beneficial to the creature,


Really?

New mutations can occasionally lead to severe diseases like cancer.


Personally I see mutations and evolution as seperate, or at least today's version of mutation.

I understand what you are saying, but this is not 100 years ago.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
What the article is saying is that they now have the capability to compare genes and count their differences, or mutations. Then, based on the actual number of differences, determine how many mutations each generation between the original "split" and the genes being compared, contributed to the genetic difference of the samples.

The reason for the mutations is a different subject all together. Many, perhaps most of them are naturally occuring. Although you could be right in that living in a modern world subjects us to things which increase these genetic differences, or mutations, thus inflating the number.

Bear in mind the word "mutation" doesn't necessarily imply something bad, just different.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
I guess you can be a mutant in the sense that you're born with a defect or you could have a mutated gene that makes you stronger in a certain way.

I think DNA is pretty touchy stuff.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   

1) According to the National Toxicology Program, "the preponderance of evidence" from laboratory 'in vitro' studies indicate that fluoride is a mutagenic compound.

2) Many substances which are mutagens, are also carcinogens (i.e. they can cause cancer).

3) While the concentrations of fluoride causing mutagenic damage in the in vitro studies is higher than the concentrations found in human blood, there are certain "microenvironments" in the body (e.g. the bones) where the concentrations of fluoride can accumulate to levels comparable to, or in excess of, those causing mutagenic effects in the laboratory.

4) A study comparing fluoride's ability to cause mutagenic damage in cells from apes and humans versus cells from rodents, found that the cells from apes and human were much more sensitive to fluoride's mutagenic effects

5) Five studies on fluoride-exposed humans, published since 1994, have reported an increased incidence of mutagenic damage when compared to comparable controls. Two studies conducted during this period did not find this effect. The primary type of

www.fluoridealert.org...



Do you not think us brushing our teeth 3 times or 4 times or even twice a day will have any affect on us?

Just because this isn't in the original article doesn't mean we can't talk about it.


Mutagenic effects of artificial sweeteners – saccharin and aspartame
In both sweeteners, the number of revertant colonies in the strain TA 98 and TA 100 was high compared to the negative control. There was a dose related increase over the control set (Fig 1 & 2). The positive control compounds for the respective strains gave mutagenic responses as expected.
www.ispub.com... -4



Come on man



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Aye, it could lead to cancer.... but say, being born with eyes that repair themself... you never need glasses no matter how much staring at tvs you do, you can stare into the sun all day and they repair themselves.


That would be a mutation, and a long time ago when we were hunter/gatherers would have been one huge leap in evolution. Now it wouldn't matter because we have glasses...

We have surely denied ourself evolution up to a point...we no longer need to evolve in the ways we did before.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
IMO, the two go hand in hand. Think about it (and this is not a creationist bash, so if you're on that band wagon just keep going, nothing to see here), why wouldn't evolution to some degree be considered mutation? The genome of primordial lichen or algae must've "mutated" somehow in order to evolve into more complex flora oranisms, yes? Australopithecus must've somehow had some sort of genetic mutation that allowed it to evolve into homo erectus and so on, yes? Perhaps these "mutations" to their genome were naturally occuring or due in response to some external stimuli but mutate and "evolve" they did. I'm not saying that the constant over-medication of the majority of Americans haven't had something to do with what these doctors are seeing across relatively small generational gaps, but it's the same principle in that, again, IMO, evolution requires genetic mutation in order to progress...

You can keep Wolverine, I've got dibs on Colossus... fast ball special anyone?



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I've always thought the idea of evolution is that everything [organic] mutates, but only the beneficial mutations are naturally selected and preserved (except in a few cases, such as the facial cancer currently wiping out Tasmanian Devils)...



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Mutation is what drives evolution.
It IS evolution, in the strictest sense.
No, not all mutations are beneficial.
Beneficial mutations are what is more than likely to be passed on to future generations. Bad mutations often end in bad ways, for the mutated.

Aside from that, yeah, big pharm is definately playing a role in our evolution. But that doesn't mean they are trying to turn us into slaves or anything. Hell, you have the same effect on your OWN body when you slam back 5 sodas a day! That mutation is called diabetes.

We also are influencing our evolution as we sit at our computers and log stuff into the collective record known as the internet.

We are masters of our own destiny. I'm not sure to what end we are driving it, but the pace accelerates exponentially.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Somatic mutations happen in non-reproductive cells and are not passed on to the offspring.

The sun's UV rays also causes mutations so I guess we should ban going outdoors, huh?

In fact, I bet the government put that thing up there for population control!!!



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by StevenDye
Evolution happens through a mutation that is beneficial to the creature,


Really?

New mutations can occasionally lead to severe diseases like cancer.


Personally I see mutations and evolution as seperate, or at least today's version of mutation.

I understand what you are saying, but this is not 100 years ago.


man, you are just throwing a lot of phases but you dont know nothing

yes, mutations can cause cancer, but this kind of mutations are caused in your lifetime and are caused by, per example, radiation

this are not the kind of mutations that happen when the genes of a new person are created using the parents genes and a process that recombine them



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia



"These are exciting times," he added.


Exciting times?
Ummm, I wouldn't really say that, i'd say something needs to be done ASAP.



Mutations are natural though... they happen all the time and have been happening for ages. Especially when you change up the gene pool like we have in the post-modern world.





I'd say these are alarming times.

Essentialy, they have destroyed evolution, Big Pharma is now controls our evolution. We might never know what we would have naturally evolved into.



No no no no NO!... Mutations is HOW evolution works!







They hijacked the evolutionary process!

Anyway, I got dibs on Wolverine! That's me!

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)


Methinks you need to go back and re-read "The Genome"



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademiaEssentialy, they have destroyed evolution, Big Pharma is now controls our evolution. We might never know what we would have naturally evolved into.


Take a look at Africa or even rural parts of China.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


why aren't you guys replying to the above post but instead only saying mutation is normal.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join