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: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
evolution can go in short bursts. Just look at cro magnon and the rise and fall of the neanderthal man.




posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I *did* reply to the post.
And I said that mutation is normal.
The two kinda' go hand in hand.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Because mutation is normal.

There is obviously constraints on how much and where and what types of mutations can be accomodated before impacting the individual, or species designation.

Obviously these men are both still homo sapiens sapiens. Obviously their common ancstor was also a homo sapiens sapiens. Obviously these men function perfectly fine into reproductive years.

Normal.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
**semantics alert**

I think this thread is suffering from differing interpretations of the word "mutation".

Most are referring to it as a normal genetic process, which it certainly is.

ModernAcadamia seems to be referring to it as what happens when cells are exposed to various forms of nastiness, chemicals, UV, etc...which it also certainly is. (not calling you out, MA, just sayin')

Before this discussion can truly succeed, (and before it makes me crazy) everybody needs to get on the same page as to what they mean by "mutation".

I'm certain that the article in the OP is referring to "mutation" as the "normal genetic process" variety of the word, so no need to drag Monsanto or Dow into this one.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Perhaps artificial evolution is in-fact natural?

I can't say that this article surprises me, btw. That's how DNA works, pseudo-random and numerous mutations.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I am far more concerned with epigenetic changes than in the random recombinations of variable gene segments.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
yup, semantics problems.

According to the currently accepted scientific dogma, evolution, by definition, can only occur within a group. No individual can "evolve," they can only have mutations which may be passed on to their offspring and this mutation may eventually propogate throughout the offspring of the offspring of that group until that group as a whole has that mutation. At that point, the group has evolved to incorporate the mutation.

These mutations can be beneficial, or a hindrance, and they can be passed on from the parents, or they can be picked up from the environment somehow.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by polit
 


Nevermind. Edited myself.

Yes, according to Scientific "dogma" evolution is defined as a change in the allelle frequences within a population over a period of time spanning generations.
Your child is an example of evolution when he takes stronger traits from both parents.

[edit on 2-9-2009 by JayinAR]

[edit on 2-9-2009 by JayinAR]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by polit
yup, semantics problems.

According to the currently accepted scientific dogma, evolution, by definition, can only occur within a group. No individual can "evolve," they can only have mutations which may be passed on to their offspring and this mutation may eventually propogate throughout the offspring of the offspring of that group until that group as a whole has that mutation. At that point, the group has evolved to incorporate the mutation.

These mutations can be beneficial, or a hindrance, and they can be passed on from the parents, or they can be picked up from the environment somehow.


What I find interesting in that is it seems that even groups that are disassociated from each other over great distances are progressing the same way.

Cro-Magnon was in many places. In places that had little contact with each other. Yet groups all progressed from Cro-Magnon to Modern Human. The mutations necessary seem to have been found advantageous in multiple locations at around the same time.

Similar advantageous mututations popping up in isolation is just fascinating.



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

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
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!


You'll have lots of competition from other people like me wanting the Wolverine mutation too! That self-healing capability is awesome, even without the knuckle blades!

Regarding mutations, they are PART of evolution:

www.talkorigins.org...

From the nobel-prize-winning father of modern genetics:


It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation. According to the conception of evolution based on the studies of modern genetics, the whole organism has its basis in its genes. Of these there are thousands of different kinds, interacting with great nicety in the production and maintenance of the complicated organization of the given type of organism. Accordingly, by the mutation of one of these genes or another, in one way or another, any component structure or function, and in many cases combinations of these components, may become diversely altered. Yet in all except very rare cases the change will be disadvantageous, involving an impairment of function.

It is nevertheless to be inferred that all the superbly interadapted genes of any present-day organism arose through just this process of accidental natural mutation. This could take place only because of the Darwinian principle of natural selection, applying to the genes. That is, on the rare occasions when an accidental mutation did happen to effect an advantageous change, the resultant individual, just because it was aided by that mutation, tended to multiply more than the others.

-- H.J. Muller, "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution"


So most mutations are bad, but I would argue some may be neutral.

A mutation for a longer nose could be good if it helps us sniff out food better, but since we don't do much hunting anymore, it may actually be bad if it makes us less attractive and therefore rejected by the opposite sex for reproduction. So whether a mutation is good or bad could also be subjective.

Someone made a false argument that some mutations are bad, others aren't so we need to separate them. That isn't true. Mutations are mostly bad, good mutations are rare.

I think the other part of evolution besides mutation, is natural selection. I would argue that it is modern medicine, which has reduced the death rate in humans dramatically, which is preventing people with many genetic defects from dying to extinguish the bad mutations from genetic propogation. So yes Pharma is part of modern medicine but I'd say the real cause is even broader than Pharma.

So evolution in humans has, if not stopped completely, at least slowed to a crawl since the natural selection part of the equation has been superseded by modern medicine. I have often wondered how corrupt our human gene pool will become as a result of all these mutations in a few thousand years as a result of genetically mutated people NOT being culled out by natural selection as has historically been the case. We could have lots of problems to deal with in the future with lots of bad genetic mutations in the overall population. And maybe 1 or 2 Wolverines.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Evolution hasn't slowed at all in humans. In fact, it is increasing at an incredible rate.
Of course, we are becoming dependent on our technology, but we are advancing right along with it, nonetheless.

Imagine in 5 years when people have robotic arms.
Is that not evolution?



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Hmmm interesting point, I guess that could be a kind of technological evolution to have robotic arms, but it's not genetic evolution.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I disagree.
You see, all of this information is being advanced through a non-genetic means. BUT as long as the technology exists, it is going to be absorbed by our neural networking to allow us to properly interface with our environment.
Genetically.
If it is beneficial, it will be provided for.

In other words.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join