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.

 

Ancient plague may have helped humans evolve

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by neo96
 


We have changed and adapted to suit our ever changing environment IMO.


Or have we changed our environment to suit our ever growing species?

Food for thought.
edit on 7-6-2012 by beezzer because: typro




posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 
Hiya J, it's been a while


On the surface, it's pretty grim and looks like we're 'dead men waiting' whilst some virus or plague is getting ready to pounce. God knows, it's happened enough times that it's a genuine possibility. I'd say I hope it doesn't happen in our lifetimes but then I wouldn't want it to happen in anyone else's either.

Getting all objective about it and looking at the big picture - it is what it is. If it happens, it happens and, ironically, *we* and the world around us might benefit from the change in life-cycles.

Way back in the primordial gloop that we came from, it's thought to be viral interventions that created DNA from RNA. So in that sense, we're better off being whooped by the occasional virus if it leads to species development. Put another way, if it wasn't for the virus, there'd be nothing on this planet with the ability to look at the world and enjoy it.

ETA_ Sorry....forgot to link in the New Scientist article!
edit on 7-6-2012 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
It would have to be a virus as we already have a means to kill any and all bacteria with 0% chance that immunity will be developed. It will wipe out 100% of all non animal cells, bacterial, fungal, only virus are immune to it.


Isn't there also the problem though that with all these household cleaning products that we now have...that kill 99% of all known bacteria, I am sure you know the thing, that we do not give our children the chance to build up natural immunity, possibly leading to a weakened immune system?

And, don't we also have to consider that certain bacteria are beneficial to us personally, and on the wider scale, environmentally?

Isn't overkill as much of a risk to us as the alternative?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


I agree we need to stop coddling our children and allow them to be exposed to "dirty" things, as that is how we develop an immune system. I was only saying if a super bacteria-fungas-virus did appear we are prepared for it, at least on the bacterial/fungal level. I'm not sure how the antiviral treatment works.

A drawback of using the super defensins is that it will purge your body of ALL bacteria, including ALL beneficial bacteria. It is broadspectrum, all bacteria, gram+ and gram-, nothing is immune to it. Only cell membranes with lipid (which is only animal cells) are left intact. You will have to restock your body with the good bacteria after, which will be an unpleasant time. Beats death though.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


If anything I'd worry about "Dr. Frankenstein's" like Craig Venter creating some type of synthetic virus or organism that gets loose and decimates humanity. The only way to stop something like that would be for the creators to release the genetic code so a suitable antivirus could be built, and that would probably not go over to well with the scientists who decided to "play God".

Does anyone remember a show on the History Channel that was discussing the Black Plague, and that the only reason Europe survived was that those people adapted to it? I found that episode extremely interesting, but I forget the name of it now... chalk that one up for on-the-fly evolution!



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   


That is what i was thinking as well human evolution has built in mechanisms to "weed out" the lesser gene pool, and when that occurs the species becomes stronger, and this has happened for thousands of years.
reply to post by neo96
 


Yeah and we give awards out for that, they are called Darwin Awards.


But seriously, everything the human race has been through has helped shape who we are. Those that survive a plague go on to procreate and they will pass that immunity to their children who will now be immune to that same plague. There is some truth to the old saying, "what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger."



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by 40luv
 


I've often posted the same sentiment but not nearly as accurate and colorful as you.


Incredible thread, bang on near complete lunacy but wonderful thread!



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Sorry if this shows my lack of knowledge about genetics but why didn't this plague hit other animals too? Was this something that only targeted humans?

Also, it's a little strange that 10,000 people didn't have the gene. After all, mutations are very rare and at least when it comes to immunity you would expect everyone to have those genes? What did this gene do?

I agree with the poster who said this was a good way to get rid of certain people. Tweek the genetic code of a few and release something which would kill the others.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
I agree we need to stop coddling our children and allow them to be exposed to "dirty" things, as that is how we develop an immune system. I was only saying if a super bacteria-fungas-virus did appear we are prepared for it, at least on the bacterial/fungal level. I'm not sure how the antiviral treatment works.


You should see the looks I get from other parents, as well as none-parents because I advocate nice picking and eating as a natural means of building immunity. The majority of children, and adults, that I know who have significant allergy problems were raised by OCD mothers who kept everything pristine and germ free. Exposure and reaction are essential to our well-being, in my opinion, but it is not a popular stance. Balance, as with all things, though is key.

I believe that viruses are different in their abilty to mutate, and depend very much on how far they spread. Those that have a short life span I suppose are less likely to mutate and are therefore, I presume, less likely to pose a significant problem, but those that go 'airborn' are major threat. But the same can be said of bacterial infection, we currently have an outbreak of Legionnaires in the UK, now contained, but not before 20 were infected, and 19 other possibles. Again it is down to the individuals immune system, and it is not contagious so once the source has been identified there should be no more instances, but I think that is where viruses differ, they can mutate in the host and become contagious...or have I just been watching too many Hollywood films?


Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
A drawback of using the super defensins is that it will purge your body of ALL bacteria, including ALL beneficial bacteria. It is broadspectrum, all bacteria, gram+ and gram-, nothing is immune to it. Only cell membranes with lipid (which is only animal cells) are left intact. You will have to restock your body with the good bacteria after, which will be an unpleasant time. Beats death though.


I suppose, it is like the whole Smallpox thing, it was, by vaccination, eradicated in the 'west' and then complacency followed, it was beat...of course that wasn't the case, all that was required was one carrier to bring that bug back into the decontaminated area and it suddenly rears it's head again. Same with TB. I agree, it does beat being dead, but I do think that sometimes it is important to allow your immune system to act, and I am not entirely in favour of pre-emptives when it comes to bacterial infection, let alone the blanket approach. And obviously there is alot to be said from what we can learn from those who possess 'natural' immunity...if we just destroy on sight, we never get to learn those particular lessons. But then all that has to be weighed against all life having value and being precious. Tough one for governments to call.
edit on 7-6-2012 by Biliverdin because: life and lies



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
People always assume that to mother nature Humans and Viruses and all the little invisible critters that cause plagues are two different things and entities. Nope there all just part of the same thing and the same entity. You cant get rid of plagues, its a part of life just like strife will change and make you into who you are, so to will the little bugs and viruses you survive have a permanent effect on your physical body.

Playing bauble boy with your kids. Will in the end just leave them exposed to a great many things once they have to step out of that bubble....And right now things are pretty stable, but if there is anything that I have learned from watching nature...Is that it likes to throw curve-balls when you expect the straight down the pipe shot.

Its even been said a part of our genome was inserted by viruses, so ya we are part virus, the parts that assimilated. And when we think were getting rid, or killing off one type of virus or string of them, what were actually doing is helping and assisting in making it stronger, were changing it the way there changing us, and somewhere down the line it will come back in a new and interesting way.

And when it does, surprise surprise, sometimes we call those times and the things that come back to surprise us in new and strange way, by strange names. One name being "plagues" or as some "others" will call it, failed assimilation. I suppose Its all part of the bigger picture and plan of nature and of things.


Or here a link.
8-percent human DNA comes from a virus



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dreine
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Does anyone remember a show on the History Channel that was discussing the Black Plague, and that the only reason Europe survived was that those people adapted to it? I found that episode extremely interesting, but I forget the name of it now... chalk that one up for on-the-fly evolution!


People did not adapt to the black plague. Evolution does not work that way to begin with. Can you show me a link for that?



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


I think these will be a last line of defense, simply due to the drawbacks. Traditional anti-bacterial methods are preferable. If a super bacteria does emerge though I can sleep better at night knowing there is a super cure.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69


A team led by Ajit Varki of the University of California, San Diego, found new genetic evidence which suggests that a mysterious plague ravaged populations of early humans in Africa, until their number fell to less than 10,000.


How odd. There's no archeological record of Africa's population ever falling to less than 10,000 humans across the continent. Sounds like there's a lot of assumptions made in the article that tie it to DNA without the scientist thinking it through.

First assumption the scientist makes is that he believed that humans and chimpanzees shared the same genome and claimed that allegedly humans "lost" Siglec-13 which doesn't exist in the human genome but exists in the chimpanzee genome.

The obvious common sense should be that humans never had Siglec-13 to begin with because we didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Chimpanzees by disease types are an Old World Monkey. Every sexually transmitted disease that Old World Monkeys have, chimpanzees also have.

Humans don't have any of the sexually transmitted diseases that Old World Monkeys have. In fact, Old World Monkey STDs will kill humans, in some cases on contact. For example, all mammals (every species) has a form of sexually transmitted herpes within their population. Even manatees have sexually transmitted herpes. And that's because herpes is a 200 million year old virus that existed before mammals evolved.

Technically one can determine which species evolved from each other through herpes, yes, herpes. Instead of looking at the genomes of each mammal (which are far longer and more time consuming), since herpes is sexually transmitted within mammal populations...it's easier to look at a virus with a smaller genome.

Old World Monkeys and Chimpanzees have what is called Herpes B. Within their population, it doesn't kill them. As they evolved, their bodies developed immunities to it.

However, if humans come into contact with Herpes B (whether from a Chimp or Old World Monkey), even if humans come into contact with the virus through feces or urine, Herpes B will kill a human instantly. Humans have ZERO immunity to chimpanzee herpes and Old World Monkey herpes.

You know why? Humans didn't evolve from chimps and therefore, humans have no immunities to their form of herpes. Chimpanzee Herpes B kills humans on contact with feces and urine infected with it.

Same is true the other way around. There are sexually transmitted diseases that have existed among humans for millions of years that humans have developed immunity to. But if chimpanzees or Old World Monkeys come into contact with they, the chimps and monkeys die instantly. Example-- syphillis. Syphillis doesn't kill humans instantly. It takes 10-20 years after infection before a human dies from it. But whenever disease researchers injected syphillis into chimps and monkeys, the chimps and monkeys died instantly. They have no immunity.

And why? Because humans and chimps evolved from a different species.

Therefore the reason that humans don't have Siglec-13 in their genome when chimpanzees do is because humans never had the Siglec-13 in their genome to begin with. Humans evolved from a different animal then chimps did.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by MapMistress
 


I appreciate you taking the time to post your theory.

As well as you have done to clarify your stance you do seem to give the wrong impression in that the overall theory is that we involved from Chimps.


The obvious common sense should be that humans never had Siglec-13 to begin with because we didn't evolve from chimpanzees.


I haven't read any modern scientific views [Biased or otherwise] state that we as a species "evolved from chimps" But rather Chimps and humans evolved from an ancient common ancestor. Couldn't the reasons why the two species react differently to your outlined clarifications be simply due to the fact that after the line split between Chimps and Humans that different changes/mutations occurred to both which is why what you have outlined has such a drastically different affect on each?


In other words.

The reasons for the differences between the two species [Man and Chimp] you've outlined occurred after the genetic split from the common ancestor.
edit on 10-6-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
 


I appreciate you taking the time to post your theory.


No problem.


Originally posted by SLAYER69
 
As well as you have done to clarify your stance you do seem to give the wrong impression in that the overall theory is that we involved from Chimps.


I have never once involved Chimps in our involution.






edit on 10-6-2012 by AlchemicalMonocular because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

The obvious common sense should be that humans never had Siglec-13 to begin with because we didn't evolve from chimpanzees.


I haven't read any modern scientific views [Biased or otherwise] state that we as a species "evolved from chimps" But rather Chimps and humans evolved from an ancient common ancestor. Couldn't the reasons why the two species react differently to your outlined clarifications be simply due to the fact that after the line split between Chimps and Humans that different changes/mutations occurred to both which is why what you have outlined has such a drastically different affect on each?


The article that you quoted...the scientist made the assumption that humans and chimps had the same genes to begin with. It wasn't me with the assumption. He basically did a study all on chimpanzee DNA and the chimpanzee genes pertaining to the chimpanzee's immune system. Then he wrongfully concluded that allegedly humans had the same immune system and the same genes as the chimpanzee and that humans had "lost" the genes. Which is absurd.

Did he show any ancient evidence of Neanderthals allegedly having the chimpanzee genes for the chimpanzee immune system? No. Because it wouldn't be in Neanderthal DNA. It wouldn't be in homo erectus DNA. In fact the scientist in the article didn't even bother to test any other previous human species to see if humans ever had any of those genes to begin with.

Instead, he simply took info about the chimpanzee immune system and genes pertaining to it and just assumed that humans had the chimp DNA but "lost" it. It doesn't work that way. Humans don't just suddenly lose genes pertaining to their immune systems.

So the reason that humans don't have the chimp DNA pertaining to the chimp immune system is that the human species never had those genes to begin with. Specifically pertaining to Siglec-13.

If a scientist is going to make a claim about genes and the human immune system, and the evolution of those genes, then he had better have something more than a big leap between chimp DNA to humans. He never bothered to test any DNA from previous human species in the last 2 million years. He only tested chimps and then made a giant assumption.



The reasons for the differences between the two species [Man and Chimp] you've outlined occurred after the genetic split from the common ancestor.


There are those that believe that humans and chimps evolved from ProSimians and there are those that don't. I personally haven't seen enough evidence to say that humans were ever genetically related to ProSimians even if Old World monkeys and chimps definitely did evolve from ProSimians. Did humans evolve? Yes. But all proSimians, Old World monkeys and chimps have some distinct features that humans lack. Foremost-- fangs. All ProSimians had fangs. All Old World monkeys have fangs. All chimps have fangs. Humans don't have the same teeth structure as ProSimians. And there's really no way to suddenly "lose" fangs. Chimps have had a vegetarian diet for millions of years and they didn't "lose" their fangs. So...the obvious. Humans didn't evolve from ProSimians as we don't have fangs. We evolved from something else.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
One mans or one womans idea of evoultion is anothers natural selection....

I can see where bacteria might have altered our DNA but I am not sure. I just have this nagging in the back of my mind that we are mutants created by aliens. I don't know why I believe this but I do. I feel it as the truth inside of me. I know it might sound crazy but this is what I think. I don't believe the amount of time involved for the evoultion of man fits inot the timeline. However, I guess there could be this plasma of the cosmic burst that alters DNA hence creating a new human species.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MapMistress
 


A few comments MapMistress




He never bothered to test any DNA from previous human species in the last 2 million years


Except for Neanderthals and Denisovians we don't have access to that material.......

Chimpanzees hunt and eat meat

Meat eaters

We still have our fangs, they just shrunk a bit



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
One mans or one womans idea of evoultion is anothers natural selection....

I can see where bacteria might have altered our DNA but I am not sure.


From dirty sex?



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



In September 1665, George Viccars, a tailor in the small, central-England village of Eyam, received a parcel of cloth ridden with plague-infected fleas from London. Four days later, Viccars died. By the end of the month, five more villagers had succumbed to the plague. The panicked town turned to their rector, William Mompesson, who persuaded them to quarantine the entire village to prevent the bacterium from spreading throughout the region. It seemed like suicide. A year later, the first outsiders ventured into Eyam, expecting a ghost town. Yet, miraculously, half the town had survived. How did so many villagers live through the most devastating disease known to man? John Clifford examining the Eyam parish register John Clifford examining the Eyam parish register. Local Eyam lore tells befuddling stories of plague survivors who had close contact with the bacterium but never caught the disease. Elizabeth Hancock buried six children and her husband in a week, but never became ill. The village gravedigger handled hundreds of plague-ravaged corpses, but survived as well. Could these people have somehow been immune to the Black Death?


www.pbs.org...

interesting read actually but some people are immune to the plague and from other sources those people have been found to have resistance if not out right immunity to the aids virus .
steelturman.typepad.com...
www.bbc.co.uk...

Black Death Aids In Africa Aids is proving a real scourge, in Europe less so. New research suggests that Europeans have inherited a resistance to Aids because of the devastating effects of the bubonic plague. Science In Action reports. Listen to Science In Action In the battle against Aids, scientists have acquired what looks like a potent new weapon. HIV, the virus that causes Aids, doesn’t infect everybody. Some people are simply born immune.
so if thats not adaptation what else could it be?



new topics




 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join