Genome Deterioration and Humans Getting Dumber

There's scientific data to fill in the gaps for our discussion on extraterrestrials seeding mankind. The hypothesis is not too far-fetched if you consider the evidence.

... each generation produces deleterious mutations, so down the line of human history, our intelligence is ever more impaired compared to that of our predecessors ...

read full article: Are People Getting Dumber?

So while sociologists, humanitarians, political thinkers and most everybody everywhere is decrying the downward spiral of society — only "feeling" it happening in some way — the science to explain it might just be that natural selection is simply losing ground to mutations. Furthermore...

Small damages to sequences in the human genome are causing evolutionary changes in our DNA ...

read: Genome Deterioration (and elsewhere when you search "Genome Deterioration")

It's scientific truth that the human genome is definitely NOT NATURALLY REPAIRING ITSELF due to environmental factors (evolution again). So which other direction is there if not naturally evolving to a higher form and not perpetually existing in balance with our environment? We can't go up. We can't go sideways.

How can this be the same evolutionary pattern that created the sudden brain size growth (in Homo Rhodesiensis oddly but not in Homo Neanderthalensis) only 20,000 years ago? It's ludicrous! And only to remain physically unchanged since then? Again, the science contradicts it.

If you want to look at the future, you can only see why the predictions are the way the are.

If you want to look at the past, you can also see why the hypothesis of human seeding makes so much sense.

Comments?

Colonel Halt was asked about the interaction he had with the alien intelligence that visited his airbase, he said a part of the conversation was about the human race in the far future and that the visitors were here to collect DNA because a virus made its way into the populous around the mid 1980's and the effects from the point in the future where they came from were so bad humanity was in danger of becoming extinct.

The purity of the human race cannot be maintained indefinitely, a bio-bank of genetic materiel should be added to every year so at least we have a backup from which to make periodic restorations as and when required, maybe this is the only way we can ensure our ongoing vitality.

reply to post by FormerSkeptic


So let me try to understand this, and please do correct me if I am misinformed or incorrect here. Just trying to get a understanding.

What your saying is that because of our downgrading DNA and the fact that our DNA doesn't "evolve" or grow with us, means that Earth was seeded by ETs?

The conventional theory is humans evolved here naturally and that with our natural evolution our DNA must have evolved as well.

(Not saying I agree or disagree just trying to understand is all)

-SAP-

From your first source:

Other geneticists were somewhat less magnanimous in their disagreement. Steve Jones, a geneticist at University College London, called the papers "arts faculty science" in an interview with The Independent. ”Never mind the hypothesis, give me the data, and there aren’t any,” Jones is quoted saying. “I could just as well argue that mutations have reduced our aggression, our depression and our penis length, but no journal would publish that. Why do they publish this?”

www.popsci.com...

It's scientific truth that the human genome is definitely NOT NATURALLY REPAIRING ITSELF due to environmental factors (evolution again). So which other direction is there if not naturally evolving to a higher form and not perpetually existing in balance with our environment? We can't go up. We can't go sideways.

It is? Doesn't "scientific truth" require evidence?

There is no such thing as evolution therefore humans aren't getting "dumber" or "smarter". Try asking yourself why science is desperately trying to tie everything to genetics, from how you vote, your choice in mate, your religious belief to how you behave in general. Now the news is supposedly reporting that geneticists are asking to test the DNA of Adam Lanza to look for any "abnormalities" or defects. What they are doing is simple - indoctrinating humanity to accept that our DNA is to blame for our societal ills. Not sin or our love of evil - but our DNA.

Now take a look at what the President of Iran said regarding his "Imam Mahdi" and his version of "Jesus"....
That they will come "to open the gates of science and knowledge" in order "to revert the child of Adam back to their innate nature". You can find these in transcripts of his last UN speech.

"Revert us to our innate nature" is code speak for human genetic change. Kabahallistic and occultic fantasy - changing man from the image and likeness of God into something non-created by God. "Third strand DNA"....and the moment people do it, they are no longer creations of Our Creator.

There is no panspermia - you are created by your Creator.

The Japanese researchers used genetic material from two healthy men and two healthy women -- all unrelated genetically

Four individuals not a valid sample size for a study of this magnitude - this is age 12 science. I don't know what this "Japanese group" were trying to do here.

His central thesis is that each generation produces deleterious mutations, so down the line of human history, our intelligence is ever more impaired compared to that of our predecessors.

I would refute this hypothesis with age 16 human biology - that is not how mutation works.

The human DNA sequence:
A bonds with T, C bonds with G, no exceptions. All DNA is found in pairs except during replication/transcription etc.

Each set of 3 base pairs is called a triplet code, e.g.
AACTGCGAT
TTGACGCTA

The three triplet codes in that DNA sequence are: AAC, TGC, GAT
N.B. In RNA, a transport version of DNA which is single stranded, the T is replaced with a U.
So in RNA, these codes would be AAC, UGC, CAU

When transcribed to RNA, the DNA triplet codes are known as codons, these codons correspond to either START, STOP, or any one of 21 amino acids according to the following table:


Notice how each amino acid has more than one possible combination? This is because DNA is a degenerate code, it has multiple redundancies in place to protect us from mutation.

Now on to the process of mutation:

Mutation in the base sequence can occur in one of three ways:
- addition - a new base is inserted in the sequence
- deletion - a base is removed from the sequence
- transposition - one of the bases is changed e.g. A --> C

Edit: bear in mind that >90% of our DNA is junk, i.e. the sequence does not occur between a START or STOP codon, which means that it does not affect anything about who we are, how we look or anything else. If a mutation occurs, >90% of the time, it will be outside of the actual useful DNA involved in expressing who we are.

With this basic understanding of mutation and the degenerate DNA code, you can easily see why the kind of disadvantageous mutation Crabtree postulates is a near impossibility in the time frame he's talking about.

That's not to mention that mutation doesn't work for or against us, it is a random process that just happens. If a mutation can make us stupider, it can also make us smarter, there is in fact a current theory that the evolution of life on earth had a major boost when a water based animal mutated and ended up with a double intelligence gene 500 m.y.a. which caused it to move on to land.

www.sciencedaily.com...

The researchers suggest that a simple invertebrate animal living in the sea 500 million years ago experienced a 'genetic accident', which resulted in extra copies of these genes being made.

This animal's descendants benefited from these extra genes, leading to behaviourally sophisticated vertebrates -- including humans.

At the end of the day, "we're getting stupider" has been a complaint of the older generation of the era since we developed language.

How can we account for the fact that Neanderthals had bigger cranial capacity than Homo Sapiens but nonetheless they were eventually eliminated? Bigger cranial capacity is correlated with higher mental abilities, thus we are led into believing the Neanderthals were, on the average, smarter than us. How it is than that our ancestors managed to gradually eliminate them?

excerpt from "Neanderthals Had Bigger Brains"

So brain size alone doesn't explain our improvement either!

Instead, it's again about intelligence. And coupled with the inexplicable loss of fur and hair, weakening of bones, tendering of skin, etc. (which resulted in the new Homo Sapien species about 20,000 years ago), we became so much less adapted for physical survival on Earth. We absolutely have to use our intelligence to survive! This is evolution!

Or is it?!

If intellectual activity itself is to account for the mutation needed to survive, then we should've had many more since then — like during the Renaissance. The proverbial Renaissance Man should've been distinctively different from generations prior, like mutating with a brain that's more efficient (if not bigger), IQ well over 150, more reductions in physical body parts, and competitively breeding out lesser humans similar to what happened 20,000 years ago!

But no. That's not what evidence reveals.

reply to post by FormerSkeptic


That is not how evolution works.

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by FormerSkeptic

 

That is not how evolution works.

Thank you for your replies, but I would recommend that you summarize your words to have a better impact. Refrain from meaningless one liners. I've found myself guilty of it too, in haste. Be aware that lengthy technical and numeric stuff also gets skimmed over if not skipped entirely. I cannot follow it, and believe me, I'm probably one of the few who try.

The better responses, pro or con, seem to be just a few short clearly written paragraphs.

And the best ones have a stinging punch line to boot, also known as a point.

People are getting "dumber" but it is the result of being overloaded with too many pleasures and way to much stimuli (electronic communications/media/television/internet etc) ... People aren't being educated, they aren't seeking personal knowledge and enlightenment in the numbers needed to advance the human mind.

Try asking the youth serious philosophical questions and see how conformed and uniformed their answers are.

People are becoming sheep like herds, they do not seek personal enlightenment, they just follow the herd of their choosing.

baaaa-a

reply to post by FormerSkeptic


I only talk in meaningless one liners or overly long factual posts.

The one liners are always open to "please elaborate" if you want more information, which will come in the form of one of the aforementioned too long posts.

What my technical post tried to explain was that your initial sources cannot be correct. If you don't want to understand the facts, continue to ignore my post and believe whatever you want, but you're wrong.

The reason pseudoscience like this is allowed to propagate is because of people like you - you deem the science behind the debunking as "too hard to follow" even though it's part of what you can learn at the age of 16.

If it genuinely is too hard for you to understand, not just that you're lazy, then that's fine. It doesn't matter.

What does matter is that you blindly follow people like Crabtree despite not understanding the mechanics behind his work - you take his conclusions as gospel when you could easily dismiss them if you took the time to study the most entry level genetics.

A special tl;dr for you:
- if you don't understand the science, don't post about it

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by FormerSkeptic

 

I only talk in meaningless one liners or overly long factual posts.

The one liners are always open to "please elaborate" if you want more information, which will come in the form of one of the aforementioned too long posts.

What my technical post tried to explain was that your initial sources cannot be correct. If you don't want to understand the facts, continue to ignore my post and believe whatever you want, but you're wrong.

The reason pseudoscience like this is allowed to propagate is because of people like you - you deem the science behind the debunking as "too hard to follow" even though it's part of what you can learn at the age of 16.

If it genuinely is too hard for you to understand, not just that you're lazy, then that's fine. It doesn't matter.

What does matter is that you blindly follow people like Crabtree despite not understanding the mechanics behind his work - you take his conclusions as gospel when you could easily dismiss them if you took the time to study the most entry level genetics.

A special tl;dr for you:
- if you don't understand the science, don't post about it

Thank you. So now I know that you are a snotty, arrogant, stubborn fool who cannot engage in thoughtful discussion with those who hold contrasting views. I'm sorry to have offended anybody, but the truth must be stated.

I will refrain from acknowledging you from now on. It's not worth my time.

For further insight on this topic, I should mention the opposing evolutionary theories of punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism for others who might enjoy meaningful discussions with an open mind.

reply to post by FormerSkeptic


That is not what I'm saying at all.

In this thread:
- you have posted a contested work of science
- I have told you why that science is wrong
- you have said "I don't want to/can't follow the reasoning behind your assertion
- I have said that's fine, but how can you form an opinion on something without knowing how it works?

If you think I'm being condescending, I apologise. I'm not trying to belittle you.

The point I'm trying to make is that you're talking about things you don't fully understand by your own admission, I'm trying to further your understanding, you're not taking in what I say but you're still saying that you're right even though you don't fully understand the topic.

As for your belief that I'm stubborn, that is far from the truth. I freely admit when I'm wrong when presented with evidence and logic explaining why. You are not presenting anything like that. You are saying "this is my opinion, even though I don't fully understand genetic mutation my opinion is probably correct."

All I want to do here is help people further their understanding by sharing my knowledge of topics I know a lot about, I also want to be educated by people who know more than me in other areas.

I will refrain from acknowledging you from now on.

Seriously?

Originally posted by Phage
From your first source:

Other geneticists were somewhat less magnanimous in their disagreement. Steve Jones, a geneticist at University College London, called the papers "arts faculty science" in an interview with The Independent. ”Never mind the hypothesis, give me the data, and there aren’t any,” Jones is quoted saying. “I could just as well argue that mutations have reduced our aggression, our depression and our penis length, but no journal would publish that. Why do they publish this?”

www.popsci.com...

It's scientific truth that the human genome is definitely NOT NATURALLY REPAIRING ITSELF due to environmental factors (evolution again). So which other direction is there if not naturally evolving to a higher form and not perpetually existing in balance with our environment? We can't go up. We can't go sideways.

It is? Doesn't "scientific truth" require evidence?

The Genome Deterioration explains it.

(Hopefully you're talking about the "not naturally repairing itself" statement because otherwise I don't know WTF you're talking about)

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
So let me try to understand this, and please do correct me if I am misinformed or incorrect here. Just trying to get a understanding.

What your saying is that because of our downgrading DNA and the fact that our DNA doesn't "evolve" or grow with us, means that Earth was seeded by ETs?

The conventional theory is humans evolved here naturally and that with our natural evolution our DNA must have evolved as well.

(Not saying I agree or disagree just trying to understand is all)

-SAP-

Consider the Survival of the Most Beautiful Theory, also known loosely as anagenesis (or vice versa). [slight mockery of concept]

Imagine that we're living 30,000 years ago. Our brain size is only about 900cc. There are only a few hundred thousand of us living in all of lower Europe/ Middle East/ Asia. Others are still in Africa. Others still are just apes.

So your great grandfather was a strong man. That's why your selective great grandmother chose to have his baby. Your grandmother was then both strong and smart enough to pick a healthy mate. She stayed with your grandfather who was similarly raised, exhibited smoother, less hairy skin and the skill to construct nice wooden huts. They produced a rather upright-walking Father of yours. And your Mother was similarly raised.

You then frolicked around ogling hairy girls, but you find only the less hairy, smaller-jaw girls attractive. Same for the girls checking out the furry guys. Eventually two of you big brainers end up producing children who are noticeably less hairy, stronger, smarter, more skillful, social, communicative, and better looking than other kids. And they only hang out with similar kids. And so on and so forth.

All while mutations that cause larger brains with higher intelligence explains all this, the process may actually have occurred over many thousands of generations.

So at some point around 20,000-25,000 years ago, you become the Homo Sapien species proper (as opposed to Homo Erectus or Homo Rhodesiensis or one of the others). You're completely different from those Neanderthals. You thrive and successfully survive in competitively outbreeding them. This is evolution. Eventually you discover irrigation and farming, establishing civilizations in the Mesopotamia region, build vast empires, etc.

But you maintain all your physiological and cranial/ intellectual attributes UNCHANGED for another one thousand generations (roughly 20,000 years) to today? How is that possible?

Because if you're the genetic type that naturally selects your mate based on not just physical beauty such as a smoother cranium (as opposed to a Neanderthal cranium), but also on traits like strength, health, skills, sociability, intelligence, etc.,

Why wouldn't all humans today have by now genius level intelligence, look completely hairless, have gargantuan brains, utterly smooth skin, beautiful body proportions, etc.?

Why suddenly stop evolving 20,000 years ago?

And if this simply disproves the Anagenesis theory, then what evidence do we have for the opposing Sudden Appearance of Big Brain Theory (also known loosely as Cladogenesis). What evidence do we have of a global environmental change affecting Homo Erectus or Homo Rhodesiensis or similar) 25,000 years ago in Africa? What caused the mutation to suddenly produce a clean Homo Sapien?

I'm not claiming to be an expert in any of this, but you can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by FormerSkeptic
I'm not claiming to be an expert in any of this, but all these general theories have wide gaping holes.

No they don't.

Is there a way for moderators to remove idiotic meaningless replies?

Just wondering.

reply to post by FormerSkeptic


The "damage" is causing mutation.
Mutation is the driving force behind evolution.

The quickest way to reply to your post would be "study evolution."

Originally posted by HairlessApe
reply to post by FormerSkeptic

 

The "damage" is causing mutation.
Mutation is the driving force behind evolution.

The quickest way to reply to your post would be "study evolution."

The quickest way to reply to YOUR post would be "explain evolution."

[for the sudden big brain some 20,000 years ago]