Thread: Does medical science's advancements and man-made teraforming the living environment screw up the natural process of evolution?

Deformed people get to have biological children...
Terrible physique people get to reproduce...
etc.

And also, what will become of the human race eventually?
Due to the degeneration of strength of dominant genes.

Does medical science's advancements and man-made teraforming the living environment screw up the natural process of evolution?

No. It just changes the selection pressures.

Deformed people get to have biological children...
Terrible physique people get to reproduce...

Nice. Are you considering changing from religious fundamentalism to fascism and eugenics?

And also, what will become of the human race eventually?

Who knows.

Due to the degeneration of strength of dominant genes.

What does that mean?

If you're claiming that letting people with genetic disorders breed is destroying our gene pool, you're not alone. Eugenics attempted to address the issue.

However, it would seem the more fitting HUMAN approach would be to not impose regulations on who should be allowed to breed and rather attempt to find treatments for genetic disorders.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

Deformed people get to have biological children...
Terrible physique people get to reproduce...
etc.

Do their deformities get passed on?


How about these:
Ugly people get to have biological children...
Terrible physiognomy people get to reproduce...
etc.

Stupid people get to have biological children...
Terrible intellect people get to reproduce...
etc.

won't: e.g. Siamese twins having biological children destroy the gene pool?

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

won't: e.g. Siamese twins having biological children destroy the gene pool?

Why should it?

But keep going. Your application for entry to whichever neo-fascist group it is must be going pretty well.

What are fascists?

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

What are fascists?

How old are you?

I'm not being sarcastic. And I don't want you to give away personal information. But that sounds like an incredibly naive question.

Basically, it is an extreme right-wing political movement, typically concerned with things like the inferiority of foreigners and minority groups, and therefore maintaining "racial purity". In other words, borderline insane and totally offensive.

okay.... i'll give an example:
Siamese twins (male) have a child with a person with a genetic muscular disorder, and have very weak muscles (female)
they have four children, and each of them are either Siamese twins or have muscle disorders.

each of their children breed with people with other genetic conditions, e.g. spouses with gigantism disorders or dwarfism, or the people with genes that make them age super fast, and die of old age about ~20 years old.

the children then breed with the human population (they do not die off, die to advancing medial sciences and man-made teraformed living environments), and eventually become a fraction of the earth's population,

which will eventually be a significant amount of people, few hundred millions of people who will have genetic disorders (siamese twins, weak people), genes that "removes" the ability to survive in the wild.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

okay.... i'll give an example:
Siamese twins (male) have a child with a person with a genetic muscular disorder, and have very weak muscles (female)
they have four children, and each of them are either Siamese twins or have muscle disorders.

Why do you think their children would be conjoined ("Siamese") twins? It is a pretty rare condition so it seems statistically unlikely. (I am assuming you are not having a go at people from Thailand, here)

Also, without more information about the genetic causes of this hypothetical muscle disease, you can't draw any conclusions about the number of their offspring who would have it. It could be anything from all of them to none.

Your bizarre scenario of people with some genetic attribute you dislike only having children with other people you dislike is almost too daft to comment on.

However, you are almost at the point where you could begin to understand evolution (if you really try). If a genetic disorder reduces the probability of an individual surviving or reproducing successfully, then it will become less common in the population. That is one reason why genetic diseases are generally pretty rare.

However, life is never that simple and there are genetic traits which, despite causing serious illness, may have an advantage. Sickle cell disease is the obvious example.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

okay.... i'll give an example:
Siamese twins (male) have a child with a person with a genetic muscular disorder, and have very weak muscles (female)
they have four children, and each of them are either Siamese twins or have muscle disorders.

You don't know ANYTHING about genetics do you?
While I don't find this woman -


- particularly attractive could YOU tell that she's the great grand daughter of Siamese twins?

This person says that humans stopped evolving !

Well, if Kaku says it, it must be The Truth!!!1!

Or maybe he is shameless self-publicist who can't even popularise his own branch of science accurately never mind a field he isn't an expert in.

Originally Posted by Some

This person says that humans stopped evolving !

Ah, thank you.
Now I understand how you get your "information".
By reading the titles (only) of Youtube videos.

In fact, if you watch it even part-way through that is NOT what Kaku says. At all.

"Evolution is still taking place" - direct quote from 1:26.

He who knows not and knows not he knows not, he is a fool--shun him

Somewhat egotistical to place yourself first on that list, no?

Then what about the contribution of bad mutations (people exposed much to close proximity to gamma radiation) into the gene pool? (globalized to the whole earth)

wont it destroy the gene pool?
i know the huge majority of mutations are defective.

My rather apocalyptic viewpoint is that we are retaining undesirable traits in our breeding practices.
Some say that since the future will bring genetic engineering, we needn't worry about it. I say, you don't know that with enough certainty.

Some event may prevent the advancement of technology- and the survivors will be stuck with the village idiots.

My general thought is that the breeding population at this point, being in the multi-billions, is much larger then the amount if undesirable traits that are being replicated in offspring.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

Then what about the contribution of bad mutations (people exposed much to close proximity to gamma radiation) into the gene pool? (globalized to the whole earth)

wont it destroy the gene pool?

Why would it "destroy the gene pool"? Maybe, if you exposed everyone on Earth to damaging levels of radiation you might wipe out the human race. But there is no reason to expect that is going to happen.

There are mutations being caused continuously. Some are due to background radiation, the vast majority are just errors in transcription and reproduction of the genome.

Most of these just contribute to a small increase in the genetic diversity in the population.

If there are genetic changes that prevent (or reduce the probability of) survival or reproduction then those genetic changes will be kept at a low level or eliminated.

There is a lot of complicated statistics associated with all this. But basically, you don't need to worry that a radiation worker exposed to a dangerous level in Fukushima is going to cause problems for your children.

i know the huge majority of mutations are defective.

You know no such thing.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

My rather apocalyptic viewpoint is that we are retaining undesirable traits in our breeding practices.
Some say that since the future will bring genetic engineering, we needn't worry about it. I say, you don't know that with enough certainty.

Some event may prevent the advancement of technology- and the survivors will be stuck with the village idiots.

Evidence?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Neverfly

My rather apocalyptic viewpoint is that we are retaining undesirable traits in our breeding practices.
Some say that since the future will bring genetic engineering, we needn't worry about it. I say, you don't know that with enough certainty.

Some event may prevent the advancement of technology- and the survivors will be stuck with the village idiots.

Evidence?

Low standards before mating.
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C

Ryanawe may be all the nasty things you have been calling him but he has a point even if expressed badly. Medical science has allowed some people with geneticly transmitted diseases to reproduce and contribute to the gene pool. I am one of these. My mother had diabetes. I have diabetes and I have 3 children. Modern medical advances have ment that my illness has not limited me from contributing to my society as a productive member, but it has also permited me to have a family. Untreated diabetes will not prevent reproduction but it does severely limit your life span. It is not a good trait to have. I am concerned that when the almost inevitable collapse of technological society comes, my great grand kids and others who carry the genes for diabetes will have a hard time surviving. They will be "less fit" and will not get past that genetic bottleneck. The greater precentage of the general population has the gene the higher the die off rate.

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

Ryanawe may be all the nasty things you have been calling him but he has a point even if expressed badly. Medical science has allowed some people with geneticly transmitted diseases to reproduce and contribute to the gene pool. I am one of these. My mother had diabetes. I have diabetes and I have 3 children. Modern medical advances have ment that my illness has not limited me from contributing to my society as a productive member, but it has also permited me to have a family. Untreated diabetes will not prevent reproduction but it does severely limit your life span. It is not a good trait to have. I am concerned that when the almost inevitable collapse of technological society comes, my great grand kids and others who carry the genes for diabetes will have a hard time surviving. They will be "less fit" and will not get past that genetic bottleneck. The greater precentage of the general population has the gene the higher the die off rate.

That gene is old and was already present. But the new selection process has allowed it to remain in greater abundance and to be bred into populations at a much higher rate.
There was that Chinese case recently, about a woman that had plastic surgery and then got married and pregnant (in that order) without disclosing to her husband she'd had her face fixed.
Due date came, he said, "Man, that is an ugly baby!" and filed for divorce after her confession.

It's allowed minor and major defects to stay within and have greater chances of being continued in family lines. It has increased the probability of breeding for many traits.
And this is going to continue- for quite a while...

That gene is old and was already present.

And remember it really is about environment. Indigenous Australians never knew or displayed diabetic symptoms ... until they stopped eating traditional diets (there wasn't just one uniform selection of foods across the continent) and started eating the food they were supplied.

That genetic tendency to diabetes can survive for tens of thousands of years with no effect. Until the environment, the food sources in this case, change in a particular way.

Originally Posted by adelady

And remember it really is about environment. Indigenous Australians never knew or displayed diabetic symptoms ... until they stopped eating traditional diets (there wasn't just one uniform selection of foods across the continent) and started eating the food they were supplied.

That genetic tendency to diabetes can survive for tens of thousands of years with no effect. Until the environment, the food sources in this case, change in a particular way.

This is a good point but perhaps diabetes was not the best example then. Are there genetic traits that have been given a much stronger foothold due to the current stage of selection?

Originally Posted by Strange

If there are genetic changes that prevent (or reduce the probability of) survival or reproduction then those genetic changes will be kept at a low level or eliminated.

how would it be kept at a low level?
people take airplanes....globalization... this genetic changes that prevent/reduce survival or reproduction will affect a huge majority of the gene pool eventually
they dont die off in the natural way of evolution (survive or die), as we live in the man-made habitats with medical advancement.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

how would it be kept at a low level?

Natural selection. If a mutation causes an individual to die before maturity, it will not be propagated to offspring. If a mutation makes an organism unable to reproduce, then that mutation will not be propagated to offspring.

That is the extreme. If the mutation makes the individual unhealthy or just less likely to survive or have offspring, then it will reduce the number of individuals carrying the mutation.

Also, in sexual selection there is a (roughly) random selection of genes from each parent. So if one parent has the mutation and the other doesn't, then there is a possibility that none of their offspring will have it.

they dont die off in the natural way of evolution (survive or die), as we live in the man-made habitats with medical advancement.

Selection (i.e. evolution) still operates. The selection is slightly different now, that is all.

Even Neverfly, who believes that "bad genes" are more likely to survive, had to ask, "Are there genetic traits that have been given a much stronger foothold due to the current stage of selection?"

As far as I know, the answer to that is no. I have not seen any evidence to indicate that any specific genetic disorders have become more common. If anything, our ability to understand and screen for them may be having the opposite effect.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

okay.... i'll give an example:
Siamese twins (male) have a child with a person with a genetic muscular disorder, and have very weak muscles (female)
they have four children, and each of them are either Siamese twins or have muscle disorders.

After perusing the vast number of threads you've started on silly thoughts, I'm beginning to wonder if you're the conjoined twin of theorist...

Originally Posted by Strange

If the mutation makes the individual unhealthy or just less likely to survive or have offspring, then it will reduce the number of individuals carrying the mutation.

but medical science advancement lets them have an equal chance as healthy individuals to survive and propagate their genes to the entire gene pool.

medical advancement does not let them die off like nature.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

Originally Posted by Strange

If the mutation makes the individual unhealthy or just less likely to survive or have offspring, then it will reduce the number of individuals carrying the mutation.

but medical science advancement lets them have an equal chance as healthy individuals to survive and propagate their genes to the entire gene pool.

medical advancement does not let them die off like nature.

The human breeding population is in the Billions, the number of people that fall into your specifications for this thread are a MUCH lower number.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

The human breeding population is in the Billions, the number of people that fall into your specifications for this thread are a MUCH lower number.

For now...

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

but medical science advancement lets them have an equal chance as healthy individuals to survive and propagate their genes to the entire gene pool.

They can't propagate their genes to the entire gene pool. They would have to go round the planet having sex with every living person. They would have to hang around long enough to kill any children that did not inherit whatever-it-is and then have sex again in the hope of having another child who does.

If there is one individual with a mutation they might have one child with it. Who might have one or two children with it. They might have no children with the mutation. It is unlikely to ever be a significant fact. There are a few very rare non-fatal genetic disorders that run in families. So far, they have failed to destroy the entire human race.

Also, genetic screening and, in future, therapy can reduce the chance of these being inherited and even possibly eliminate them.

medical advancement does not let them die off like nature.

Maybe you should campaign for the government to KILL TEH MUTANTS!!!

Originally Posted by Strange

They can't propagate their genes to the entire gene pool. They would have to go round the planet having sex with every living person.

Globalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

airplanes

Why hasn't anyone jumped on the "Siamese twins jetsetting around the world and polluting the gene pool" pandemic?

im not saying that.... im saying due to globalization, more people who have the genetic trait (that reduces chances of survival in the wild), the more they travel overseas... and start families there.

this genetic trait grows at an exponential rate.
take this for example: HIV/AIDS... it started from one person having sex with a monkey. (i read from google)

Right.

I'm out.

I can't handle another theorist.

or let me give another new example for:
The contribution of genetic trait that reduces chances of survival in the wild to the gene pool.

example:
Someone mutates into a zombie. He infects others (transfers virus through globalization), making them infected. The infected grow at an exponential rate, if the zombies are not stopped.

But no!
We do not restrict the spreading of (genes that reduces chances of survival in the wild) to the gene pool!
Those who are fit to survive, survives. Those that are not fit to survive, survives too! (due to: refer to this threads title)

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

im not saying that.... im saying due to globalization, more people who have the genetic trait (that reduces chances of survival in the wild), the more they travel overseas... and start families there.

They are not going to have any more children, on average, just because they are in another country. Are they?

Look at it this way: most people have between 0 and 2 children. The chances of the mutation being passed on is (roughly) 50%. Therefore, there is a chance that the mutation will be eliminated in one generation. One the other hand, maybe all of their 1.7 children will have it.

this genetic trait grows at an exponential rate.

Obviously not.

take this for example: HIV/AIDS...

That is a contagious disease so it spreads in a completely different way.

it started from one person having sex with a monkey.

Not even the Daily Mail would run that story.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

Someone got hit by a lab-grown virus. He infects others (transfers virus through globalization), making them infected. The infected grow at an exponential rate, if the virus not restricted.

But no!
We do not restrict the spreading of (genes that reduces chances of survival in the wild) to the gene pool!

Genes do not spread like diseases. You can't "catch" someone's genes from them.

Those who are fit to survive, survives. Those that are not fit to survive, survives too! (due to: refer to this threads title)

No. We have just changed what "fit" means.

Even if your claim were true: it isn't going to make any difference to the population as a whole.

For example, I am not too concerned about you having children and adding more stupid to the world population.

What about a real example of Fukushima?

Lots of people's genes gone bad.
they go around the world having children with people...

Not enough MS paint diagrams.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

What about a real example of Fukushima?

How many people died because of the nuclear reactor accident at Fukushima? None.

How many people were exposed to fatal levels of radiation at Fukushinma? None.

How many people are expected to become ill because of the accident at Fukushima? An undetectably small number.

Lots of people's genes gone bad.

No. None.

they go around the world having children with people...

Do they? Really?

I give up. The level of stupid in this thread has just gone over the limit. I think it is damaging my genes.

I think it is damaging my genes.

Dunno about my genes. But I can feel the neurons shrinking away - maybe voluntary apoptosis to get out of range of this stuff?

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

Deformed people get to have biological children...
Terrible physique people get to reproduce...
etc.

And also, what will become of the human race eventually?
Due to the degeneration of strength of dominant genes.

we will still evolve we evolve everytime we reproduce


our brains will evolve no matter what

Individuals do not evolve. Populations or whole species do that.

Originally Posted by adelady

Individuals do not evolve. Populations or whole species do that.

populations of individuals?

Then what about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

i've seen documentaries, and i'm sure tens of thousands, or even hundred thousands got terribly mutated genes after this event.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

i'm sure tens of thousands, or even hundred thousands got terribly mutated genes after this event.

Provide evidence for this assertion.

people ask me for evidence, and then when i give it, they say the evidence i gave are crakpots... hold in i'll google for some.

Monitoring exposure to atomic bomb radiation by somatic mutation.first help me check if its crackpot
whoops the number does not go to 10,000 or 100,000.
its goes up to

gene mutations in 1,226 atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki

that still could impact the global's gene pool where they travel overseas to have offspring.

[QUOTE=PhDemon;410810]

Originally Posted by Flick Montana;410808
After perusing the vast number of threads you've started on silly thoughts, I'm beginning to wonder if you're the conjoined twin of theorist...[/QUOTE

The biology rather than the physics version though. I hope there isn't a chemistry one out there (shudder)

I'm the vastly more intelligent, but considerably more satirical, EVIL triplet.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

Monitoring exposure to atomic bomb radiation by somatic mutation.first help me check if its crackpot

Not crackpot at all- Well Done.

how do you check if its crackpot?

how do i check if you are crackpot?

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

how do you check if its crackpot?

how do i check if you are crackpot?

Peer review and independently verifiable findings.
Crackpot sites usually boast a lot. They use claims like, "Things your doctor doesn't want you to know!"

Verifiable information is any information that can be found by repeating the experiments by an independent party.

If I conduct an experiment, and you conduct the same experiment and we disagree on our results- one of us or both of us incorrectly ran the experiment.

Independent verification is the key to getting more accuracy from information.

If you find a website that actuall mentions the name of whoever is promoting a given piont of view or claim then it's worth Googling that name.
Wiki (if the name comes up) is usually reliable on the trustworthiness of authors.
If someone isn't mentioned at all it's a reasonable indicator that they aren't credentialled (especially if they're making large claims).

how do you check if its crackpot?

The all time winner of how to present a crackpot website would be TimeCube. No, I won't link it. But it's good for a laugh if you look at what's written. The obvious crackpottery shows up in the font sizes and colours and the self important style.

how do i check if you are crackpot?

Look at how logical - or otherwise - the person's writing is.

Look at how they respond to information, discussion or criticism.

Some people are a bit thin-skinned and let themselves get side-tracked into derailing discussions but they're not the first category to look out for. (Though some of them do move into "you're attacking me" mode far too readily.)

When someone says, OK, thank you, I didn't understand before or Wow. Really. I didn't know that. or Thanks for that link, that's really useful. you've got a reasonable handle on that person as at least not a crackpot, even if they started out with a silly idea.

But .... if this hypothetical person starts rattling on about the group being close-minded, or about how people laughed at Galileo, or posts complaints that conventional scientists are not "ready" for this breakthrough - your first response is that you should be careful about this person's claims - they might be a crackpot.

When ..... this hypothetical person is advancing "theories" or "facts" that other members of the forum provide evidence and argument and references to refute these statements

And .... the person persists and persists and persists and ..... with ridiculous restatements of their personal theory of aether or centrifugal force or nonsense-never-seen-before

Then, you've got a crackpot.

There is also Baez' crackpot index...
Crackpot index

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

Monitoring exposure to atomic bomb radiation by somatic mutation.first help me check if its crackpot
whoops the number does not go to 10,000 or 100,000.
its goes up to

gene mutations in 1,226 atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki

that still could impact the global's gene pool where they travel overseas to have offspring.

Obviously not. For all the reasons already explained.

Originally Posted by Strange

They are not going to have any more children, on average, Are they?

Look at it this way: most people have between 0 and 2 children. The chances of the mutation being passed on is (roughly) 50%. Therefore, there is a chance that the mutation will be eliminated in one generation.

How can you use this to support your claim that bad genes will die off in one or several generations?
But you wont use this to support a claim that the human race will die off in one or several generations.

Originally Posted by Strange

there is a chance that the mutation will be eliminated in one generation.

and the equal chance that the mutation will not be eliminated in many generations to come?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Second part there is a chance it will die off in one generation does not imply there is an EQUAL chance of it not dying out, no probabilities were stated, it was put out there as a possibility (hence the word chance).

so, rephrase: there is a possibility that the bad genes will be passed down generation to generation, and contaminate the human gene pool at an exponential rate?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Try and think things through before you post.

i post things when i dont understand what people say.

No where are you getting this idea of exponential rate from, it is possible they will remain in the population but I I don't understand how you think this leads to an exponetial increase of the presence of the gene, the prevalence of the gene will only increase if it gives some sort of benefit or the people who carry the gene are more successful at reproducing than those who don't carry it for some other unrelated reason.

ahh finally i know how to put it in more proper, in words.
"they will remain in the population"
yes, what i am saying is medical sciences and advancements and teraformed living environment gives them an almost equal chance to survive in the environment, as well as the almost equal chance of having the same number of biological children they want.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

Originally Posted by Strange

They are not going to have any more children, on average, Are they?

Look at it this way: most people have between 0 and 2 children. The chances of the mutation being passed on is (roughly) 50%. Therefore, there is a chance that the mutation will be eliminated in one generation.

How can you use this to support your claim that bad genes will die off in one or several generations?
But you wont use this to support a claim that the human race will die off in one or several generations.

Originally Posted by Strange

there is a chance that the mutation will be eliminated in one generation.

and the equal chance that the mutation will not be eliminated in many generations to come?

There is a chance the mutation will be eliminated in a few generations. There is a chance it will be continued through a small number of offspring.

There is zero chance that it will spread to the entire population. Look around you? Is everyone genetically identical after millions of generations of humans? No.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

so, rephrase: there is a possibility that the bad genes will be passed down generation to generation, and contaminate the human gene pool at an exponential rate?

No.

Imagine a situation where there was a deadly new virus that killed everyone who it infected. Then some individual developed a mutation that provided complete immunity from the virus. Even in that context, the mutation would not spread to the entire population. It would only need enough people to be protected top prevent the spread of the virus (herd immunity) ~ maybe about 90%. And the mutation would not spread exponentially.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

ahh finally i know how to put it in more proper, in words.
"they will remain in the population"
yes, what i am saying is medical sciences and advancements and teraformed living environment gives them an almost equal chance to survive in the environment, as well as the almost equal chance of having the same number of biological children they want.
[/COLOR]

And you object to that?

Why not take it to the next logical step and sterilise the deformed, the ugly, the stupid, the short, people of other religions, gypsies, tramps and thieves (1), and basically anyone you don't like.


(1) Eugenics: The Musical! (2)

(2) You have to be a certain age...

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

Someone mutates into a zombie. He infects others (transfers virus through globalization), making them infected. The infected grow at an exponential rate, if the zombies are not stopped.

The second you compared people with genetic disorders to zombies causing worldwide human extinction, you not only showed your complete lack of knowledge on the topic, but you also crossed a line.

First, you cannot compare a virus/bacteria/zombie plague to a genetic disorder. One person may transmit a disease to thousands, but one person will not have thousands of affected offspring unless they are Genghis Khan or Napoleon.

Second, I have Marfan's. Should I be allowed to have children? Impart upon me your wisdom.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

Deformed people get to have biological children...
Terrible physique people get to reproduce...
etc.

And also, what will become of the human race eventually?
Due to the degeneration of strength of dominant genes.

I think you'd enjoy this movie which deals with your concerns in a very amusing way:


and here's a clip from another movie which highlights a possible solution to the problem:

okay.. i admit was wrong about comparing it with viruses and contagious diseases.

Originally Posted by Strange

There is zero chance that it will spread to the entire population. Look around you? Is everyone genetically identical after millions of generations of humans? No.

But all the people around me share common genes.


identical - definition of identical by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.obviously not identical, or we would look

2. Exactly equal and alike.