These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Pondering genetics.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenshae Chiroptera
#1 - 2011-12-08 09:57:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
I have been reading about genetics lately and one thing that occurs to me is that people breed like vermin, giving in to their base desires too young. Then they complain that they lose vigour and or die too young. Yet, that stems from genetic selection. We are *not* breeding with mostly people that live long and vigorous lives.

Another problem that stems from young parents is maturity and the poor emotional upbringing that they give their children, lowering the quality of society.

The other interesting thing is that occasionally bacteria trade genes to each other. However, we produce young with genetic variety to make our species more resistant to parasites, bacteria and viruses. Why don't we use recombination to swop genetic material between us to improve each other? Just grow differently as we replenish our cells every seven years? It wouldn't be traumatic changes either as it would be gradual. Additionally, the replenishment might increase how long we can live.

Sebastian LaFleur wrote:

While you are correct that "we do not die because we have to", I have to disagree with you in that we have evolved to do so. There is no incentive for evolution to develop organisms that have to die. Take oxygen for example. Oxygen is a poison. Because of the high reactivity of oxygen it will lead to, if not countered, degradation of cellular functions and eventually to death of the cell. But precisely because of this quality of oxygen, it has been advantageous for organisms to evolve to use it in energy metabolism by the reduction of oxygen with electrons from carbohydrates. This produces much more energy in the form of ATP (or adenosine triphosphate) than using some other element in reduction like anoxygenic bacteria do. To counter the harmful effects of oxygen, oxygen using organisms have evolved several mechanisms to transform the harmful oxygen radicals to less harmful forms. But eventually oxygen will kill us (...indirectly).

Also, due to the nature of DNA replication, the DNA strands get shorter and shorter after each replication and this will eventually lead to degradation of the genetic code, loss of cellular functions and programmed cell death (or apoptosis). To counter this, organisms with linear chromosomes have evolved to include telomerase sequences to the ends of the DNA strands. These sequences do not code of any function, but allow the cell to maintain its functions longer. Incidentally, cancer cells develop when the programmed cell death is not functioning, which allows the cancer cells to replicate indefinitely. Cancer cells also have the ability to regenerate the telomerase sequences, thus extending the cells ability to replicate.

So, we die because of the accumulated effects of genetic degradation and diseases, not because we have evolved to die (since the ability to counter the harmful effects of living is there. It just isn't good enough to keep organisms alive forever.)

There is a species of jellyfish, Turritopsis nutricula, in which an individual (in theory) can live forever. This is because it has the ability to revert from sexually mature form to juvenile polyp form and start the development towards sexually mature form again. However, the individuals die because of predation and diseases etc., so in practice there probably isn't any immortal individuals. But in sheltered environments the potential is there, so there is no biological barrier for living forever.

Quote:
Aspect 2. by hard coding biology to destroy itself after so many cellular divisions, evolution ensures that a species remains uniform by constantly starting from scratch, over and over again, in the next generation.


I see a misunderstanding of the mechanisms of evolution here. Evolution can not produce adaptations to future environments. Saying that organisms have evolved to die to "ensure that a species remains uniform by constantly starting from scratch" is like saying that evolution has retained functional gills in terrestrial animals just in case there should be a flood happening in the future...


Quoting the best reply so that it isn't drowned out.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Rodj Blake
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#2 - 2011-12-08 14:12:35 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
I have been reading about genetics lately and one thing that occurs to me is that people breed like vermin, giving in to their base desires too young. Then they complain that they lose vigour and or die too young. Yet, that stems from genetic selection. We are *not* breeding with mostly people that live long and vigorous lives.

Another problem that stems from young parents is maturity and the poor emotional upbringing that they give their children, lowering the quality of society.

The other interesting thing is that occasionally bacteria trade genes to each other. However, we produce young with genetic variety to make our species more resistant to parasites, bacteria and viruses. Why don't we use recombination to swop genetic material between us to improve each other? Just grow differently as we replenish our cells every seven years? It wouldn't be traumatic changes either as it would be gradual. Additionally, the replenishment might increase how long we can live.


Bacteria can trade genes with each other becuase they're relatively simple asexual organisms.

Dolce et decorum est pro Imperium mori
Jenshae Chiroptera
#3 - 2011-12-08 14:31:07 UTC
Rodj Blake wrote:

Bacteria can trade genes with each other becuase they're relatively simple asexual organisms.


Which naturally makes it impossible for more advanced organisms to trade genes and use them as they replenish cells?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe
#4 - 2011-12-08 15:31:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Louis deGuerre
It's not that the genetics of bacteria are less complex than our own, but that rebuilding a macrocellular organism while it is alive tends to be fatal.
Think about reorganizing the plumbing in a power station while it is running compared to your kitchen sink and you get the picture.
If this was not the case, chance dictates that evolution would have selected in favour of it already P
This is why everyone is being really careful with DNA therapy. No one wants to be the one to go 'Ohgodohgod I'm melting!'.

We do use recombination when we make babies btw :)
Jenshae Chiroptera
#5 - 2011-12-08 15:42:46 UTC
Louis deGuerre wrote:
...
We do use recombination when we make babies btw :)


Yes.

Our cells all have a "password" that our immune system recognises, which is the main problem. If we are using recombination in our replenishment, it would be much like a gradual organ transplant without the side effects.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Astrid Stjerna
Sebiestor Tribe
#6 - 2011-12-08 16:20:09 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Louis deGuerre wrote:
...
We do use recombination when we make babies btw :)


Yes.

Our cells all have a "password" that our immune system recognises, which is the main problem. If we are using recombination in our replenishment, it would be much like a gradual organ transplant without the side effects.


The thing is, our genes are self-regulating -- when they detect that something isn't right (such as cancer), they destroy themselves to prevent the 'contaminant' from spreading. Recombinant DNA would be almost immediately rejected (very painfully), because it doesn't match our DNA 'blueprint'.

Zygotes and embryos can usually handle it, because the recombinant action is required to form valid genetic structure (and thus a viable lifeform). An adult is essentally 'complete' genetically, and recombinant DNA would just get 'shoved in' where it didn't belong.

I can't get rid of my darn signature!  Oh, wait....
Jenshae Chiroptera
#7 - 2011-12-08 16:52:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
I thought that was the RNA that is within the cell? So, if the white blood cells come along and check they get an "All good in here," and a, "Yes this belongs in this body," since the RNA is happy with the DNA in the cell?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Beaches
#8 - 2011-12-08 16:59:45 UTC
In humans (as in other species) there are selective breeders and as you describe 'vermin breeders'

I think's it's two separate underlying proliferation strategies playing themselves out simultaneously within our species.

One strategy is spread your genes everywhere another is spread them selectively in the best possible way.

Downfall of the 'vermin' strategy is that you may not be able to adequately support your offspring and they may be more likely to perish

Downfall of the selective strategy is that a well supported offspring will perish and all of your recourses and support will have been wasted in vain along with opportunity cost

In humans among the poor and stupid you see the vermin strategy and among people with relative security you see the selective strategy become more prominent. Ask yourself why
Jenshae Chiroptera
#9 - 2011-12-08 17:07:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Before modern medicine the tribes of Africa would have 8 - 12 children to ensure that 2-3 would survive all the diseases and predators.
Currently, religion, lower intelligence and lack of education are fuelling the over population in the poor.

One strategy to combat that, would be to have a a sterilisation program that is voluntary where by the couple present themselves along with proof of having only two children then they both undergo the surgery and get a monthly stipend for the rest of their lives. This would ensure that they have less mouths to feed and more money to educate and clothe them.
(Two is good because of what happened in China, people could opt to have a girl and a boy. Additionally, it is a better number for keeping the population stable.)

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe
#10 - 2011-12-08 18:44:44 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
I thought that was the RNA that is within the cell? So, if the white blood cells come along and check they get an "All good in here," and a, "Yes this belongs in this body," since the RNA is happy with the DNA in the cell?


RNA and DNA are very much alike and both are present in the nucleus of each cell.
DNA is pretty much like two enterwined strands of RNA. DNA is the blueprint, RNA is used the tool to make copies of information of that blueprint (I know this is all wrong but you get the basic idea).

Basically what you say is correct. The cell is identified from the outside as friendly or foreign and either killed or not. Cells have unique markers on their outside that allow them to be identified.
The danger from a disease like HIV is that it can fool your immune system so infected cells pass the test. Also bad is if your immune system gets confused and start attacking friendly cells, friendly fire so to speak.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#11 - 2011-12-08 19:06:27 UTC
Louis deGuerre wrote:

Basically what you say is correct. The cell is identified from the outside as friendly or foreign and either killed or not. Cells have unique markers on their outside that allow them to be identified.
The danger from a disease like HIV is that it can fool your immune system so infected cells pass the test. Also bad is if your immune system gets confused and start attacking friendly cells, friendly fire so to speak.

Indeed. The immune system attacking the body, an example would be multiple sclerosis.

However, for the most part (except STDs which can be checked for anyway) parasites would not be transmitted. So by having this gene swopping, we would have the same benefits that our offspring enjoy and as a result, after we have replenished a few times, our DNA is that much better to pass on to them.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Tear Miner
Doomheim
#12 - 2011-12-08 19:32:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Tear Miner
Genetics is just the modern way of saying eugenics.

Furthermore: Your idea of a voluntary sterilization program is just CREEPY. You're not dealing with the actual problems, and instead coming up with your own first world draconian system to impose on someone else as to "fix" the problem. Free birth control comes to mind.

Young people are gonna F, it's nature, you can't change that. What you can change is providing a better solution with a little bit less of your involuntary celibate lifestyle spin on it.
SpaceSquirrels
#13 - 2011-12-08 19:45:18 UTC  |  Edited by: SpaceSquirrels
Always funny when someone thinks their genes are better than someone elses. Perhaps not if said dumb people are infact breeding more perhaps their genes are better because they're afforded more opportunities to breed. (Evolution == best fit for current environment)

Now that's a drastic simplification, and people dont quite work the same way thanks to our god damned higher brain function, and psychology, and culture. But just remember brains don't always beat brawn...especially when it comes to sex.

Also further reading what you said genetics and evolution doesn't work that way for 99% of complex organisms. Who knows what the future holds, but swapping out DNA after birth dont workie so well.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#14 - 2011-12-08 21:49:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
There are some grey areas and there are some clear cut cases. You don't want genes that give you hereditary diseases or retardation for example. While on the other hand the colour of eyes is purely cosmetic and subjective.

As for eugenics, it was painted with a tar brush because H.itler was trying to do it at the same time that he was committing genocide. It was already around for a while before he started doing it. American Eugenics Society founded in 1922 (remind you at this juncture that societies are formed after people have a personal interest, after groups form and so forth, taking time.)

Eugenics is still being practised today.
There is natural selection where people shy away from the sickly, the ugly or the [physically and mentally handicapped] (these word filters are getting a bit tedious). The more (word won't come to me right now [decorated, complex, ...]) a specimen is the more likely that they have good genes. Hence why robins mate with males that have the reddest chests as those with duller ones usually have more degraded DNA.
Then there is artificial methods, such as DNA screening coupled with artificial insemination. For now it is limited to hereditary diseases that can be identified and gender. As research and understanding progresses it might go further.

Now, as to first and third world, it is interesting to note that charities provide housing, clothing, fresh water and food in third world countries and places such as Africa. However, that is the problem. That is all they provide. They generally don't educate them, create jobs, build roads, provide public transport or a myriad of other things. So once they are comfortable and cared for they breed 8 - 12 more problems.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#15 - 2011-12-14 12:48:13 UTC
Who has read or watched Idiotcracy? Thoughts on that and how it relates with this thread?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Solinuas
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#16 - 2011-12-14 14:02:56 UTC
Well an interesting thing is that with society rolling as it is now it is now longer survival of the fittest, its survival of everyone, which means we kinda stalled evolution.

Until we get to artificial evolution where we freely modify full genetic codes.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#17 - 2011-12-14 14:08:12 UTC
Yes. If I ever have the right crowd when MCing or I do a bit of stand up comedy, I would use a line like, "Hands up those who believe in evolution.
{If it is most of them}
"Then why are we doing all we can to stop it by keeping the dim and the feeble breeding?"

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
stoicfaux
#18 - 2011-12-14 14:28:20 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Yes. If I ever have the right crowd when MCing or I do a bit of stand up comedy, I would use a line like, "Hands up those who believe in evolution.
{If it is most of them}
"Then why are we doing all we can to stop it by keeping the dim and the feeble breeding?"


Party like it's 1927?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
State laws were written in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to prohibit marriage and force sterilization of the mentally ill in order to prevent the "passing on" of mental illness to the next generation. These laws were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927 and were not abolished until the mid-20th century. All in all, 60,000 Americans were sterilized.[75]

Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the state of Virginia could sterilize those it thought unfit. The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.[84] A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, the state with the most sterilizations by far, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Vicker Lahn'se
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2011-12-15 08:04:29 UTC
As a somewhat related note, consider the following:

We have removed several evolutionary pressures on the human race. For example, at one point in time it was evolutionarily favorable for a human baby to fit through the mother's birth canal, so that the mother and child would not die during childbirth. The human brain got just as big as it could get while still having a head that could fit through the mother's pelvis on the way out.

This is no longer a concern because hospitals perform c-sections on a regular basis. There is no longer an evolutionary constraint regarding the size of a human head in comparison to the size of the human pelvis because we can surgically remove the baby if it doesn't fit. There is, however, evolutionary pressure for human children to be smarter. Smarter people have a higher chance of successfully mating. Bigger brains mean bigger heads. Will there come a day when human beings are no longer capable of natural births without the aid of a c-section operation?

Similarly, consider eyeglasses. At one point in time, you had to be able to see. If you couldn't see, you had a higher chance of being eaten by wild lions or being run over by some form of vehicle. We now have technology that allows you to see well, even if your natural vision is messed up. This technology is constantly improving, as well. Laser eye surgery is becoming cheaper and more popular. Will there come a day when every human being will require corrective lenses or eye surgery?

Let's take that a step further and consider what new technologies may come out in the future, such as artificial replacement eyes. If we develop the technology to replace a person's eyes with mechanical eyes that function better than natural eyes, and if this technology is made available to a majority of human beings, there will no longer be any evolutionary pressure whatsoever for a human to be born with working eyes. The same can be said for any prosthetic body augmentations. Will there come a day when human beings will be born without functioning eyes, atrophied limbs, and underdeveloped internal organs that will all require replacement at birth?
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
#20 - 2011-12-15 20:31:11 UTC
Vicker Lahn'se wrote:
As a somewhat related note, consider the following:

We have removed several evolutionary pressures on the human race. For example, at one point in time it was evolutionarily favorable for a human baby to fit through the mother's birth canal, so that the mother and child would not die during childbirth. The human brain got just as big as it could get while still having a head that could fit through the mother's pelvis on the way out.

This is no longer a concern because hospitals perform c-sections on a regular basis. There is no longer an evolutionary constraint regarding the size of a human head in comparison to the size of the human pelvis because we can surgically remove the baby if it doesn't fit. There is, however, evolutionary pressure for human children to be smarter. Smarter people have a higher chance of successfully mating. Bigger brains mean bigger heads. Will there come a day when human beings are no longer capable of natural births without the aid of a c-section operation?


For the sake of the offspring - I hope not, as the mother will not bond with her newborn due to the fact that Oxytocin will not be released in massive quantities. It should only be considered or performed if there is potential loss of life to either the baby or mother. Full stop. Ever wonder why parents don't care about their chavies? - look no further.

In other news - brain density is more important than brain size. There is factual information regarding the density of the brain in relation to intelligence. Brain density can also increase more than normal if, for example, a child is taught two languages prior to the age of 6 [citation needed] and will have greater intelligence as a result.

So if you want your kids to be super-smart and well adjusted human beings, don't have a C-Section and marry someone who was raised in another country with another language.

You'll also be doing the planet a favour by spreading the gene pool.

Vicker Lahn'se wrote:
Similarly, consider eyeglasses. At one point in time, you had to be able to see. If you couldn't see, you had a higher chance of being eaten by wild lions or being run over by some form of vehicle. We now have technology that allows you to see well, even if your natural vision is messed up. This technology is constantly improving, as well. Laser eye surgery is becoming cheaper and more popular. Will there come a day when every human being will require corrective lenses or eye surgery?


As someone with 20/12 VA because of laser eye surgery, I welcome any attempts made to correct visual impairment and tbh, I doubt the day will come when everyone would require corrective procedures to fix visual impairment. Random mutation would be more likely than everyone requiring corrected vision.

Vicker Lahn'se wrote:
Let's take that a step further and consider what new technologies may come out in the future, such as artificial replacement eyes. If we develop the technology to replace a person's eyes with mechanical eyes that function better than natural eyes, and if this technology is made available to a majority of human beings, there will no longer be any evolutionary pressure whatsoever for a human to be born with working eyes. The same can be said for any prosthetic body augmentations. Will there come a day when human beings will be born without functioning eyes, atrophied limbs, and underdeveloped internal organs that will all require replacement at birth?


Nah - I believe you'd have to remove something from the DNA for every baby to be born with bad eyes, or the environment would need to be altered on a global scale which affected light; affecting all living creatures - over a very long period of time. I'll throw 5,000 years out there for arguments sake, as I understand that if you moved northern Europeans to Africa - in 5,000 years they would all be black, have flat noses to allow them to breathe without losing too much moisture and their sweat glands will increase to assist in cooling the body. Just the same as the people from Africa who were taken against their will to N.America will end up having the physical characteristics of Native American Indians, in time.
Although as they were 'bred' for hard labor, this may screw the figures up.

AK

This space for rent.
123Next pageLast page