Boy, we're really screwing up Darwin

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Xyo II
What does it matter? Eventually with genetic engineering we'll make everyone top-of-the-line anyway.

The problem is how (or who?) to define what top of the line is. What's top of the line today might be tomorrows dead end.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: hiredgoons

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: hiredgoons
Mules and Ligers are almost always sterile, which is why I said "viable offspring" in my original post.

But not all hybrids are sterile. Those are just the two common ones that came to mind.

You can go on believing what you will, and by and large you won't find much inconsistency with that view in daily life, but when you get down to the nitty gritty of the actual genetics involved, its stupendously complex, and lines that seemed solid before, become far more fuzzy.

For you to be alive, there had to be an absolute unbroken chain of reproduction from you all the way back to the beginnings of life. (Lets just ignore lateral gene transfer between prokaryotes for the sake of simplicity). Essentially, one direct reproduction to the next, straight back to our single last common ancestor. If species can only mate with the same species, then that cannot be possible. If we were actually pigeonholed into strict species, then evolution doesn't even make sense. Its the fluidty of genomes and the fact that we ARE all unique that makes it all possible in the first place.

I don't know enough about biology to understand how evolution actually creates distinct species, and I agree that the definition I gave is imperfect. The issue I have with your post that I originally quoted is that the inability to interbreed is a natural distinction between species. There may be exceptions, but there are exceptions to pretty much everything except the second law of thermodynamics.

If there's an exception, it's not a natural law. The inability to breed can be caused by many factors, only some genetic. We can argue this all day left and right, but evolution does not create absolutely distinct species. It's all relative.

Newtonian physics is similar. Relativity can be thought of as exceptions to it, but in reality, the simplified laws of newtonian classical physics are based upon the deeper framework of relativity.

Ability to breed isn't the only definition between species. It is just one among many.

Precisely. Some definitions work better than others in certain cases. But if youre searching for an absolute genetic or natural basis to it, you're not going to find it.

This is because it is just a man-made organizational system of what we see around us, oversimplified for practical understanding. This was your point, right?

(I didn't really read your other post's if you can't tell)

 

[frostedflakes]

As others have pointed out, there is much more to good genes than physical fitness. For example, Stephen Hawking, who is a brilliant man, but debilitated by Lou Gehrig's Disease. By the OP's logic, his genes are useless. What he does not take into account is that Hawking's contributions to mankind are likely to be significantly greater than a man of excellent health but moderate to low intelligence.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: Babbles
I just want to chime in and agree with BD2003 in that the definition of species is not concrete. There has been instances where you have two populations of an organism who will not mate in the wild, however if you were to take them into an artificial environment (e.g. laboratory) then the two different populations will mate. So, how does that define a species? If they are to physically able to mate are they a species even though they would never naturally mate in the wild?
How does one define the ability to interbreed? If organisms can, but won't? Or if they can breed, period? At what point does a cline become a new species.


Also when you try to define species in regards to plants, you get a whole different slew of problems. You can have organisms in one population which may be haploid, diploid, triploidy, or tetraploidy - if you based it on chromosomes and if they can form a zygote, at what point are they different species?

Ability to breed isn't the only definition between species. It is just one among many.

1) I said that the definition of species is not concrete (that would imply there are many definitions) - so you are just agreeing with me and trying to reiterate it?

2) However, with that being said, the ability to breed (or more preciesily to reproduce) is the only thing that actually matters. Natural selection and reproductive fitness can only happen and be measured by reproducing (breeding in terms of sexual organisms). If you have two individuals that are identical in every single way except that they do not breed, then you are not going to have any sort of species for very long. Transmission of genes is the only biological imperative we have, and that - essentially by definition - would make reproducing the single most important thing a population must do.

If an individual in a population experiences some sort of point mutation that created a new protein which somehow provided a way-too-cool-awesome-ability, then it is all completely meaningless if that individual does not breed. In sexually reproducing organisms breeding facilitates genetic drift, which is the selection and frequency of alleles in a population over time, therefore changing the genotype (and surely the phenotype) of the population. Which, can essentially give rise to a new species.

Again, though, I think the problem is identifying what one means by the "ability to breed." There are many reasons that breeding will or will not take place outside of just the genetics. However one could argue that all breeding relies on genetics because it is the genetics that gives an individual to have the proper mating rituals/coloration/songs/smells/etcetera to breed. The genetics provide the phenotype to allow breeding even though at the genetic level two seemingly incompatible organisms may very well be compatible.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: hiredgoons

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: hiredgoons
Mules and Ligers are almost always sterile, which is why I said "viable offspring" in my original post.

But not all hybrids are sterile. Those are just the two common ones that came to mind.

You can go on believing what you will, and by and large you won't find much inconsistency with that view in daily life, but when you get down to the nitty gritty of the actual genetics involved, its stupendously complex, and lines that seemed solid before, become far more fuzzy.

For you to be alive, there had to be an absolute unbroken chain of reproduction from you all the way back to the beginnings of life. (Lets just ignore lateral gene transfer between prokaryotes for the sake of simplicity). Essentially, one direct reproduction to the next, straight back to our single last common ancestor. If species can only mate with the same species, then that cannot be possible. If we were actually pigeonholed into strict species, then evolution doesn't even make sense. Its the fluidty of genomes and the fact that we ARE all unique that makes it all possible in the first place.

I don't know enough about biology to understand how evolution actually creates distinct species, and I agree that the definition I gave is imperfect. The issue I have with your post that I originally quoted is that the inability to interbreed is a natural distinction between species. There may be exceptions, but there are exceptions to pretty much everything except the second law of thermodynamics.

If there's an exception, it's not a natural law. The inability to breed can be caused by many factors, only some genetic. We can argue this all day left and right, but evolution does not create absolutely distinct species. It's all relative.

Newtonian physics is similar. Relativity can be thought of as exceptions to it, but in reality, the simplified laws of newtonian classical physics are based upon the deeper framework of relativity.

Ability to breed isn't the only definition between species. It is just one among many.

Precisely. Some definitions work better than others in certain cases. But if youre searching for an absolute genetic or natural basis to it, you're not going to find it.

This is because it is just a man-made organizational system of what we see around us, oversimplified for practical understanding. This was your point, right?

(I didn't really read your other post's if you can't tell)

Exactly.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: spidey07
WTF!

Kids aren't supposed to have allergys. Our species isn't supposed to preserve those that cannot breath. We're screwing with natural selection big time.

This is how it works. Kids that are weak, continue to be weak. Therefore they do not mate.

I know I'll get super flamed for this but c'mon. Stop screwing with mother nature and the natural selection process. If you'd quit using super-duper-anti-bacterial everything to the point that your child has almost no anti-bodies then don't be suprised if they can't handle a little pollen. Histamine is good. Let it do it's job.

ok numbnuts do you have kids? if not or if you do and are healthy good for you otherwise STFU and stop spewing your uneducated drivel. :|

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: LadyBuggy

Originally posted by: spidey07
There have been medical studies and conclusions that support my point somewhat. The "superclean" environment is not good for children. I may have gone overboard in my rant...but IMHO the point is what I believe. Stop fargin' with mother nature. More importantly stop worrying about germs/foreign bodies. Our body is very good at fighting them. But you don't send a soldier that has never seen or fought the enemy into battle against the allergens, nor do you tell the troops to 'stand down and stop what they are doing'.

I've seen the studies, too. When I have kids, they'll be going outside and getting dirty, and probably having amazing immune systems because of it.

thats total crap and psudoscience.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: LadyBuggy

Originally posted by: spidey07
There have been medical studies and conclusions that support my point somewhat. The "superclean" environment is not good for children. I may have gone overboard in my rant...but IMHO the point is what I believe. Stop fargin' with mother nature. More importantly stop worrying about germs/foreign bodies. Our body is very good at fighting them. But you don't send a soldier that has never seen or fought the enemy into battle against the allergens, nor do you tell the troops to 'stand down and stop what they are doing'.

I've seen the studies, too. When I have kids, they'll be going outside and getting dirty, and probably having amazing immune systems because of it.

thats total crap and psudoscience.

Your lack of education on the subject shows. I'm sure that you think vaccinations or other acquired immunities are psuedoscience, too.

 

[thescreensavers]

So when your in the hospital go die instead of getting helped, and it looks like you don got allergy's

 

[CollectiveUnconscious]

No worries. Sexual selection still plays a salient role in the transmission of genes. Weak kids usually are on the low in of the spectrum concerning sexual selection (i.e. most of ATOT).

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: LadyBuggy

Originally posted by: spidey07
There have been medical studies and conclusions that support my point somewhat. The "superclean" environment is not good for children. I may have gone overboard in my rant...but IMHO the point is what I believe. Stop fargin' with mother nature. More importantly stop worrying about germs/foreign bodies. Our body is very good at fighting them. But you don't send a soldier that has never seen or fought the enemy into battle against the allergens, nor do you tell the troops to 'stand down and stop what they are doing'.

I've seen the studies, too. When I have kids, they'll be going outside and getting dirty, and probably having amazing immune systems because of it.

thats total crap and psudoscience.

There is plenty of evidence to support it in many cases, but it doesnt explain all allergies or hay fever.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: LadyBuggy

Originally posted by: spidey07
There have been medical studies and conclusions that support my point somewhat. The "superclean" environment is not good for children. I may have gone overboard in my rant...but IMHO the point is what I believe. Stop fargin' with mother nature. More importantly stop worrying about germs/foreign bodies. Our body is very good at fighting them. But you don't send a soldier that has never seen or fought the enemy into battle against the allergens, nor do you tell the troops to 'stand down and stop what they are doing'.

I've seen the studies, too. When I have kids, they'll be going outside and getting dirty, and probably having amazing immune systems because of it.

thats total crap and psudoscience.

There is plenty of evidence to support it in many cases, but it doesnt explain all allergies or hay fever.

It might.. If kids are inside more, their immune systems can't get used to the allergens, so they overreact.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
It might.. If kids are inside more, their immune systems can't get used to the allergens, so they overreact.

I guess that was the main point of my rant.

AFAIK allergies are way up in kids and adults. Maybe it's the fact that kids don't get out and play that is the reason. So popping them a soft chewable anti-histamine is NOT the correct move. If we continue to stop the body from doing what it does best we're screwing with mother nature to our own detriment.

What's next? Flintstone allergy pills? Stop telling the body to supress it's own system.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
It might.. If kids are inside more, their immune systems can't get used to the allergens, so they overreact.

I guess that was the main point of my rant.

AFAIK allergies are way up in kids and adults. Maybe it's the fact that kids don't get out and play that is the reason. So popping them a soft chewable anti-histamine is NOT the correct move. If we continue to stop the body from doing what it does best we're screwing with mother nature to our own detriment.

What's next? Flintstone allergy pills? Stop telling the body to supress it's own system.

But you're still assuming a one-size fits all, more dirt = less allergies. It's not that simple. Yes, we need some dirt. The amount or severity might be lessened, but theyll still be around.

Not to mention the newest batch of antihistamines are as close to a perfect drug as you can get - little to no side effects, and very, very effective.

While less allergies and drug reliance is generally a good thing, I fail to see the big deal when it comes to allergies. Treatment is cheap, effective and safe. Rolling around in dirt is practically free, not entirely effective, and far from safe.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: BD2003
But you're still assuming a one-size fits all, more dirt = less allergies. It's not that simple. Yes, we need some dirt. The amount or severity might be lessened, but theyll still be around.

Not to mention the newest batch of antihistamines are as close to a perfect drug as you can get - little to no side effects, and very, very effective.

While less allergies and drug reliance is generally a good thing, I fail to see the big deal when it comes to allergies. Treatment is cheap, effective and safe. Rolling around in dirt is practically free, not entirely effective, and far from safe.

I understand your point. But what is to explain the rise in allergic reactions?

I don't pretend to be a doctor or an expert in the field. I know just enough about the human body/genetics/biology/anthropology to be dangerous (thanks, mom the doctor :thumbsup:, I miss you)

You seem to be fairly knowlegable about allergies/biology and natural selection. My point is stop supressing the body/natural selection.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: BD2003
But you're still assuming a one-size fits all, more dirt = less allergies. It's not that simple. Yes, we need some dirt. The amount or severity might be lessened, but theyll still be around.

Not to mention the newest batch of antihistamines are as close to a perfect drug as you can get - little to no side effects, and very, very effective.

While less allergies and drug reliance is generally a good thing, I fail to see the big deal when it comes to allergies. Treatment is cheap, effective and safe. Rolling around in dirt is practically free, not entirely effective, and far from safe.

I understand your point. But what is to explain the rise in allergic reactions?

I don't pretend to be a doctor or an expert in the field. I know just enough about the human body/genetics/biology/anthropology to be dangerous (thanks, mom the doctor :thumbsup:, I miss you)

You seem to be fairly knowlegable about allergies/biology and natural selection. My point is stop supressing the body/natural selection.

You're not off the mark at all. Hay fever rates are MUCH lower in 3rd world countries, with the hypothesis being exactly what youre thinking.

But its not the only factor. I rolled around in dirt far more than the average kid, and yet I still managed to develop hay fever in my teens. Either all that dirt did nothing, or I need to continually be dirty my entire life, or its something completely different.

It's not a question of natural selection. There is nothing inherently "better" about "natural" selection vs. using our technology to compensate for the limitations of our biology.

As far as the strength of our bodies go, there's something to it, but its not very well understood, and in this case, the cure can be worse than the disease, because a little exposure to a pathogen might protect you, but accidental overexposure can kill you.

Besides, allergic reactions are not the same as immunological response. Allergic reactions don't protect us from anything - they are essentially the body overreacting and doing unnecessary harm.

The real thing to worry about isn't antihistamines, it's overuse of antibiotics/antibacterials. Not because it makes our kids weaker, but because it makes the bugs stronger.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: BD2003
The real thing to worry about isn't antihistamines, it's overuse of antibiotics/antibacterials. Not because it makes our kids weaker, but because it makes the bugs stronger.

Well I think all people can agree on that point.

But doesn't it seem somewhat "wrong" to pop a chewable allergy pill to a kid? Do histamines not have their purpose? Why supress that?

It's the supression of the body's natural defenses that I have a problem with. Genetically if we continue to do this we will eventually lose that ability.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: spidey07
WTF!

Kids aren't supposed to have allergys. Our species isn't supposed to preserve those that cannot breath. We're screwing with natural selection big time.

This is how it works. Kids that are weak, continue to be weak. Therefore they do not mate.

I know I'll get super flamed for this but c'mon. Stop screwing with mother nature and the natural selection process. If you'd quit using super-duper-anti-bacterial everything to the point that your child has almost no anti-bodies then don't be suprised if they can't handle a little pollen. Histamine is good. Let it do it's job.

Spidey, I normally agree with alot of what you say but this is not an enterprise-level network. Do you understand what allergies are?

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: BD2003
The real thing to worry about isn't antihistamines, it's overuse of antibiotics/antibacterials. Not because it makes our kids weaker, but because it makes the bugs stronger.

Well I think all people can agree on that point.

But doesn't it seem somewhat "wrong" to pop a chewable allergy pill to a kid? Do histamines not have their purpose? Why supress that?

It's the supression of the body's natural defenses that I have a problem with. Genetically if we continue to do this we will eventually lose that ability.

Histamine most definitely has a purpose. Its part of our immunological response, mostly dealing with inflammation, tissue damage etc. Also a neurotransmitter.

The thing is, our immune system, along with histamine, does a good deal of damage to our body while trying to save it. Inflammation is a necessary evil if we have an infection. But if we DONT have an infection, and some innocuous substance can set this stuff off, it's generally a bad thing.

The antihistamines don't remove the histamine, it just blocks the receptors. Newer ones stay entirely out of the brain.

You see, our natural body wasn't designed for this world. We never had so much food we were obese, or had antibiotics, or any medical treatment etc. Theyre often of a one size fits all, easy to make, easy to regulate, mindless type. Fever, inflammation etc. Things are different nowadays. Natural defenses are great in a natural world, since it's all you've got. But we didnt live so long in the natural world either.

We still need our immune system and all, but with antibiotics, its even better. We have brains, we need to use them.

Genetically speaking, if we lose an ability, it's because we don't need it anymore. Our niche has changed, or something better has come along. It's dead weight. As long as it remains useful, itll stick around. I can't say I wish I had a tail.

 

[Jamie571]

I grew up playing outside all the time and I mean all the time. I had a dog that slept at the foot of my bed. I help my mother in her vegetable garden all the time. I hunted and fished every chance I got with my father.

I started to have systems of allergies about the age of 14. By the age of 17 I developed asthma, and by the age of 23 is was terrible. I always had cold symptoms, sinus infections, and asthma problems. I was on 3 different asthma medicines and 4 allergy medicines. When I got a real job after college with good insurance I saw a specialist and started taking allergy shots. I was taking 8 shots a week. They said I was severely allergic to dogs, grasses, molds, most pollens and dust mites. Five years later I'm taking no medications, never experience asthma problems, and hardly ever get a cold. I still go in and get 4 shots 1 day a month for a maintenance dose.

I was told as humans become more populated our immune systems have to keep up with all the viruses out to get us, hence they became over reactive. They said my immune system, because of my childhood, was so advance it attacked anything that resembled a virus (pollen, dander, mold spoors) and caused the cold systems.

What?s interesting is that my daughter had problems at birth with ear infections, asthma, and running nose. We started her on allergy shots at the age of 4 and she is doing as well as me.