Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-29-2017 3:36 AM
118 online now:
PaulK, Pressie, Tangle (3 members, 115 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,179 Year: 13,785/21,208 Month: 3,267/3,605 Week: 53/556 Day: 4/49 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   Can we accelerate evolution?
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2856
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 16 of 77 (578692)
09-02-2010 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by nwr
09-01-2010 7:01 PM


nwr writes:

I hope not. Eugenics has been tried in the past, and is generally believed to be a bad idea.


Well, Eugenics as practiced in the past is a bad idea. But is it really that wrong to select pre birth that your offspring is more intelligent? Or more resistant to disease, or stronger. Or even changing rhis in yourself, so that your offspring will inherit it?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by nwr, posted 09-01-2010 7:01 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Omnivorous, posted 09-02-2010 10:46 AM Huntard has not yet responded
 Message 18 by nwr, posted 09-02-2010 10:47 AM Huntard has responded

    
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 382 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 17 of 77 (578696)
09-02-2010 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Huntard
09-02-2010 10:40 AM


My understanding of past eugenic movements centers around the notion of preventing "undesirables" from breeding--often, of course, these were racial or ethnic minorities.

As long as the individual remains in charge--choosing to modify their offspring or not, choosing with whom they will mate--it seems a bit unfair to characterize it as eugenics. Deciding which fertilized eggs to bring to birth seems more like a high-powered sexual selection process.


Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Huntard, posted 09-02-2010 10:40 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5524
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 18 of 77 (578697)
09-02-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Huntard
09-02-2010 10:40 AM


Huntard writes:
But is it really that wrong to select pre birth that your offspring is more intelligent? Or more resistant to disease, or stronger. Or even changing rhis in yourself, so that your offspring will inherit it?

It is not so much wrong, as it is dangerous.

If this happens on a small scale, then it is probably no big deal. If this happens on a large scale, then we would in essence be replacing evolution in practice, with intelligent design in practice, and appointing ourselves as the intelligent designers. The most likely outcome will be an earlier extinction of the species than would have happened without such intervention.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Huntard, posted 09-02-2010 10:40 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Huntard, posted 09-02-2010 10:50 AM nwr has responded

  
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2856
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 19 of 77 (578698)
09-02-2010 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by nwr
09-02-2010 10:47 AM


nwr writes:

The most likely outcome will be an earlier extinction of the species than would have happened without such intervention.


What makes you think that?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nwr, posted 09-02-2010 10:47 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 11:33 AM Huntard has not yet responded
 Message 21 by nwr, posted 09-02-2010 12:07 PM Huntard has responded
 Message 73 by Tanus, posted 08-25-2011 2:19 AM Huntard has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 77 (578706)
09-02-2010 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Huntard
09-02-2010 10:50 AM


Intelligent design is less robust and adaptable than evolution by mutation and natural selection.

That said, I'd like to start accelerated human evolution by upregulating PEPCK-C. If you're curious what this does to a mammal, you should watch this video (and turn the volume down so you don't have to hear Creed):

These mice eat 60% more than the average mouse, but never get fat, are fucking ripped, have triple the equivalent endurance of an Olympic athlete, live up to five times as long, stay fertile throughout their lifespan, and don't suffer any of the traditional effects of a high-fat, high-cholesterol diet.

Why don't we have this mutation already? Likely, because of the 60% larger diet thing; human evolution has been a process driven primarily by starvation, it seems.

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Huntard, posted 09-02-2010 10:50 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Omnivorous, posted 09-02-2010 1:46 PM crashfrog has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5524
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 21 of 77 (578712)
09-02-2010 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Huntard
09-02-2010 10:50 AM


Huntard writes:
What makes you think that?

It is likely that such large scale intervention will reduce the amount of variation in the gene pool, and that reduces the probability that there will be gene combinations available that can adequately resist the next major scourge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Huntard, posted 09-02-2010 10:50 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Omnivorous, posted 09-02-2010 1:49 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 09-02-2010 3:03 PM nwr has responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 382 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 22 of 77 (578750)
09-02-2010 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by crashfrog
09-02-2010 11:33 AM


Here I come to save the day!
That means that Mighty Mouse
Is on his way!

Please keep those mighty mice securely in the lab.

My cats live in a peaceable kingdom, and they'd probably tuck their tails between bluegene's legs and run.

I read recently that GM rapeseed (source of canola oil, modified to be "Round Up Ready") has escaped its purported distance barriers and is outcompeting the wild variety except where it has shared its genes.

The mighty mouse did seem a bit obsessive; maybe the wild mouse just had enough sense to drop out of the rat race.


Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 11:33 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 3:22 PM Omnivorous has responded

    
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 382 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 23 of 77 (578751)
09-02-2010 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by nwr
09-02-2010 12:07 PM


Genetic preserves
nwr writes:

It is likely that such large scale intervention will reduce the amount of variation in the gene pool

We could keep the island nations as genetic preserves.

Of course, that would mean the English, Japanese and Australians would have to stay at home.

Oh no.


Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by nwr, posted 09-02-2010 12:07 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

    
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2856
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 24 of 77 (578771)
09-02-2010 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by nwr
09-02-2010 12:07 PM


Well, yes. But since we are "masters of the genome" then anyway, wouldn' t we just adapt the genome to whatever was necessary when that time comes?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by nwr, posted 09-02-2010 12:07 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 09-02-2010 3:06 PM Huntard has not yet responded
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 09-02-2010 3:42 PM Huntard has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28841
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 25 of 77 (578773)
09-02-2010 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Huntard
09-02-2010 3:03 PM


Much like the military? Adapt to fight the last war?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 09-02-2010 3:03 PM Huntard has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 77 (578777)
09-02-2010 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Omnivorous
09-02-2010 1:46 PM


Re: Here I come to save the day!
The mighty mouse did seem a bit obsessive; maybe the wild mouse just had enough sense to drop out of the rat race.

Oh, I forgot to mention, and the video doesn't say - they electrified the floor behind the treadmill, so the mouse has to run to exhaustion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Omnivorous, posted 09-02-2010 1:46 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Omnivorous, posted 09-02-2010 3:34 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 382 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 27 of 77 (578780)
09-02-2010 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
09-02-2010 3:22 PM


Re: Here I come to save the day!
crash writes:

Oh, I forgot to mention, and the video doesn't say - they electrified the floor behind the treadmill, so the mouse has to run to exhaustion.

Whoa.

Never mind the mighty mice. Keep those scientists in the lab...or out of it: I can't decide.

Just kidding all round--that's really impressive work. Now I'm fighting another bout of future envy.


Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 3:22 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5524
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 28 of 77 (578784)
09-02-2010 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Huntard
09-02-2010 3:03 PM


Huntard writes:
Well, yes. But since we are "masters of the genome" then anyway, wouldn' t we just adapt the genome to whatever was necessary when that time comes?

I see that jar has already answered this in Message 25. I agree with his answer.

Over the last few days, Blockbuster Video has been in the news around here. They adapted their movie rental business so that they would be the best ever. But then, as the world changed, along came Netflix to give a better alternative for many people, and Red Box with their automated kiosks, to give a better alternative to others. And Blockbuster is filing for bankruptcy. They tried to adapt to the new competition, but it was too little too late. That's the risk of following the intelligent design way of change. Nature's evolutionary way seems to be more robust.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 09-02-2010 3:03 PM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-02-2010 4:26 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 69 by Trae, posted 05-16-2011 7:05 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1702
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 29 of 77 (578797)
09-02-2010 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by nwr
09-02-2010 3:42 PM


That's the risk of following the intelligent design way of change. Nature's evolutionary way seems to be more robust.

I certainly agree with that but we also are products of nature and risk is inherent to life.

I think the technology will come way faster than we can handle it. This isnt unusual but genetic engineering seems to be on another level.

I see all kinds of pit falls but I also see it as inevitable. Can anyone disagree that we are well under way? Some rich dude is probably already growing himself a new heart somewhere inside somebody else's body.

This video describes children being born with the genes of one father and 2 mothers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLWm0kc4L98&feature=related


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 09-02-2010 3:42 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Ken Fabos
Member (Idle past 1600 days)
Posts: 51
From: Australia
Joined: 05-09-2010


Message 30 of 77 (580182)
09-08-2010 2:58 AM


Given that evolution is the name for change, surely we will deliberately make changes. Initially to eliminate or provide fixes for diseases but also to 'improve' our offspring in various ways. But will such improvements be subject to patents and possibly not able to be passed on without the correct chemical activation code to prevent unauthorised use of proprietry genes? We could end up with all our usual genetics, able to work as normal but if you want those longevity genes to be passed on you'll have to pay your license fee. Even to have them keep on working beyond a limited time. Still, the patenting of Genes is currently under scrutiny; I doubt the patents for existing human genes will survive the legal battles within those limited jurisdictions that actually recognise their validity - being discoveries not inventions - but genuinely new ones could become the proprietry property of medical genetics companies.
Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Nij, posted 09-08-2010 4:01 AM Ken Fabos has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017