Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 11:36 AM
29 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Stile, vimesey, xongsmith (7 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,595 Year: 9,631/19,786 Month: 2,053/2,119 Week: 89/724 Day: 21/68 Hour: 0/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Viagra & Evolution
Huntard
Member (Idle past 466 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 46 of 55 (490722)
12-07-2008 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by subbie
12-07-2008 5:06 PM


Re: A dangerous path....
subbie writes:

Let's have a bit of fun, and see if we can give the cdesign proponentists a little ammunition. (Seems to be the least we can do since they give themselves so little to work with.)

I'm assuming the reason that you don't want them to reproduce is because they reduce the overall fitness of the species and are, on the whole, a drain on resources.

What steps, if any, would you be willing to accept for society to discourage them reproducing? I have my own conclusion to this question, fairly firmly held, that I'll share. But I'm curious to hear what you (or anyone else) has to say on the matter.


I don't want them to reproduce, because the chance their offspring will also be disabled is too large. Yes, they can still be perfectly happy with this, but I don't want ANY human to go through that, I just don't think it is a good life to lead. Perhaps I am now speaking from my own perspective, that of a perfectly healthy human, but I certainly wouldn't want to live like that. Although the argument that they lessen the overall fitness would be on a second place for me.

About the steps I'm a bit in a bind, on one hand, I care very much for personal freedom, on the other, the reasons listed above are a strong pull for me to do something about it. I'm not entirely sure I would advocate sterilization of the disabled, there is still some doubt in me about that.

Edited by Huntard, : Forgot the steps part.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by subbie, posted 12-07-2008 5:06 PM subbie has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19878
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 47 of 55 (490723)
12-07-2008 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by subbie
12-07-2008 5:06 PM


Re: A dangerous path.... proposition
What steps, if any, would you be willing to accept for society to discourage them reproducing?

But a phenotype is not defined by one gene, no matter how much that one gene may affect the development.

The question is whether the whole phenotype must be selected against, or whether there is just one gene or one gene cluster. Taking Down Syndrome as an example:

Down Syndrome FAQs

quote:
What is Down syndrome?
Down syndrome is a chromosomal disorder that includes a combination of birth defects. Affected individuals have some degree of mental retardation, characteristic facial features and, often, heart defects and other health problems. The severity of these problems varies greatly among affected individuals.

How common is Down syndrome?
Down syndrome is one of the most common genetic birth defects, affecting about 1 in 800 babies (1). According to the National Down Syndrome Society, there are approximately 350,000 individuals with Down syndrome in the United States (2).

What causes Down syndrome?
Down syndrome is caused by extra genetic material from chromosome 21. Chromosomes are the structures in cells that contain the genes.

Each person normally has 23 pairs of chromosomes, or 46 in all. An individual inherits one chromosome per pair from the mother's egg and one from the father's sperm. When an egg and sperm cell join together, they normally form a fertilized egg with 46 chromosomes.

Sometimes something goes wrong before fertilization. A developing egg or sperm cell may divide incorrectly, sometimes resulting in an egg or sperm cell with an extra chromosome number 21. When this cell joins with a normal egg or sperm cell, the resulting embryo has 47 chromosomes instead of 46.


All one needs do is restore the normal chromosome in the offspring to allow "normal" reproduction.

Let's have a bit of fun, and see if we can give the cdesign proponentists a little ammunition.

It should also prove instructive for our creationist friends to explain how - if all mutations are loss of information - what is lost when this chromosome is duplicated

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by subbie, posted 12-07-2008 5:06 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3691 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 48 of 55 (490797)
12-08-2008 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Taz
12-07-2008 2:38 PM


Re: Evolution by Personal Selection
First of all, some females with down syndrome CAN reproduce, given that the male counterpart is normal. I can't say I've heard of a case where a down syndrome male has been able to reproduce. Anyway, the offsprings have a very high chance of having down syndrome as well.

First of all, I didn't say that they are sterile. I said they don't reproduce, which is close enought to truth for the discussion here.

Many severe disabilities will also prevent reproduction.

While this is true, the same can be said about severe disabilities that don't prevent reproduction.

Which is why I used the word 'many'. A vague statement desrves a vague response.

It's an inconvienience that primates have apparently been able to overcome.

You didn't answer the question either.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 12-07-2008 2:38 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 61 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 49 of 55 (490798)
12-08-2008 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
12-06-2008 11:18 AM


Re: perhaps it is a natural reaction
Hmm again...

I'm still not entirely convinced, but I do see where you're coming from.

Rather than genetic, they could be developmental changes due to hormones and stress. People talk about stress levels in teens being high, and this is when sexuality matures.

I do agree that whatever is happening, it's happening at a developmental level, either in adults, pubescent teens or in the womb (or maybe all three).

Your points about stress, dominance behaviours and over-crowding are well made, but I still don't see that there is any huge difference in those issues between today and say, the nineteenth century and especially the early twentieth.

The pictures illustrate your point very well, but imagine a Victorian factory or slum, a crowded market place or a mine. All very crowded and extremely stressful.

To my mind, the most tempting hypothesis is pollution, with the drop in fertility starting at about the same time as a boom in novel chemicals and industrial processes. Molybdenum for example, has been implicated in infertility (study here).

Another study plays down the pollutant connection, showing only a small effect.

quote:
To test the hypothesis that environmental contaminant exposure was associated with enhanced risk of infertility, data concerning trends in fertility and infertility rates were examined to assess the impact of exposure of developing gametes to environmental contaminants. The relationship between exposure and reproductive outcomes was then examined to illustrate the range of adverse effects for reproductive toxicants with data sets of divergent depth and reliability. Data showed that only a weak association between exposure to environmental contaminants and adverse effects on human fertility exists. However, it is postulated that evidence of chemical exposure and potential health consequences of these exposures highlight the need for further research in this area.

Source It also mentions that fertility rates have actually been going up recently.

What would be interesting would be to see if there is a correlation between incidence and population density.

It certainly would. A study comparing either anxiety or infertility against urban/rural location would be interesting.I couldn't find one for infertility. It does occur to me though, that areas with higher population density are going to be more polluted, possibly confusing the issue. I found this study that suggests a link between urban living and worse mental health. That would seem to support the anxiety-based explanation.

It would also be interesting to see if there were a correlation between levels of anxiety and infertility over the past few decades.

So to sum up, I'm not really convinced either way. :) Not enough data yet to make a decision, so I'm going to maintain an open mind on this one. It's probably a combination of factors anyway.

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 12-06-2008 11:18 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3691 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 50 of 55 (490801)
12-08-2008 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Huntard
12-07-2008 3:10 PM


Re: Evolution by Personal Selection
That said (and you have my permission to call me heartless), I don't want them to reproduce.

I'm not going to call you Heartless, for I see it in the exact same way.

Eugenics on the rise at EvC


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Huntard, posted 12-07-2008 3:10 PM Huntard has not yet responded

  
pesto
Member (Idle past 3758 days)
Posts: 63
From: Chicago, IL
Joined: 04-05-2006


Message 51 of 55 (490910)
12-09-2008 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Peg
12-04-2008 5:00 AM


Re: And the Prize For Most Bizarre Topic Title Goes Too...
Peg writes:

except that its seen in men as young as their early 20's
1 australian site says that almost 10% of sufferers are in their 20's

One question I haven't seen raised yet. Do we know if this is any higher than the historical average?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Peg, posted 12-04-2008 5:00 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Peg, posted 01-01-2009 8:00 AM pesto has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3100 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 52 of 55 (492533)
01-01-2009 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Rrhain
12-05-2008 1:33 AM


i read recently "Research in the US has show that there is a statistical link between religious belief and procreation. In effect, the more devout a person is, the more children he or she will have."

so think about this... those that do not believe in evolution will have the biggest impact on the evolution of the human race and those who do believe in evolution will gradually become extinct.

how ironic would this be if it turned out to be true LOL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Rrhain, posted 12-05-2008 1:33 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by lyx2no, posted 01-01-2009 8:33 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 55 by anglagard, posted 01-01-2009 8:44 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3100 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 53 of 55 (492534)
01-01-2009 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by pesto
12-09-2008 5:18 PM


Re: And the Prize For Most Bizarre Topic Title Goes Too...
i dont know the answer to that question

but it would be interesting to find out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by pesto, posted 12-09-2008 5:18 PM pesto has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2887 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 54 of 55 (492538)
01-01-2009 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Peg
01-01-2009 7:57 AM


IDIOCRACY: the Movie
Not that I suggest that creationists are qualitative substitutes for the idiots in said movie or that anyone should see this movie for any reason other then pop reference purposes, but you're point has value.


Don't do that Dave.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Peg, posted 01-01-2009 7:57 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 55 of 55 (492540)
01-01-2009 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Peg
01-01-2009 7:57 AM


Peg writes:

i read recently "Research in the US has show that there is a statistical link between religious belief and procreation. In effect, the more devout a person is, the more children he or she will have."

so think about this... those that do not believe in evolution will have the biggest impact on the evolution of the human race and those who do believe in evolution will gradually become extinct.

how ironic would this be if it turned out to be true LOL

According to this site you may want to invest in a prayer rug and a Quran as Islam is the religion of the head of household that has the most children per couple of all in the US.

{ABE}Now what correlation there may be between number of children per couple based upon the religion of the head of household and acceptance of the theory of evolution in that family has yet to be shown or even to this point discussed.

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Peg, posted 01-01-2009 7:57 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019