Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Now the problem your theory has here is that those things are mostly not caused by genes. "wiping them out genetically" (which could also mean sterelizing them) wouldn't improve the gene-pool, it might actually make it worse, since those kids could have a positive mutation. Also, as a species, our evolution found it favourable to care for those with medical problems because they would still play a positive role for the species as a whole. Even if they don't have any kids themselves, they can help with raising the rest of the tribe. That's also one of the evolutionary explenations for homosexuality.derkvanl said:I'll give you some examplesGunboat Diplomat said:Firstly, how many genes have 0% survivability? Perhaps some birth defects do but not the stuff we inoculate ourselves from... and this only matters if these were the result of actual genetic traits rather than, for example, environmental factors...
- There seem to be a lot of open heart surgery on very young kids that won't be able to grow up to adulthood without it.
- If a newborn kid has kidney failure, it gets treated his whole life and put on a transplant list.
- Kids with leukemia get radiated and treated all their life (this goes for every cancer)
Which are genetic diseases, granted.- If a kid is diagnosed with diabetes (type I), it get's saved by insuline, treated his whole life.
- hemophilia B
Giliell has answered your post rather well so I will simply address this point.derkvanl said:Gunboat Diplomat said:Ants need a colony but that's okay 'cause they always stick together and can build such a structure... and impressively so. They're one of the most hardy animals on Earth!
When is the first ant-bone transplant? I allways wondered where background radiation came from, must be from their cancer-treatments? Did you ever find a hospital in an antcolony? Ants kill what doesn't benefit the colony.
Giliell said:Now the problem your theory has here is that those things are mostly not caused by genes. "wiping them out genetically" (which could also mean sterelizing them) wouldn't improve the gene-pool, it might actually make it worse, since those kids could have a positive mutation. Also, as a species, our evolution found it favourable to care for those with medical problems because they would still play a positive role for the species as a whole. Even if they don't have any kids themselves, they can help with raising the rest of the tribe. That's also one of the evolutionary explenations for homosexuality.
Giliell said:Now the problem your theory has here is that those things are mostly not caused by genes.
I'm not sure if there's a bridge of understanding here. It kind of looks like you said that it may not be genetic but they are genetic because "what else can it be?"Doc. said:i don't know, maybe it's not a definite gene abnormality that causes them but vulnerability towards diseases are caused by the DNA, what else can it be. DNA is not just bunch of isolated genes, it's a system of genes which interact with each-other in a most complex way.
There has to be a gene that can be selected for if we're talking about biological evolution by natural selection. If you got a birth defect from a smoking or drinking mother, say, then this isn't genetic and can't be passed on unless maybe susceptibility to smoking or drinking is genetic... but then you'd have to establish this. That too can be environmental (in this case, social)...
I can see what you mean by this, a greater gene-pool should mean a better chance of survival when things change.Giliell said:Now the problem your theory has here is that those things are mostly not caused by genes. "wiping them out genetically" (which could also mean sterelizing them) wouldn't improve the gene-pool, it might actually make it worse, since those kids could have a positive mutation.
This is the point what I think should be discussed. 1st term thinking is treatment, or using something artificial, without thinking of longterm consequences. Even going as far as changing our own evolved genes, or depending on IVF to get a healthy kid.Giliell said:Which are genetic diseases, granted.
But as we're advancing, there might also be a genetic treatment.
Or those people abstain from passing on their genes because they don't want their kids to face their fate.
And example of this is Chorea Huntington. In evolutionary terms it's a non-issue, because it only has effects when the reproductive cycle is usually over, but it's a terrible fate for the individual. With modern genetic testing the kids of a Huntington patient can find out whether they have it, too and decide not to have kids or to have healthy kids via IVF.
Sorry man, you really didn't understand this article. This article was saying that the extent of damage caused by alcohol and smoking while pregnant can differ based on genetics, but that does NOT mean the disorders that were caused by the smoking and drinking will be passed on - such a person could still have a healthy baby as long as those babies are not exposed to smoking and alcohol as a fetus. The likelihood of smoking and drinking affecting the germline cells is very small, no matter how many of these theorized genetic factors that can result in an increase in the likelihood of birth defects when exposed to alcohol are present.Doc. said:Smoking and drinking can cause genetic disorders which means that they will be passed on the next generation, but it also may be none-genetic, for example if smoking or drinking mother can't supply child with enough nutrients, plus alcohol penetrates the placenta, and the enzyme-alcohol dehydrogenase is not present in fetus, in which case child will have abnormalities but his genes will be normal, it depends and what stage of embryo development alcohol will affect it.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=99614
[edited]
We've never wielded this level of power before. It's kind of like saying "well we naturally pollute and kill things, and we wouldn't have developed the instincts to do so if it wasn't some form of evolutionary advantage, therefore there should be no restrictions on any hunting or polluting"... Yes, hunting in the past had some great evolutionary advantages, but we've also never had this ability to hunt before and simply eradicate a species. Yes, caring for the sick in the past had some great evolutionary advantages, but we've also never had this ability to keep people alive and reproducing.Nogre said:This is a very good point. If caring for the sick and handicapped is harmful in terms of survival, we wouldn't have developed the instincts to do so, so they must provide some kind of evolutionary advantage, or at least be neutral. Does this mean that we shouldn't take these things into consideration on an individual level? Not really. But it certainly means that the harm isn't obvious enough that we should create new eugenic public policy.
Ozymandyus said:Sorry man, you really didn't understand this article. This article was saying that the extent of damage caused by alcohol and smoking while pregnant can differ based on genetics, but that does NOT mean the disorders that were caused by the smoking and drinking will be passed on - such a person could still have a healthy baby as long as those babies are not exposed to smoking and alcohol as a fetus. The likelihood of smoking and drinking affecting the germline cells is very small, no matter how many of these theorized genetic factors that can result in an increase in the likelihood of birth defects when exposed to alcohol are present.Doc. said:Smoking and drinking can cause genetic disorders which means that they will be passed on the next generation, but it also may be none-genetic, for example if smoking or drinking mother can't supply child with enough nutrients, plus alcohol penetrates the placenta, and the enzyme-alcohol dehydrogenase is not present in fetus, in which case child will have abnormalities but his genes will be normal, it depends and what stage of embryo development alcohol will affect it.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=99614
[edited]
Now, they will pass on the likelihood of getting birth defects when their mother drinks during pregnancy, but we have no way of knowing whether that predisposition also carries benefits with it. It's hardly the sort of thing that we should consider a genetic disorder - just don't drink while you are pregnant - problem fixed.
You linked to an article without bothering to ensure that it supported your point? Really?Doc. said:i wasn't relying on that article either way, frankly, i hardly read it.
Gunboat Diplomat said:You linked to an article without bothering to ensure that it supported your point? Really?Doc. said:i wasn't relying on that article either way, frankly, i hardly read it.
Doc. said:so, drinking and also smoking causes changes in gene expression, that's why i basically called it genetic disorder. I've heard an opinion that it may be passed, but I admit I'm not sure, however it's estimated that about half of these children who suffered start drinking themselves when they grow up.
went off the topic, sorry.
irmerk said:I tend to think of it as being bad in respect to natural selection, yet good for us. Who is to say natural selection is the end-all, be-all? It's just another stage of progression (Not to imply there is an objective progress, but I suck with vocabulary). Some life form comes along and adds complexity and mixes it up. There doesn't seem to me to be a reason to stay along the lines of natural selection.
Unless I'm wrong?