+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 41

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,753

    Anti Mutation Gene?

    Grrr, I must tidy up my bookmarks and folder them, anyway, I had once read that in our genetic coding, there is a gene to ensure that we do not mutate, I do not mean that we cannot be born with a disability, I mean mutate from one species to another.

    If that were so, what would it mean to science, worldwide?

    Another question.

    If we evolved, is this it, have we reached the optimum level of our physical evolution, or, logically, is it an on going process?

    I am sure that in the last decade or so, the average height of a man in the UK has gone up, and women, therefore, would that be evidence of 'evolution', or not?


    Steve
    "Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
    orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
    through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
    new technologies.
    There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
    it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    553

    Re: Anti Mutation Gene?

    If true to me its divine proof the Creator wanted to kill any use of adaptation to extend to the Theory of Evolution. We should see if other animals and plants have this gene.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,753

    Re: Anti Mutation Gene?

    Quote Originally Posted by rubyslippers
    If true to me its divine proof the Creator wanted to kill any use of adaptation to extend to the Theory of Evolution. We should see if other animals and plants have this gene.
    From what I remember reading, all animals had this gene.

    However, don't go teaching that to anyone quite yet, as I cannot verify it.

    :p
    "Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
    orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
    through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
    new technologies.
    There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
    it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    553

    Re: Anti Mutation Gene?

    So if true and all animals have this gene, I take it microorganisms may not like the influenza virus that would kind of throw a wrench into Evolution. If a species cannot mutate and this can be proven the Darwin would be wrong and science, yes science your sides finest weapon would find this smoking gun. That is remarkable.

    Unless you say this gene magically appears in thousands of different animals by happenstance at all levels from the Tapworm to Humans I don't think any scientist would say that is likely.

    I have to look into this more.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,753

    Re: Anti Mutation Gene?

    I just wish I could find the article!

    I'm looking.
    "Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
    orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
    through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
    new technologies.
    There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
    it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.

  6. #6
    Lord_jag's Avatar
    Lord_jag is offline I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong. User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,796

    Re: Anti Mutation Gene?

    Quote Originally Posted by enlightenment
    Grrr, I must tidy up my bookmarks and folder them, anyway, I had once read that in our genetic coding, there is a gene to ensure that we do not mutate, I do not mean that we cannot be born with a disability, I mean mutate from one species to another.

    If that were so, what would it mean to science, worldwide?

    Another question.

    If we evolved, is this it, have we reached the optimum level of our physical evolution, or, logically, is it an on going process?

    I am sure that in the last decade or so, the average height of a man in the UK has gone up, and women, therefore, would that be evidence of 'evolution', or not?


    Steve
    Well every gene is there to ensure we do not mutate. You can only work with the building blocks you have. If you have all the parts to a Chevy Sprint, you cannot build a Lamborgini Diablo. You just don't have the right pieces.

    Mutations don't happen like - all of a sudden you are born with a lion head and a ducks feet. They happen very slowly from one generation to the next with minute changes.

    One mutation that is going on as we speak is the creation/destruction of wisdom teeth. A very small number of people are born without them. Some people can have them without them being a problem. Most people have to have them removed or they would cause serious health problems and restrict their number of child-bearing years. In a world without society, this would have seriously impacted who lives with this trait and who dies, and the distribution of childred born to families with this trait and without.

    Today we can use medical science to impede the progress of natural selection by keeping the people that are not "the fitest" to survive. Fit meaning that they are a fit to the environment and not in physical shape.

    People getting taller in England is more likely due to them ingesting growth hormone remnants from farmed animals. Farmers use growth hormones on chicken an beef to enhance yeild. They are supposed to stop with enough time to allow the hormones to filter out of the food to a pre-set maximum amount which is greater than 0.

    A more balanced and constant diet during growth spurts probably helped too. It is unlikely that this is a change in genetic information, just a reaction to their environment.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,753

    Re: Anti Mutation Gene?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_jag
    Well every gene is there to ensure we do not mutate. You can only work with the building blocks you have. If you have all the parts to a Chevy Sprint, you cannot build a Lamborgini Diablo. You just don't have the right pieces.

    Mutations don't happen like - all of a sudden you are born with a lion head and a ducks feet. They happen very slowly from one generation to the next with minute changes.

    One mutation that is going on as we speak is the creation/destruction of wisdom teeth. A very small number of people are born without them. Some people can have them without them being a problem. Most people have to have them removed or they would cause serious health problems and restrict their number of child-bearing years. In a world without society, this would have seriously impacted who lives with this trait and who dies, and the distribution of childred born to families with this trait and without.

    Today we can use medical science to impede the progress of natural selection by keeping the people that are not "the fitest" to survive. Fit meaning that they are a fit to the environment and not in physical shape.

    People getting taller in England is more likely due to them ingesting growth hormone remnants from farmed animals. Farmers use growth hormones on chicken an beef to enhance yeild. They are supposed to stop with enough time to allow the hormones to filter out of the food to a pre-set maximum amount which is greater than 0.

    A more balanced and constant diet during growth spurts probably helped too. It is unlikely that this is a change in genetic information, just a reaction to their environment.
    Do you think that homo sapien has reached it's optimum level of physical evolution? Speculate for me, humour me, if we do not self destroy, suggest how you think we might look like 5000 years from now.

    Also, since we, and yes, I am putting this crudely, evolved from chimpy, why did some of us mutate to homo sapien, while chimpy remained as chimpy!


    :)
    "Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
    orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
    through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
    new technologies.
    There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
    it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.

  8. #8
    Lord_jag's Avatar
    Lord_jag is offline I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong. User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,796

    Re: Anti Mutation Gene?

    Quote Originally Posted by enlightenment
    Do you think that homo sapien has reached it's optimum level of physical evolution? Speculate for me, humour me, if we do not self destroy, suggest how you think we might look like 5000 years from now.

    Also, since we, and yes, I am putting this crudely, evolved from chimpy, why did some of us mutate to homo sapien, while chimpy remained as chimpy!


    :)
    No. Humans are not done, but natural selection has been pretty much removed from the equation for humans. Now humans will evolve in all directions because only a mutation that a death that we cannot prevent will die off. We force all other mutations to live whether they want to or not. We also heep them fertile so they may pass their mutations on to others, ensuring that all mutations continue to exist and fight for the same resouces.

    What will we look like in 5000 years? Well pretty much like we do now. I think we will be more resistant to certain things like trans fats and such, perhaps more resistant to colds and flu's, but outward physical appearance, I predict, will be almost indistinguishable from someone today. I predict that the population will be a lot dumber because largely uneducated people breeding out of control while those that seem to be educatable seem to understand what world overpopulation means.

    Sure we evolved from something that looked somewhat like a chimp, but the chimp evolved from that creature too. (Too lazy to look up what the ancestor is called) For the creatures that became chimps, the part of the world where they started evolving from (100's of thousands of years ago) had a higher chance of survivability for those that had long arms and agility in trees.

    The same creatures that ventured to other areas found much greater abilities to survive with a larger brain. They started learning how to create tools and weapons (yet another great survival trait that others from that time couldn't figure out) Eventually the smarter these creatures became, the greater their chance of survival became. Then the stone age hit where tool and weapon use became common place. Since then, however, I don't think we have evolved very much. Sure we have new education techniques, but I think people are were smart in the stone age as they are now. They didn't have steel tools or computer aided drafting to help them build new things.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,753

    Re: Anti Mutation Gene?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_jag
    No. Humans are not done, but natural selection has been pretty much removed from the equation for humans. Now humans will evolve in all directions because only a mutation that a death that we cannot prevent will die off. We force all other mutations to live whether they want to or not. We also heep them fertile so they may pass their mutations on to others, ensuring that all mutations continue to exist and fight for the same resouces.

    Interesting answer. And I am understanding you. From YOUR point of view then, is it correct to sustain these mutations, that otherwise would have died off, or become infertile, had it not been for the science of mankind? Or perhaps it is good sometimes, and other times not. Can you give me examples of mutations that we have prevented from dying off?

    What will we look like in 5000 years? Well pretty much like we do now. I think we will be more resistant to certain things like trans fats and such, perhaps more resistant to colds and flu's, but outward physical appearance, I predict, will be almost indistinguishable from someone today. I predict that the population will be a lot dumber because largely uneducated people breeding out of control while those that seem to be educatable seem to understand what world overpopulation means.

    Again, interesting answer. So, outwardly, you think we won't alter much, but mentally, we will go back the way. Are you proposing evolution in reverse..? Phew, a lot dumber than NOW! Glad I won't be around to see that, I can barely cope with the morons that exist today!

    Sure we evolved from something that looked somewhat like a chimp, but the chimp evolved from that creature too. (Too lazy to look up what the ancestor is called) For the creatures that became chimps, the part of the world where they started evolving from (100's of thousands of years ago) had a higher chance of survivability for those that had long arms and agility in trees.

    The same creatures that ventured to other areas found much greater abilities to survive with a larger brain. They started learning how to create tools and weapons (yet another great survival trait that others from that time couldn't figure out) Eventually the smarter these creatures became, the greater their chance of survival became. Then the stone age hit where tool and weapon use became common place. Since then, however, I don't think we have evolved very much. Sure we have new education techniques, but I think people are were smart in the stone age as they are now. They didn't have steel tools or computer aided drafting to help them build new things.
    I would agree with you here, to a point, mate. In terms of our technology and science, we have evolved, in some continents, yet in others we have not. For example, in terms of science and technology, we have progressed here in Europe(I am from the UK), but in Africa, it could be said that people there are living as homo erectus might have done.

    However, even in Europe, despite our advances in science, we have not 'evolved' our emotional intelligence, hence the reason we have a nation, such as the US, who have the science and technology to do great things, or bad things, yet, because they still cling to the myths of god and the supernatural, they are better placed than ever before, to self destroy. Is any of this making sense..?
    "Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
    orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
    through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
    new technologies.
    There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
    it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    228

    Re: Anti Mutation Gene?

    I would agree with you here, to a point, mate. In of our technology and science, we have evolved, in some continents, yet in others we have not. For example, in of science and technology, we have progressed here in Europe(I am from the UK), but in Africa, it could be said that people there are living as homo erectus might have done.
    e'ment, you need to get out more. They have horseless carriages, thundersticks, and all kinds of fancy stuff in Africa. :)

    Don't confuse cultural change with biological evolution. The gene pool in Africa is the most diverse in the world. In other words, Africans have evolved more than anyone else. The developing nations of Africa do not have problems because they are biologically different from Europeans, because all those differences are literally skin deep.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    282

    Re: Anti Mutation Gene?

    I know of a few people that have turned into savage subhuman garbage.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    228

    Re: Anti Mutation Gene?

    Do you think that homo sapien has reached it's optimum level of physical evolution? Speculate for me, humour me, if we do not self destroy, suggest how you think we might look like 5000 years from now.
    There is no such thing as an optimum level of evolution. Evolution is not directed toward optimization, just marginal advantage. For example, the vermiform appendix serves no known purpose and becomes infected so readily that appendectomies are one of the most common surgical procedures. If evolution aimed for perfection, we wouldn't have an appendix.

    What humans will look like 5000 years from now will be determined more by cultural and technological factors, than by natural selection.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    228

    Re: Anti Mutation Gene?

    Quote Originally Posted by 6seven8
    I know of a few people that have turned into savage subhuman garbage.
    That sounds like the Aqua Team Hunger Force.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,753

    Re: Anti Mutation Gene?

    Quote Originally Posted by Parcival
    What humans will look like 5000 years from now will be determined more by cultural and technological factors, than by natural selection.
    I would concur with that.

    Project for me then.

    Following the present cultural and technological factors, how do you think humans may look, 5000 years from now.

    There is no wrong answer.

    Only your answer.


    Steve
    "Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
    orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
    through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
    new technologies.
    There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
    it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.

  15. #15
    Lord_jag's Avatar
    Lord_jag is offline I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong. User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,796

    Re: Anti Mutation Gene?

    Quote Originally Posted by enlightenment
    Interesting answer. And I am understanding you. From YOUR point of view then, is it correct to sustain these mutations, that otherwise would have died off, or become infertile, had it not been for the science of mankind? Or perhaps it is good sometimes, and other times not. Can you give me examples of mutations that we have prevented from dying off?
    I am unfortunate to have a most unpopular view. I do not believe we should force people with useless or deadly genetic mutations to live. I hate when people ask for examples as it means I have to go out and do research, and I'm not a doctor of health anomolies. I do, however know someone who had Spina Bifida.

    http://www.webmd.com/hw/raising_a_family/hw169958.asp

    Doctors that I talked to said it was definately genetic. Doctors can stitch the spinal cord back into the infants back and allow them to live. Any kids they have will have a good chance of developing the condition themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by enlightenment
    Again, interesting answer. So, outwardly, you think we won't alter much, but mentally, we will go back the way. Are you proposing evolution in reverse..? Phew, a lot dumber than NOW! Glad I won't be around to see that, I can barely cope with the morons that exist today!
    Evolution does not have a forward or reverse. It is not directed. It just is. It simply reacts to the situation it is presented with.

    If something in the environment, say a disease, killed everyone with, say, blonde hair. Actually, lets make it more complex. It killes 1/2 of everyone with blonde hair. If you are born with blonde hair you have a 1/2 chance of living to the childbearing age. In general, the nubmer of blondes will decrease. Blondes will have fewer blondes to breed with, so the blondes will die off. In this case, the blondes are "less fit" to survive the environment so they die off.

    Evolutionary forces are not sentiant and they don't care about what makes some more likely to survive, but the ones that breed the most are the ones that become dominant players in the genetic pool.

    Back to my theory, since less educated people (due to intellegence or availability of education) are breeding without limits, and the people with good educations (must be intellegent AND educated with free will) realise the effects of overpopulations and are not breeding wildly, I think we are adding a lot more copies of lesser intelegent DNA sequences into the mix than more intelegent DNA sequences.

    Carefully now, I am not saying that uneducated people are not intellegent, but you do need intellegence to become educated. They are not mutually exlusive.

    Quote Originally Posted by enlightenment
    I would agree with you here, to a point, mate. In terms of our technology and science, we have evolved, in some continents, yet in others we have not. For example, in terms of science and technology, we have progressed here in Europe(I am from the UK), but in Africa, it could be said that people there are living as homo erectus might have done.
    Only in the sense that they must fend for themselves more. They may not have ready access to the finest medical operations. Someone with spina Bifida in africa may not receive the operation to fix them and most certainately die. I think Natural Selection may play a much larger roll in that area. I also think this is a better way to say what I think you are saying.
    Quote Originally Posted by enlightenment

    However, even in Europe, despite our advances in science, we have not 'evolved' our emotional intelligence, hence the reason we have a nation, such as the US, who have the science and technology to do great things, or bad things, yet, because they still cling to the myths of god and the supernatural, they are better placed than ever before, to self destroy. Is any of this making sense..?
    Emotional intelligence does not really play into natural evolution. It may play a role in human evolution, especially when you look at how we(humans) often discrimate against people that are different to the point that we will kill those that are different.

    Once again, evolution doesn't care why one trait does not survive, it just allows those that do to dominate the genetic pool.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,753

    Re: Anti Mutation Gene?

    LJ, once more an interesting post, and I do not see your opening post at all having an 'unfortunate view', as I agree with it, in the main.

    Theists would keep people 'alive' who had been in a coma for two decades.

    Yet, they are not really alive.

    For without their senses, and conciousness, they are dead.

    I am assuming that you would support euthensia for those that have no quality of life, such as that person in a coma that I described?

    But watch out now, as a theist mentalist will come on and tell us how they shoudl be kept alive, for some twisted reason, or another.

    Watch this space.....
    "Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
    orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
    through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
    new technologies.
    There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
    it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-10-2013, 05:29 AM
  2. More Different Nigerian Scam (Mutation)
    By bugmenot3 in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 12-11-2011, 09:59 AM
  3. Right-Wing GOP Nazi Vermin Linked To Gene Mutation
    By dchristie in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-30-2010, 06:48 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-22-2007, 09:17 PM
  5. The 'Believe' Gene..?
    By enlightenment in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-12-2007, 11:01 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •