First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Evolution gone wrong?
2742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / California
Offline
Posted 7/17/08 , edited 7/17/08
Lol so you think evolution went wrong because human beings go suicide and stuff.. WRONG It's survival of the fitess.. If your weak, and you can't take in anymore, It's either you kill yourself or let others kill you but if your strong, you can stand up, live life, face your problems and then after all of those you'll live a happy life.. takes time and patience

Human Beings are smart... That's why they can think and do stupid things..
1696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Brisbane, Australia
Offline
Posted 6/10/09 , edited 6/10/09
Evolution can never go wrong
because it only has one force driving it
survival to have children

It will only go wrong when noone in the world wants to have children, not even one

or when noone in the world survives to have children, again, not even one






















Posted 6/10/09
maybe things will get better for you OP (if you still pay attention to this thread still) =T
21493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / None Of Ur Biz
Offline
Posted 6/10/09
I think your reasoning is totally wrong and your asking the wrong question.
Its not that humans are to smart its that we are not smart enough.
The questions you ask your self that you can't answer proves it.

The Questions you ask your self, can all be answered if you learned the reasons. We know why the sky it blue and why grass isn't red. Why people want you to go to school, its simple so you can learn and help the world evolve.

There is nothing you can't learn or do, but most give up before finding the truth.


and if your life is boring change it and make it to something that isn't boring.

Simple
Posted 6/10/09 , edited 6/10/09
um...............if u think evoulution went wrong but like de way u live your life then don't care about it just enjoy ur life tha's wat i say
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/10/09
hmmm... where did evolution go wrong? A better question might be where has evolution gotten it right. The only consensus in the evolutionary community is "that is simply happened." As to how it happened and all the other little details there is no consensus. Evolution is a mess and is scientifically flawed and incorrect. They need to stop parading it as fact and remove their naturalistic bias behind everything :\ science can be so ignorant at times.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 6/10/09

digs wrote:

hmmm... where did evolution go wrong? A better question might be where has evolution gotten it right.

It has helped countless people throughout history make a better living by producing plants and animals who can produce more goods more efficiently in less time, i.e fatter pigs, cows who produce more milk, crops that grow faster and fuller, etc. It has helped the agriculture industry become as successful as it is (to the point where farmers have been paid to not grow crops) so that certain countries can afford to be gluttonous and prosperous while ignoring the millions of other people in the world who are suffering, and who would be a lot better off if people in those certain countries would sacrifice a little. Evolution, in a way, is what has allowed capitalism to be as (un)sucessful as it has been, and, I may be mistaken, but I thought you supported capitalism, so evolution is somewhat beneficial from your point of view.


The only consensus in the evolutionary community is "that is simply happened." As to how it happened and all the other little details there is no consensus.Evolution is a mess and is scientifically flawed and incorrect.

It's amazing how you know so much about the "evolutionary community" without knowing so much about evolution itself. Of course it is flawed, it is still a developing theory (almost everything in science is) and there is plenty of research being done to make it as complete as possible, or even remove it completely if a better theory arises. Science is a pursuit of knowledge, and during that pursuit previous knowledge is erased or changed. It is not and does not claim to be absolute, unquestionable dogma like religion, so it's not going to be as perfect and simple as "it happened in 7 days, don't ask why or how or when, just accept it" like religion is.


They need to stop parading it as fact and remove their naturalistic bias behind everything :\ science can be so ignorant at times.


Because the only thing that is 100% true in this world, the only thing that has any and all practical information in it, the only thing that has helped us have all of the technology that has improved our lives, the only thing that has produced the wide variety of philosophies, cultures, life-styles, and world views that make the human race interesting and special and worth caring about, is a single book written thousands of years ago by people who didn't know how babies were formed, or what the sun was made of, or that people of different skin tones were just as human as they are, right?

I don't really care for jumping on other people's beliefs, or these pointless science vs. religion circular arguements, but it seems like you're beating down evolution in a thread that's not even about evolution without understanding what it is and what it is meant for. It's not meant to be an unquestionable truth, which is what you are treating it as by viewing it as something that conflicts with your world-view and needs to be disproven. It is simply a possible explanation as to how all living things came to be. Of course scientists are going to have a naturalistic bias because the whole point of science is to understand our world from a naturalistic point of view. Telling scientists to not have a naturalistic bias is like telling a priest to not rely on the Bible so much while he's preaching. His whole profession revolves around spreading the words in the Bible, just as a scientist's profession revolves around understanding the world from a naturalistic point of view.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/11/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


digs wrote:

hmmm... where did evolution go wrong? A better question might be where has evolution gotten it right.

It has helped countless people throughout history make a better living by producing plants and animals who can produce more goods more efficiently in less time, i.e fatter pigs, cows who produce more milk, crops that grow faster and fuller, etc. It has helped the agriculture industry become as successful as it is (to the point where farmers have been paid to not grow crops) so that certain countries can afford to be gluttonous and prosperous while ignoring the millions of other people in the world who are suffering, and who would be a lot better off if people in those certain countries would sacrifice a little. Evolution, in a way, is what has allowed capitalism to be as (un)sucessful as it has been, and, I may be mistaken, but I thought you supported capitalism, so evolution is somewhat beneficial from your point of view.


The only consensus in the evolutionary community is "that is simply happened." As to how it happened and all the other little details there is no consensus.Evolution is a mess and is scientifically flawed and incorrect.

It's amazing how you know so much about the "evolutionary community" without knowing so much about evolution itself. Of course it is flawed, it is still a developing theory (almost everything in science is) and there is plenty of research being done to make it as complete as possible, or even remove it completely if a better theory arises. Science is a pursuit of knowledge, and during that pursuit previous knowledge is erased or changed. It is not and does not claim to be absolute, unquestionable dogma like religion, so it's not going to be as perfect and simple as "it happened in 7 days, don't ask why or how or when, just accept it" like religion is.


They need to stop parading it as fact and remove their naturalistic bias behind everything :\ science can be so ignorant at times.


Because the only thing that is 100% true in this world, the only thing that has any and all practical information in it, the only thing that has helped us have all of the technology that has improved our lives, the only thing that has produced the wide variety of philosophies, cultures, life-styles, and world views that make the human race interesting and special and worth caring about, is a single book written thousands of years ago by people who didn't know how babies were formed, or what the sun was made of, or that people of different skin tones were just as human as they are, right?

I don't really care for jumping on other people's beliefs, or these pointless science vs. religion circular arguements, but it seems like you're beating down evolution in a thread that's not even about evolution without understanding what it is and what it is meant for. It's not meant to be an unquestionable truth, which is what you are treating it as by viewing it as something that conflicts with your world-view and needs to be disproven. It is simply a possible explanation as to how all living things came to be. Of course scientists are going to have a naturalistic bias because the whole point of science is to understand our world from a naturalistic point of view. Telling scientists to not have a naturalistic bias is like telling a priest to not rely on the Bible so much while he's preaching. His whole profession revolves around spreading the words in the Bible, just as a scientist's profession revolves around understanding the world from a naturalistic point of view.


Evolution didn't help people grow better plants, studying genetics and breeding accordingly did that. They didn't evolve new plants, they just bred plants with the genetics that they wanted. It hasn't helped, in fact some may argue it contributed to the deaths of millions through Hitler pushing the evolutionary superior aryan race. It has also damaged the world by trying to explain away the existence for a creator. I'm not talking about evolution in the sense of change over time, I am talking about the biological theory that is pushed as truth.

And I beat down on evolution because it never goes unchallenged. Anyone who challenges it is branded "unscientific" or an "ignorant theist." It's very sad that the scientific community pushes the theory as fact and bickers about it within their group. I'm tired of scientific bias because of naturalistic "explanations." There is very little consensus in the evolutionary community, they just accept that evolution happened or we wouldn't be here. I don't mean to act angry or attack like a troll, but there is very little education on the holes and the facts that make the evolutionary model impossible. Its just hits me personally because the vast majority in the evolutionary community won't discuss things that are problematic to them, and they won't accept the facts. The attack the scientists instead of the science, it's time for evolution to be challenged and proven false in a respectful scientific way.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 6/11/09

digs wrote:

Evolution didn't help people grow better plants, studying genetics and breeding accordingly did that. They didn't evolve new plants, they just bred plants with the genetics that they wanted.

Selecting certain genes to be passed on while trying to eliminate others is evolution, since that changes the genome of a population. Organisms can evolve without becoming entirely new species, speciation=/= evolution.


It hasn't helped, in fact some may argue it contributed to the deaths of millions through Hitler pushing the evolutionary superior aryan race.

I could say the same for religion, countless people have died in the name of various gods. But that doesn't mean that religion is only harmful, just as the concept of evolution isn't harmful.


It has also damaged the world by trying to explain away the existence for a creator.

So it has "damaged" the world by influencing a lot of people to not agree with your world-view? Many things have done that, why single out evolution?


I'm not talking about evolution in the sense of change over time, I am talking about the biological theory that is pushed as truth.

What's the difference between the two? It is pushed as fact because as of now it is the best natural explanation that we have to explain how all life came to be. When a theory with more or better evidence arises, then science will adopt that theory.


And I beat down on evolution because it never goes unchallenged. Anyone who challenges it is branded "unscientific" or an "ignorant theist."

No offense, but those are usually the kind of people who do challenge it (not saying that you are just an ignorant theist, but your stances do tend to be unscientific, or at least not purely scientific). I'm not saying that it shouldn't be questioned, everything should be, but a lot of people tend to dismiss without trying to understand it, which is why it seems like a threat. They usually just see evolution as something that conflicts with their world view because they are so biased towards their religion (just as scientists are biased toward naturalism) that they only see it as an atheist belief system that is trying to destroy their religion, instead of seeing it for what it really is.


It's very sad that the scientific community pushes the theory as fact and bickers about it within their group.

It is pushed as fact because it is the best explanation that they have for now, and it is debated because there are holes that need to be filled in the exact details, but that doesn't mean that the overall concept is wrong.



I'm tired of scientific bias because of naturalistic "explanations." There is very little consensus in the evolutionary community, they just accept that evolution happened or we wouldn't be here.


I could say the same about religion. In fact, I'll borrow your words and insert some of my own:

"I'm tired of religious bias because of supernatural 'explanations.' There is very little consensus in the religious community, they just accept that a divine being created us or we wouldn't be here."

Now that doesn't make much sense, right? It's because religion is supposed to explain how our world works from a metaphysical point of view, just as science is supposed to explain our world from a naturalistic point of view. If it didn't then many civilizations wouldn't be as advanced as they are today, and would still be relying only on prayer and superstition to solve all of our problems. And if religion didn't provide a simple, supernatural explanation as to how we came to be, then the average joe who can't understand what an atom is would be forever tormented by the fact that he doesn't have an answer as to how or why he exists.

They are both simply points of view, and one is not necessarily more "true" than the other. There is no need and no way to prove that the glass is half full by disproving that it is half empty, people will always see it differently no matter how much "proof" you throw at them. If you don't agree with it then that's fine, but there's no reason to affirm your own beliefs by trying to discredit others, unless you are really insecure.


I don't mean to act angry or attack like a troll, but there is very little education on the holes and the facts that make the evolutionary model impossible.

So the fact that we've seen it happen with our own eyes, the fact that you could do a simple experiment to see it happen for yourself, makes it impossible? There is plenty of evidence that it is happening now, which is evidence that it has been happening for a while. At the very least, there is just as much evidence to support it as there is against it, so it's not totally impossible.


Its just hits me personally because the vast majority in the evolutionary community won't discuss things that are problematic to them, and they won't accept the facts. The attack the scientists instead of the science, it's time for evolution to be challenged and proven false in a respectful scientific way.


Well I don't know much about the "evolutionary community," but what good will proving it false do for anyone, besides give theists the false notion that their beliefs must be right because evolution is wrong? If it is proven wrong, another scientist will find another naturalistic explanation as to how life as we know it came to be, and theists won't agree with that and try to disprove that also. And if that doesn't happen, people will start trying to prove other holy texts wrong in order to prove that theirs is right, and obviously that won't make any progress.

I don't mean to preach, but it seems like a lot of your frustration with evolution and science in general is coming from your desire to externalize your beliefs and project them onto everyone in order to affirm them, instead of internalizing them and having confidence that your beliefs are what's right for you. I mentioned this because it is a sign of weak faith, and since you're a devout Christian I figured that it might be an issue that you'd want to address, but may not have realized. It is also a trait of rabid anti-theists, they're always trying to affirm their beliefs by trying to disprove everyone else's, which is something that I wouldn't expect to see in a devout religious person.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 6/11/09

digs wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:


digs wrote:

hmmm... where did evolution go wrong? A better question might be where has evolution gotten it right.

It has helped countless people throughout history make a better living by producing plants and animals who can produce more goods more efficiently in less time, i.e fatter pigs, cows who produce more milk, crops that grow faster and fuller, etc. It has helped the agriculture industry become as successful as it is (to the point where farmers have been paid to not grow crops) so that certain countries can afford to be gluttonous and prosperous while ignoring the millions of other people in the world who are suffering, and who would be a lot better off if people in those certain countries would sacrifice a little. Evolution, in a way, is what has allowed capitalism to be as (un)sucessful as it has been, and, I may be mistaken, but I thought you supported capitalism, so evolution is somewhat beneficial from your point of view.


The only consensus in the evolutionary community is "that is simply happened." As to how it happened and all the other little details there is no consensus.Evolution is a mess and is scientifically flawed and incorrect.

It's amazing how you know so much about the "evolutionary community" without knowing so much about evolution itself. Of course it is flawed, it is still a developing theory (almost everything in science is) and there is plenty of research being done to make it as complete as possible, or even remove it completely if a better theory arises. Science is a pursuit of knowledge, and during that pursuit previous knowledge is erased or changed. It is not and does not claim to be absolute, unquestionable dogma like religion, so it's not going to be as perfect and simple as "it happened in 7 days, don't ask why or how or when, just accept it" like religion is.


They need to stop parading it as fact and remove their naturalistic bias behind everything :\ science can be so ignorant at times.


Because the only thing that is 100% true in this world, the only thing that has any and all practical information in it, the only thing that has helped us have all of the technology that has improved our lives, the only thing that has produced the wide variety of philosophies, cultures, life-styles, and world views that make the human race interesting and special and worth caring about, is a single book written thousands of years ago by people who didn't know how babies were formed, or what the sun was made of, or that people of different skin tones were just as human as they are, right?

I don't really care for jumping on other people's beliefs, or these pointless science vs. religion circular arguements, but it seems like you're beating down evolution in a thread that's not even about evolution without understanding what it is and what it is meant for. It's not meant to be an unquestionable truth, which is what you are treating it as by viewing it as something that conflicts with your world-view and needs to be disproven. It is simply a possible explanation as to how all living things came to be. Of course scientists are going to have a naturalistic bias because the whole point of science is to understand our world from a naturalistic point of view. Telling scientists to not have a naturalistic bias is like telling a priest to not rely on the Bible so much while he's preaching. His whole profession revolves around spreading the words in the Bible, just as a scientist's profession revolves around understanding the world from a naturalistic point of view.


Evolution didn't help people grow better plants, studying genetics and breeding accordingly did that. They didn't evolve new plants, they just bred plants with the genetics that they wanted. It hasn't helped, in fact some may argue it contributed to the deaths of millions through Hitler pushing the evolutionary superior aryan race. It has also damaged the world by trying to explain away the existence for a creator. I'm not talking about evolution in the sense of change over time, I am talking about the biological theory that is pushed as truth.

And I beat down on evolution because it never goes unchallenged. Anyone who challenges it is branded "unscientific" or an "ignorant theist." It's very sad that the scientific community pushes the theory as fact and bickers about it within their group. I'm tired of scientific bias because of naturalistic "explanations." There is very little consensus in the evolutionary community, they just accept that evolution happened or we wouldn't be here. I don't mean to act angry or attack like a troll, but there is very little education on the holes and the facts that make the evolutionary model impossible. Its just hits me personally because the vast majority in the evolutionary community won't discuss things that are problematic to them, and they won't accept the facts. The attack the scientists instead of the science, it's time for evolution to be challenged and proven false in a respectful scientific way.


Like all biological systems, both disease-causing organisms and their victims evolve. Understanding evolution can make a big difference in how we treat disease. The evolution of disease-causing organisms may outpace our ability to invent new treatments, but studying the evolution of drug resistance can help us slow it. Learning about the evolutionary origins of diseases may provide clues about how to treat them. And considering the basic processes of evolution can help us understand the roots of genetic diseases.

Flu viruses evolve rapidly.
As they circulate through populations around the world and switch hosts, flu viruses change so much that our vaccines are rendered obsolete every year. The flu is a problem for which a solution must be redesigned and rebuilt every year, like a bridge that gets washed away every flood season. Only by understanding the flu as an evolving entity can we understand why our solution to the problem must change every year.

Every day we come into contact with millions of bacteria and viruses. Some are harmful and others are beneficial, while the rest have no apparent effect on our health. When harmful microorganisms enter our bodies, a battle ensues.

Rapid reproduction and natural selection
Because bacteria and viruses reproduce rapidly, they evolve rapidly. These short generation times, some bacteria have a generation time of just 15 minutes, meaning that natural selection acts quickly. In each pathogen generation, new mutations and gene combinations are generated that then pass through the selective filter of our drugs and immune response. Over the course of many pathogen generations (a small fraction of a single human lifetime), they adapt to our defenses, evolving right out from under our attempts to rid ourselves of them.




Antibiotic resistance: delaying the inevitable

Only a few decades ago, antibiotics were considered to be wonder drugs because they worked so well to cure deadly diseases. Ironically, though, many antibiotics have become less effective, precisely because they have worked so well and have been used so often.

Making inroads against infectious disease
The antibiotic era began in 1929 with Alexander Fleming's observation that bacteria would not grow near colonies of the mold Penicillium. In the decades that followed this breakthrough discovery, molecules produced by fungi and bacteria have been successfully used to combat bacterial diseases such as tuberculosis and pneumonia. Antibiotics drastically reduced death rates associated with many infectious diseases.

Infectious diseases strike back
The golden age of antibiotics proved to be a short-lived one. During the past few decades, many strains of bacteria have evolved resistance to antibiotics. An example of this is Neisseria gonorrhoeae, the bacteria that causes gonorrhea, shown at right. In the 1960s penicillin and ampicillin were able to control most cases of gonorrhea. Today, more than 24 percent of gonorrheal bacteria in the U.S. are resistant to at least one antibiotic, and 98 percent of gonorrheal bacteria in Southeast Asia are resistant to penicillin.1 Infectious bacteria are much harder to control than their predecessors were ten or twenty years ago.

Doctors miss the "good old days," when the antibiotics they prescribed consistently cured their patients. However, evolutionary theory suggests some specific tactics to help slow the rate at which bacteria become resistant to our drugs.

Applying our knowledge of evolution
Evolutionary theory predicted that bacterial resistance would happen. Given time, heredity, and variation, any living organisms (including bacteria) will evolve when a selective pressure (like an antibiotic) is introduced. But evolutionary theory also gives doctors and patients some specific strategies for delaying even more widespread evolution of antibiotic resistance. These strategies include:

1.) Don't use antibiotics to treat viral infections.
Antibiotics kill bacteria, not viruses. If you take antibiotics for a viral infection (like a cold or the flu), you will not kill the viruses, but you will introduce a selective pressure on bacteria in your body, inadvertently selecting for antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Basically, you want your bacteria to be "antibiotic virgins," so that if they someday get out of hand and cause an infection that your immune system can't handle, they can be killed by a readily available antibiotic.


2.) Avoid mild doses of antibiotics over long time periods.
If an infection needs to be controlled with antibiotics, a short-term, high-dosage prescription is preferable. This is because you want to kill all of the illness-causing bacteria, leaving no bacterial survivors. Any bacteria that survive a mild dose are likely to be somewhat resistant. Basically, if you are going to introduce a selective pressure (antibiotics), make it so strong that you cause the extinction of the illness-causing bacteria in the host and not their evolution into resistant forms.


3.) When treating a bacterial infection with antibiotics, take all your pills.
Just as mild doses can breed resistance, an incomplete regimen of antibiotics can let bacteria survive and adapt. If you are going to introduce a selective pressure (antibiotics), make it a really strong one and a long enough one to cause the extinction of the illness-causing bacteria and not their evolution.


4.) Use a combination of drugs to treat a bacterial infection.
If one particular drug doesn't help with a bacterial infection, you may be dealing with a resistant strain. Giving a stronger dose of the same antibiotic just increases the strength of the same selective pressure — and may even cause the evolution of a "super-resistant" strain. Instead, you might want to try an entirely different antibiotic that the bacteria have never encountered before. This new and different selective pressure might do a better job of causing their extinction, not their evolution.


5.) Reduce or eliminate the "preventive" use of antibiotics on livestock and crops.
Unnecessary use of antibiotics for agricultural and livestock purposes may lead to the evolution of resistant strains. Later, these strains will not be able to be controlled by antibiotics when it really is necessary. Preventive use of antibiotics on livestock and crops can also introduce antibiotics into the bodies of the humans who eat them.



Ultimately, recognizing bacteria as evolving entities and understanding their evolution should help us to control that evolution, allowing us to prolong the useful lifespan of antibiotics.




HIV: the ultimate evolver

Evolutionary biologists can help uncover clues to new ways to treat or vaccinate against HIV. These clues emerge from the evolutionary origins of the virus, how human populations have evolved under pressure from other deadly pathogens, and how the virus evolves resistance to the drugs we've designed. Controlling the disease may be a matter of controlling the evolution of this constantly adapting virus.

The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV, shown here budding from a white blood cell) is one of the fastest evolving entities known. It reproduces sloppily, accumulating lots of mutations when it copies its genetic material. It also reproduces at a lightning-fast rate — a single virus can spawn billions of copies in just one day. To fight HIV, we must understand its evolution within the human body and then ultimately find a way to control its evolution.

Taking an evolutionary perspective on HIV has led scientists to look in three new directions in their search for treatments and vaccines:


{What are the evolutionary origins of HIV?}
{Why are some people resistant to HIV? }
{How can we control HIV's evolution of resistance to our drugs?}

1. What are the evolutionary origins of HIV?
HIV, like any evolving entity, has been deeply marked by its history. Scientists studying the evolutionary history of HIV found that it is closely related to other viruses. Those viruses include SIVs (simian immunodeficiency viruses), which infect primates, and the more distantly related FIVs (the feline strains), which infect cats.

However, studies of these related viral lineages showed something surprising: primates with SIV and wild cats with FIV don't seem to be harmed by the viruses they carry. If scientists can figure out how non-human primates and wild cats are able to live with these viruses, they may learn how to better treat HIV infections or prevent them altogether.

The diagram shows some of the evolutionary history of HIV as we know it today. An ancestral virus (bottom) evolved into strains that infected chimpanzees (SIV). Over time, new strains began to infect humans (HIV).



2. Why are some people resistant to HIV?
HIV is by no means the first plague that human populations have weathered. Many pathogens have deeply affected our evolutionary history. In fact, the human genome is littered with the remnants of our past battles with pathogens — and one of these remnants, a mutation to a gene called CCR5, may lead researchers to a new treatment for HIV.
The mutant CCR5 allele probably began to spread in northern Europe during the past 700 years when the population was ravaged by a plague. (It may have been bubonic plague or some other pathogen; research on this topic continues.) The mutant CCR5 probably made its bearers resistant to the disease, and so its frequency increased.

In some parts of Europe today, up to 20% of the population carry at least one copy of the protective allele. However, the populations of Asia and Africa were not exposed to the same epidemics; very few Asians and Africans now carry the allele (see map above). Thus, CCR5 is fairly common in northern Europe but its frequency diminishes as one moves south, and the mutation is rare in the rest of the world.

We now know that the mutant CCR5 allele has an unexpected side effect: it confers resistance to HIV. Scientists hope that studying this by-product of past selection will help them develop new treatments for the HIV epidemic ravaging human populations today.


3. How can we control HIV's evolution of resistance to our drugs?
HIV evolves so quickly that it evolves right out from under our treatments. When a patient begins taking an HIV drug, the drug keeps many of the viruses from reproducing, but some survive because they happen to have a certain level of resistance. Because of HIV's speedy evolution, it responds to selection pressures quickly: viruses that happen to survive the drug are favored, and resistant virus strains evolve within the patient, sometimes in just a few weeks. However, basic evolutionary theory points out a way that this evolution of resistant viral strains can be delayed. Patients are prescribed "drug cocktails" — several different HIV drugs taken together.

When taking any single drug, it is fairly likely that some mutant virus in the patient might happen to be resistant, survive the onslaught, and spawn a resistant lineage.

But the probability that the patient hosts a mutant virus that happens to be resistant to several different drugs at the same time is much lower. Although multiple-drug-resistant HIV strains do eventually evolve, drug cocktails delay their evolution.

An evolutionary trade-off
If a patient is already infected with a drug-resistant HIV strain, basic evolutionary theory has also pointed out a way to make the drug useful again. Studies of the evolution of resistance often show that you don't get something for nothing. Specifically, it "costs" a pest or pathogen to be resistant to a pesticide or drug. If you place resistant and non-resistant organisms in head-to-head competition in the absence of the pesticide or drug, the non-resistant organisms generally win.

Consider a patient who takes a particular drug and winds up with viruses resistant to the drug. If the patient stops taking the drug for a while, evolutionary theory predicts that her viral load will evolve back towards a non-resistant strain. If she then takes very strong doses of the drug, it may be able to halt the replication of those non-resistant viruses and reduce her viral load to very low levels.

This therapy has shown early, promising results — it may not eliminate HIV, but it could keep patients' virus loads low for a long time, slowing progression of the disease.

Ultimately, understanding the evolutionary history of HIV and its pattern of evolutionary change may help us control this disease.






Huntington's chorea is a devastating human genetic disease. A close look at its genetic origins and evolutionary history explains its persistence and points to a potential solution to this population-level problem.
People who inherit this genetic disease have an abnormal dominant allele that disrupts the function of their nerve cells, slowly eroding their control over their bodies and minds and ultimately leading to death. In the fishing villages located near Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela, there are more people with Huntington's disease than anywhere else in the world. In some villages, more than half the people may develop the disease.

How is it possible that such a devastating genetic disease is so common in some populations? Shouldn't natural selection remove genetic defects from human populations? Research on the evolutionary genetics of this disease suggests that there are two main reasons for the persistence of Huntington's in human populations: mutation coupled with weak selection.

Mutation
In 1993, a collaborative research group discovered the culprit responsible for Huntington's: a stretch of DNA that repeats itself over and over again, CAGCAGCAGCAG... and so on. People carrying too many CAGs in the Huntington's gene (more than about 35 repeats) develop the disease. In most cases, those affected by Huntington's inherited a disease-causing allele from a parent. Others may have no family history of the disease, but may have new mutations which cause Huntington's.

If a mutation ends up inserting extra CAGs into the Huntington's gene, new Huntington's alleles may be created. Of course it's also possible for a mutation to remove CAGs. But research suggests that for Huntington's, mutation is biased; additions of CAGs are more likely than losses of CAGs.







Selection
As though that weren't bad enough, Huntington's belongs to a class of genetic diseases that largely escape natural selection. Huntington's is often "invisible" to natural selection for a very simple reason: it generally does not affect people until after they've reproduced. In this way, the alleles for late-onset Huntington's may evade natural selection, "sneaking" into the next generation, despite its deleterious effects. Early-onset cases of Huntington's are rare; these are an exception, and are strongly selected against.

Persistence
These mechanisms of evolution, mutation and selection, can help us understand the persistence of Huntington's in populations. In general, Huntington's is rare — 30-70 cases per million people in most Western countries — but it is not entirely eliminated because selection does a relatively poor job of weeding these alleles out, while mutation continues creating new ones.


Dr. Nancy Wexler has been studying the remarkably high frequency of Huntington's in Lake Maracaibo since the 1970s. She has found that the high incidence of this disease there is explained by an evolutionary event called the founder effect. About 200 years ago, a single woman who happened to carry the Huntington's allele bore 10 children — and today, many residents of Lake Maracaibo trace their ancestry (and their disease-causing gene) back to this lineage. A simple fluke of history, high-birth rates, and weak selection are responsible for the genetic burden shouldered by this population.

Solutions?
Currently, physicians don't have any cures for Huntington's disease — there's no miracle pill that will stop the progress of the disease. However, understanding the evolutionary history of the disease — a recurrent mutation that is often "missed" by natural selection — points out a way to reduce the frequency of the disease in the long term: allowing people to make more informed reproductive choices.

Today, genetic testing can identify people who carry a Huntington's allele long before the onset of the disease and before they have made their reproductive choices. The genetic test that identifies the Huntington's allele works sort of like DNA fingerprinting. A DNA sample is copied and cut into pieces. The pieces are then spread out on a gel (see right). The banding pattern can tell researchers whether a person carries an allele that is likely to cause Huntington's.

Having this information could allow people to make more-informed reproductive decisions. For example, at Lake Maracaibo, researchers and health workers have tried to make contraception available to the local population so that they can make reproductive choices based on their own family history with the disease. But whatever people eventually decide to do with this knowledge, a deep understanding of the disease would not be possible without the historical perspective offered by evolution.



Understanding evolution is important

Understanding evolution helps us solve biological problems that impact our lives. There are excellent examples of this in the field of medicine. To stay one step ahead of pathogenic diseases, researchers must understand the evolutionary patterns of disease-causing organisms. To control hereditary diseases in people, researchers study the evolutionary histories of the disease-causing genes. In these ways, a knowledge of evolution can improve the quality of human life.
4408 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Cavite, Philippines
Offline
Posted 6/13/09
Where do you think that evolution went wrong?

It went wrong when humans gained the idea that everything in this world was made by some superior being just because they can't completely explain how everything really began.

Why do you think it went wrong?

People with fears and insecurities, they would believe anything as long as it gives them a sense of false security and as a scapegoat to life.

Could it be helped?

No, humans are forever doomed for their stupidity.
Posted 6/14/09 , edited 6/14/09
I suggest doing some exercise instead of sleep meds/paracetamol. That has nothing to do with being bored. It's because you store energy without using the amount you should be - I'm the same. As for headaches, take a look at your diet. A lot of people complain about having headaches all the time and then I find out they never drink water. I am also the same, from time to time. But I'm not stupid enough to blame it on evolution when i get headaches, I drink some water.

-Where do you think that evolution went wrong?
Why should there be a right and wrong in evolution? It wasn't a plan, or an experiment. It just happened, and doesn't have a right or wrong outcome.

-Why do you think it went wrong?
Assuming it did 'go wrong', then it's simply because our brains developed as social mammals, and as our brains developed we began to invent in an attempt to make life easier. That's all.

-Could it be helped?
It's up to the individual person how they live life. If you think your life is 'wrong' then do something about it, instead of sinking deeper into the way society deals with things - medication.
2669 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Right there
Offline
Posted 6/17/09 , edited 6/17/09
and how its evolution and your happiness related again?
60271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / No place
Offline
Posted 6/17/09
hmmmp.. i think we r still monkeys or bacterias in a bacteria.. xD.. we r nothing... lol.. so idk.. evolution?.. we dont have that... xDD.. boringness is just normal in life.. u can't say that your bored of it, cuz your part of it n u cant do anything... so i think avolution isnt wrong.. we r all wrong... ^^.. xDDDDDD.. n well if God want us to be like this with a boring life then let it be.. ill b happy of what he does..... xDDD..
Posted 6/17/09
if you want a better life, then do something about it to makes it the way you want it to be? i dont know. i think that its better dying of boredom than out there dying of hunger or those sad tragedy.. there are the greedy people that alway want more of what they have and there are the content people, that are happy what they have. sajldkjas im no philosper lol
Posted 6/20/09
Yeah ofc. Evolution allowed humans to rule the earth. And if an animal such as a dolphin was to rule the world, I doubt we'd have to go through all of this to cut down on stuff. (i.e. eletricity) The earth is screwed because of humans! Lol!
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.