First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Human evolution and your say
43719 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 11/3/12
I honestly don't know, but it's really fun to speculate what future humans will look like.


Remember that evolution is really really slow for complex organisms like us. I mean Homo erectus was our most recent precursor, and they look a lot like modern humans... and that was what? 100,000 years ago.

So my estimate is that it will take like 1 million years for humans to see any significant changes in physical appearances.
Why? Because Humans have developed a DNA-proof reading mechanism that ensure that our DNA replication is as accurate as possible (sort of like spell check on Word).
While smaller organisms like viruses can mutate every second because they don't have this intricate proof-reading mechanism.


Remember also, that humans are artificially interfering with the Natural Selection process; where the fittest male or female should have been the parents of offsprings...

The fittest male/female in the human kingdom... would be the ones with the most money. Money attracts people because it provides security and it can offer food/shelter.
So, people marry others who are rich, but aren't necessarily the fittest of the gene pool... this will affect our evolution.

We've also developed medicine and technology to keep more people alive who should have been dead without these interventions...


So you know, we're altering our course of evolution artificially... and I didn't even mention the chemicals in our daily food... our exposure to factory pollution...

There is no knowing what humans will become, because of so many different factors.
1903 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / F / Guangzhou (but im...
Offline
Posted 11/3/12

GayAsianBoy wrote:

I honestly don't know, but it's really fun to speculate what future humans will look like.


Remember that evolution is really really slow for complex organisms like us. I mean Homo erectus was our most recent precursor, and they look a lot like modern humans... and that was what? 100,000 years ago.

So my estimate is that it will take like 1 million years for humans to see any significant changes in physical appearances.
Why? Because Humans have developed a DNA-proof reading mechanism that ensure that our DNA replication is as accurate as possible (sort of like spell check on Word).
While smaller organisms like viruses can mutate every second because they don't have this intricate proof-reading mechanism.


Remember also, that humans are artificially interfering with the Natural Selection process; where the fittest male or female should have been the parents of offsprings...

The fittest male/female in the human kingdom... would be the ones with the most money. Money attracts people because it provides security and it can offer food/shelter.
So, people marry others who are rich, but aren't necessarily the fittest of the gene pool... this will affect our evolution.

We've also developed medicine and technology to keep more people alive who should have been dead without these interventions...


So you know, we're altering our course of evolution artificially... and I didn't even mention the chemicals in our daily food... our exposure to factory pollution...

There is no knowing what humans will become, because of so many different factors.

THANK YOU finally someone who has the same view, to me natural selection is currently pretty much bullshit and those who argue/debate using the whole "but natural selection.. but darwin said" and what not truly get on my nerves. I don't think natural selection will come into play again until humans have to fight to survive on a daily basis without the aid of technology and medicine, the day that humans are forced to live off the land they reside on and adjust to the environment.. in other words if 2012 really does happen perhaps physically speaking and in terms of evolution there may be hope for stronger human beings with better instincts. Then again if 2012 happened the problem wouldn't be just physically surviving but mentally too.. i doubt many could think rationally under those cirucmstances, i how ever don't believe in this whole 2012 drama but just saying ^^
Posted 11/3/12

mau5undead wrote:


GayAsianBoy wrote:

I honestly don't know, but it's really fun to speculate what future humans will look like.


Remember that evolution is really really slow for complex organisms like us. I mean Homo erectus was our most recent precursor, and they look a lot like modern humans... and that was what? 100,000 years ago.

So my estimate is that it will take like 1 million years for humans to see any significant changes in physical appearances.
Why? Because Humans have developed a DNA-proof reading mechanism that ensure that our DNA replication is as accurate as possible (sort of like spell check on Word).
While smaller organisms like viruses can mutate every second because they don't have this intricate proof-reading mechanism.


Remember also, that humans are artificially interfering with the Natural Selection process; where the fittest male or female should have been the parents of offsprings...

The fittest male/female in the human kingdom... would be the ones with the most money. Money attracts people because it provides security and it can offer food/shelter.
So, people marry others who are rich, but aren't necessarily the fittest of the gene pool... this will affect our evolution.

We've also developed medicine and technology to keep more people alive who should have been dead without these interventions...


So you know, we're altering our course of evolution artificially... and I didn't even mention the chemicals in our daily food... our exposure to factory pollution...

There is no knowing what humans will become, because of so many different factors.

THANK YOU finally someone who has the same view, to me natural selection is currently pretty much bullshit and those who argue/debate using the whole "but natural selection.. but darwin said" and what not truly get on my nerves. I don't think natural selection will come into play again until humans have to fight to survive on a daily basis without the aid of technology and medicine, the day that humans are forced to live off the land they reside on and adjust to the environment.. in other words if 2012 really does happen perhaps physically speaking and in terms of evolution there may be hope for stronger human beings with better instincts. Then again if 2012 happened the problem wouldn't be just physically surviving but mentally too.. i doubt many could think rationally under those cirucmstances, i how ever don't believe in this whole 2012 drama but just saying ^^


You worry about others having the same view as you do?

How can that be evolved?
Posted 11/3/12

GayAsianBoy wrote:

I honestly don't know, but it's really fun to speculate what future humans will look like.


Remember that evolution is really really slow for complex organisms like us. I mean Homo erectus was our most recent precursor, and they look a lot like modern humans... and that was what? 100,000 years ago.

So my estimate is that it will take like 1 million years for humans to see any significant changes in physical appearances.
Why? Because Humans have developed a DNA-proof reading mechanism that ensure that our DNA replication is as accurate as possible (sort of like spell check on Word).
While smaller organisms like viruses can mutate every second because they don't have this intricate proof-reading mechanism.


Remember also, that humans are artificially interfering with the Natural Selection process; where the fittest male or female should have been the parents of offsprings...

The fittest male/female in the human kingdom... would be the ones with the most money. Money attracts people because it provides security and it can offer food/shelter.
So, people marry others who are rich, but aren't necessarily the fittest of the gene pool... this will affect our evolution.


We've also developed medicine and technology to keep more people alive who should have been dead without these interventions...


So you know, we're altering our course of evolution artificially... and I didn't even mention the chemicals in our daily food... our exposure to factory pollution...

There is no knowing what humans will become, because of so many different factors.

mau5undead wrote:


GayAsianBoy wrote:


THANK YOU finally someone who has the same view, to me natural selection is currently pretty much bullshit and those who argue/debate using the whole "but natural selection.. but darwin said" and what not truly get on my nerves. I don't think natural selection will come into play again until humans have to fight to survive on a daily basis without the aid of technology and medicine, the day that humans are forced to live off the land they reside on and adjust to the environment.. in other words if 2012 really does happen perhaps physically speaking and in terms of evolution there may be hope for stronger human beings with better instincts. Then again if 2012 happened the problem wouldn't be just physically surviving but mentally too.. i doubt many could think rationally under those cirucmstances, i how ever don't believe in this whole 2012 drama but just saying ^^
And just like that, both of you are unfit by your own eugenic prejudice. Because while "survival of the fittest" wasn't even Darwin's own words, our current scientific understanding on the process of evolution through mutation and natural selection, has also evolved since what Darwin had originally conceptualized.

Your brand of eugenic superiority complex, or the contemporary label of genetic determinism, never considered the new science of "epicgenetic", "neural development", and "fetal origin". It's merely superstitious white supreme ideology manifesto without the race exclusion. And that sort of biased opinion had ignored how cultural and social environments can have a much greater impact collectively on human individuals, than mere physical environment. Simply by turning our DNA expressions on or off, through manipulating our own RNA with psychosocial interactivity. This process doesn't require the sort of generational turnover, while it can have a much greater influence on our own behaviourism, character states, and even long-term personality traits and personal preferences. All the while without altering our own physical appearances.

Second, and this is coming from your own contradiction, your own mentioning of "artificial evolution" pretty much overturned your "genetic proof-reading" hypothesis.

Finally, just as how my friend Kiel had pointed out earlier, just because your own biased opinion is "popular", doesn't make them true.
43719 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 11/4/12 , edited 11/4/12

DomFortress wrote:


GayAsianBoy wrote:

I honestly don't know, but it's really fun to speculate what future humans will look like.


Remember that evolution is really really slow for complex organisms like us. I mean Homo erectus was our most recent precursor, and they look a lot like modern humans... and that was what? 100,000 years ago.

So my estimate is that it will take like 1 million years for humans to see any significant changes in physical appearances.
Why? Because Humans have developed a DNA-proof reading mechanism that ensure that our DNA replication is as accurate as possible (sort of like spell check on Word).
While smaller organisms like viruses can mutate every second because they don't have this intricate proof-reading mechanism.


Remember also, that humans are artificially interfering with the Natural Selection process; where the fittest male or female should have been the parents of offsprings...

The fittest male/female in the human kingdom... would be the ones with the most money. Money attracts people because it provides security and it can offer food/shelter.
So, people marry others who are rich, but aren't necessarily the fittest of the gene pool... this will affect our evolution.


We've also developed medicine and technology to keep more people alive who should have been dead without these interventions...


So you know, we're altering our course of evolution artificially... and I didn't even mention the chemicals in our daily food... our exposure to factory pollution...

There is no knowing what humans will become, because of so many different factors.

mau5undead wrote:


GayAsianBoy wrote:


THANK YOU finally someone who has the same view, to me natural selection is currently pretty much bullshit and those who argue/debate using the whole "but natural selection.. but darwin said" and what not truly get on my nerves. I don't think natural selection will come into play again until humans have to fight to survive on a daily basis without the aid of technology and medicine, the day that humans are forced to live off the land they reside on and adjust to the environment.. in other words if 2012 really does happen perhaps physically speaking and in terms of evolution there may be hope for stronger human beings with better instincts. Then again if 2012 happened the problem wouldn't be just physically surviving but mentally too.. i doubt many could think rationally under those cirucmstances, i how ever don't believe in this whole 2012 drama but just saying ^^
And just like that, both of you are unfit by your own eugenic prejudice. Because while "survival of the fittest" wasn't even Darwin's own words, our current scientific understanding on the process of evolution through mutation and natural selection, has also evolved since what Darwin had originally conceptualized.

Your brand of eugenic superiority complex, or the contemporary label of genetic determinism, never considered the new science of "epicgenetic", "neural development", and "fetal origin". It's merely superstitious white supreme ideology manifesto without the race exclusion. And that sort of biased opinion had ignored how cultural and social environments can have a much greater impact collectively on human individuals, than mere physical environment. Simply by turning our DNA expressions on or off, through manipulating our own RNA with psychosocial interactivity. This process doesn't require the sort of generational turnover, while it can have a much greater influence on our own behaviourism, character states, and even long-term personality traits and personal preferences. All the while without altering our own physical appearances.

Second, and this is coming from your own contradiction, your own mentioning of "artificial evolution" pretty much overturned your "genetic proof-reading" hypothesis.

Finally, just as how my friend Kiel had pointed out earlier, just because your own biased opinion is "popular", doesn't make them true.


You need to read through my first comment again...

All of my content is based on current scientific understanding of evolutionary biology (except the part where I say money is the fittest trait, that's just my own philosophy).

Posted 11/4/12 , edited 11/4/12

GayAsianBoy wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


GayAsianBoy wrote:

I honestly don't know, but it's really fun to speculate what future humans will look like.


Remember that evolution is really really slow for complex organisms like us. I mean Homo erectus was our most recent precursor, and they look a lot like modern humans... and that was what? 100,000 years ago.

So my estimate is that it will take like 1 million years for humans to see any significant changes in physical appearances.
Why? Because Humans have developed a DNA-proof reading mechanism that ensure that our DNA replication is as accurate as possible (sort of like spell check on Word).
While smaller organisms like viruses can mutate every second because they don't have this intricate proof-reading mechanism.


Remember also, that humans are artificially interfering with the Natural Selection process; where the fittest male or female should have been the parents of offsprings...

The fittest male/female in the human kingdom... would be the ones with the most money. Money attracts people because it provides security and it can offer food/shelter.
So, people marry others who are rich, but aren't necessarily the fittest of the gene pool... this will affect our evolution.


We've also developed medicine and technology to keep more people alive who should have been dead without these interventions...


So you know, we're altering our course of evolution artificially... and I didn't even mention the chemicals in our daily food... our exposure to factory pollution...

There is no knowing what humans will become, because of so many different factors.
And just like that, both of you are unfit by your own eugenic prejudice. Because while "survival of the fittest" wasn't even Darwin's own words, our current scientific understanding on the process of evolution through mutation and natural selection, has also evolved since what Darwin had originally conceptualized.

Your brand of eugenic superiority complex, or the contemporary label of genetic determinism, never considered the new science of "epicgenetic", "neural development", and "fetal origin". It's merely superstitious white supreme ideology manifesto without the race exclusion. And that sort of biased opinion had ignored how cultural and social environments can have a much greater impact collectively on human individuals, than mere physical environment. Simply by turning our DNA expressions on or off, through manipulating our own RNA with psychosocial interactivity. This process doesn't require the sort of generational turnover, while it can have a much greater influence on our own behaviourism, character states, and even long-term personality traits and personal preferences. All the while without altering our own physical appearances.

Second, and this is coming from your own contradiction, your own mentioning of "artificial evolution" pretty much overturned your "genetic proof-reading" hypothesis.

Finally, just as how my friend Kiel had pointed out earlier, just because your own biased opinion is "popular", doesn't make them true.


You need to read through my first comment again...

All of my content is based on current scientific understanding of evolutionary biology (except the part where I say money is the fittest trait, that's just my own philosophy).
Your own "philosophy"? Please, don't mistaken your biased opinion as the study of knowing. You'll be petty by philosophers for your lack of general understanding on language.

Where are the most up-to-date, peer-reviewed, and open-sourced biological research data that prove your claims? If you have no idea how to do them, I'll start with mine.

Here's how social epigenetics can manipulate human behaviours on a genetic level, without physiologically changing the genetic sequences.

What is Epigenetics?

Conrad Waddington (1905-1975) is often credited with coining the term epigenetics in 1942 as “the branch of biology which studies the causal interactions between genes and their products, which bring the phenotype into being”. Epigenetics appears in the literature as far back as the mid 19th century, although the conceptual origins date back to Aristotle (384-322 BC). He believed in epigenesis: the development of individual organic form from the unformed. This controversial view was the main argument against our having developed from miniscule fully-formed bodies. Even today the extent to which we are preprogrammed versus environmentally shaped awaits universal consensus. The field of epigenetics has emerged to bridge the gap between nature and nurture. In the 21st century you will most commonly find epigenetics defined as ‘the study of heritable changes in genome function that occur without a change in DNA sequence‘. But what do the scientists that work in this rapidly expanding research field have to say?
Here's how social epigenetics can affect early neural development based on emotional attachment theory.

Attachment Theory and the Brain: An Interview with Dr. Daniel Sonkin

Headline stealing advances in neuroscience are increasingly affecting the practice of psychotherapy. Major theories in the therapist’s toolkit are being altered and amplified by research shedding light on how the brain actually works. Attachment theory is among those theories undergoing such change, and Daniel Jay Sonkin, Ph.D. has been among the vanguard of psychotherapists integrating new knowledge with old wisdom.
While here's a brief introduction on the new science of fetal origin study.

Annie Murphy Paul: What we learn before we're born

Pop quiz: When does learning begin? Answer: Before we are born. Science writer Annie Murphy Paul talks through new research that shows how much we learn in the womb -- from the lilt of our native language to our soon-to-be-favorite foods.
Finally, here's one of the latest discovery on eicgenetically regulated RNA research.

Epigenetic Regulators (miRNAs, lncRNAs) Get Regulated Epigenetically
POSTED OCTOBER 20, 2012
With Halloween coming up, perhaps it is fitting that the authors of two recent papers describe a “tangled web” of epigenetic regulations. In one paper, researchers suggest that DNA methylation and perhaps other epigenetic modifications disrupt long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) activity. In the other paper, a different team shows that DNAm messes with the miRNA regulation program.

Show some scientific worth in your claims, or else all of your biased opinions are merely that.
43719 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 11/4/12

DomFortress wrote:
Show some scientific worth in your claims, or else all of your biased opinions are merely that.


Here are peer-reviewed articles from journals that are renowned in the scientific community.


DNA-proof reading mechanism: http://www.iranbiology.ir/news/files/public/1345924253_209_FT0_dna_pol2.pdf



You also need to understand everything about Molecular Biology and Genetics in order to grasp how genetics affect evolution.

For example, lactose intolerance was caused by mutation in the genome, so that the gene no longer produces the enzyme "LACTASE".


People don't just become lactose intolerance because of their "behaviour". A change in the genome must occur in order for traits to show.




Enzymes are biological molecules that break down proteins in metabolism. Lactase break down the lactose found in milk products.


Here's another peer-reviewed article to support my point: http://www.aafp.org/afp/2002/0501/p1845.html?ref=Guzels.TV



Now after you've read through all of these articles, and you still think I'm babbling nonsense/white supremacy ideology...


...Then I have nothing to say to you.
Posted 11/4/12 , edited 11/4/12

GayAsianBoy wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
Show some scientific worth in your claims, or else all of your biased opinions are merely that.


Here are peer-reviewed articles from journals that are renowned in the scientific community.


DNA-proof reading mechanism: http://www.iranbiology.ir/news/files/public/1345924253_209_FT0_dna_pol2.pdf



You also need to understand everything about Molecular Biology and Genetics in order to grasp how genetics affect evolution.

For example, lactose intolerance was caused by mutation in the genome, so that the gene no longer produces the enzyme "LACTASE".


People don't just become lactose intolerance because of their "behaviour". A change in the genome must occur in order for traits to show.




Enzymes are biological molecules that break down proteins in metabolism. Lactase break down the lactose found in milk products.


Here's another peer-reviewed article to support my point: http://www.aafp.org/afp/2002/0501/p1845.html?ref=Guzels.TV



Now after you've read through all of these articles, and you still think I'm babbling nonsense/white supremacy ideology...


...Then I have nothing to say to you.
Your first article was about the study of ageing, and how even under ideal condition cells will eventually enter programmed cell death, aka apoptosis. It didn't disprove the theory of evolution due to epigenetics, since evolution can still take place without physically changing the genetic sequencing.

Juan Enriquez: Will our kids be a different species?
Throughout human evolution, multiple versions of humans co-existed. Could we be mid-upgrade now? At TEDxSummit, Juan Enriquez sweeps across time and space to bring us to the present moment -- and shows how technology is revealing evidence that suggests rapid evolution may be under way.

.... And as you're thinking about this, we're continuing to mutate. So about 10,000 years ago by the Black Sea, we had one mutation in one gene which led to blue eyes. And this is continuing and continuing and continuing.

And as it continues, one of the things that's going to happen this year is we're going to discover the first 10,000 human genomes, because it's gotten cheap enough to do the gene sequencing. And when we find these, we may find differences.

And by the way, this is not a debate that we're ready for, because we have really misused the science in this. In the 1920s, we thought there were major differences between people. That was partly based on Francis Galton's work. He was Darwin's cousin. But the U.S., the Carnegie Institute, Stanford, American Neurological Association took this really far. That got exported and was really misused. In fact, it led to some absolutely horrendous treatment of human beings. So since the 1940s, we've been saying there are no differences, we're all identical. We're going to know at year end if that is true....

.... And as you think about it, let me close with an example of the brain. The first place where you would expect to see enormous evolutionary pressure today, both because of the inputs, which are becoming massive, and because of the plasticity of the organ, is the brain.

Do we have any evidence that that is happening? Well let's take a look at something like autism incidence per thousand. Here's what it looks like in 2000. Here's what it looks like in 2002, 2006, 2008. Here's the increase in less than a decade. And we still don't know why this is happening. What we do know is, potentially, the brain is reacting in a hyperactive, hyper-plastic way, and creating individuals that are like this. And this is only one of the conditions that's out there. You've also got people with who are extraordinarily smart, people who can remember everything they've seen in their lives, people who've got synesthesia, people who've got schizophrenia. You've got all kinds of stuff going on out there, and we still don't understand how and why this is happening.

But one question you might want to ask is, are we seeing a rapid evolution of the brain and of how we process data? Because when you think of how much data's coming into our brains, we're trying to take in as much data in a day as people used to take in in a lifetime. And as you're thinking about this, there's four theories as to why this might be going on, plus a whole series of others. I don't have a good answer. There really needs to be more research on this.

One option is the fast food fetish. There's beginning to be some evidence that obesity and diet have something to do with gene modifications, which may or may not have an impact on how the brain of an infant works.

A second option is the sexy geek option. These conditions are highly rare. But what's beginning to happen is because these geeks are all getting together, because they are highly qualified for computer programming and it is highly remunerated, as well as other very detail-oriented tasks, that they are concentrating geographically and finding like-minded mates. So this is the assortative mating hypothesis of these genes reinforcing one another in these structures.

The third, is this too much information? We're trying to process so much stuff that some people get synesthetic and just have huge pipes that remember everything. Other people get hyper-sensitive to the amount of information. Other people react with various psychological conditions or reactions to this information. Or maybe it's chemicals.

But when you see an increase of that order of magnitude in a condition, either you're not measuring it right or there's something going on very quickly, and it may be evolution in real time.

Here's the bottom line. What I think we are doing is we're transitioning as a species. And I didn't think this when Steve Gullans and I started writing together. I think we're transitioning into Homo evolutis that, for better or worse, is not just a hominid that's conscious of his or her environment, it's a hominid that's beginning to directly and deliberately control the evolution of its own species, of bacteria, of plants, of animals. And I think that's such an order of magnitude change that your grandkids or your great-grandkids may be a species very different from you.
That's you with a 1940's mindset here, not me. Because while you're still stuck with a small sample group of "lactose intolerance" which in reality is rather benign/normal, you also didn't heed the warning from your own source regarding the unknown/ignored "secondary lactose intolerance" and "weaning". You're sloppy when it comes to proofreading.

Lactose Intolerance

The wide variation in prevalence has caused speculation that lactase deficiency is the “normal” or “natural” state, and the persistence of significant lactase activity into adult life in northern European populations is an “abnormal” mutation that provides a selective advantage to groups using diary products.1 It is unknown whether the continued use of dairy products after weaning leads to the retention of lactase activity or if the persistence of lactase enables the incorporation of dairy products into the diet.

Patients with secondary lactose intolerance require further investigation to identify the primary problem. Effective treatment of the underlying condition, such as administration of metronidazole (Flagyl) for treatment of giardiasis or a gluten-free diet for management of celiac disease, may not only ameliorate symptoms but also improve lactose intolerance. Patients with bacterial overgrowth may benefit from antibiotics such as tetracycline, metronidazole, or ciprofloxacin (Cipro).
In fact, when we consider cross cultural demographic study, we can see how the absence of lactose intolerance among adults is due to genetic mutation caused by behavioural change.

LACTOSE INTOLERANCE - DEMOGRAPHICS - BY UXL EOD
most cases, lactose intolerance is part of the normal human developmental process. Most mammals stop producing lactase after they are weaned because they are eating solid food instead of drinking milk from the mother. Humans begin to slow down the production of lactase some time around age three to five years. thus most human adults are at some risk of developing lactose intolerance. It is noteworthy, however, that the levels of lactose intolerance vary quite widely among different ethnic groups. In some groups, almost 100 percent of the adult population may be lactose intolerant. In the United States and Canada, lactose intolerance is estimated to affect between 20 and 60 percent of the adult population. In terms of specific ethnic groups, people of Dutch, Swedish, German, or other northern European descent have low rates of lactose intolerance (about 5 percent). persons of southern European ancestry have rates between 18 and 25 percent. African Americans have a rate around 45 percent. persons from Japan or southeastern Asia have rates above 95 percent. and Native Americans are almost 100 percent lactose intolerant. One theory that has been proposed to explain these differences is the long-standing differences among human societies in milk consumption after childhood. In Asia and Africa, children were rarely given milk after being weaned. in these societies, lactase production generally falls by 90 percent by the time the child is four years old. In societies in which milk consumption continues into adult life, however, a mutation on chromosome 2 that bypasses the normal shutdown of lactase production became widespread in the population. Thus members of these groups can continue to consume milk and dairy products throughout their adult lives. Some researchers have traced the mutation back as far as 4500 BCE in both Sweden and the Middle East.

So say nothing, you genetic deterministic slow poke. Don't get angry, and grow a tumour instead because of your self-imposed anger suppression behaviour.

Are You a Type C (Cancer) Personality?
Recently, behavioural oncologists have attempted to conceptualize a “Type C” personality type, i.e. a personality type more at risk for cancer. Based on their findings, the following characteristics describe a Type C personality:

• denial and suppression of emotions, in particular anger
• pathological niceness
• avoidance of conflicts
• exaggerated social desirability
• harmonizing behaviour
• over-compliance
• over-patience
• high rationality
• rigid control of emotional expression (anti-emotionality)

And way to go at yourself avoiding my conflicting scientific research, because I didn't see you even bother reading my sources.
43719 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 11/4/12 , edited 11/4/12

DomFortress wrote:


GayAsianBoy wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
Show some scientific worth in your claims, or else all of your biased opinions are merely that.


Here are peer-reviewed articles from journals that are renowned in the scientific community.


DNA-proof reading mechanism: http://www.iranbiology.ir/news/files/public/1345924253_209_FT0_dna_pol2.pdf



You also need to understand everything about Molecular Biology and Genetics in order to grasp how genetics affect evolution.

For example, lactose intolerance was caused by mutation in the genome, so that the gene no longer produces the enzyme "LACTASE".


People don't just become lactose intolerance because of their "behaviour". A change in the genome must occur in order for traits to show.




Enzymes are biological molecules that break down proteins in metabolism. Lactase break down the lactose found in milk products.


Here's another peer-reviewed article to support my point: http://www.aafp.org/afp/2002/0501/p1845.html?ref=Guzels.TV



Now after you've read through all of these articles, and you still think I'm babbling nonsense/white supremacy ideology...


...Then I have nothing to say to you.


Your first article was about the study of ageing, and how even under ideal condition cells will eventually enter programmed cell death, aka apoptosis. It didn't disprove the theory of evolution due to epigenetics, since evolution can still take place without physically changing the genetic sequencing.



Firstly, I'm never angry, I welcome academic discussions. Secondly, stop putting words in my mouth and stop twisting my words and even the words of those journal articles.

Read through those articles and through my comment again before you try to debunk something that weren't there.


And to be honest, it seems you're the one who is angry/trolling here. You've use that aggressive tone of language for all of your replies to me.

I've never became aggressive. I do not like where this is going, so I'm not going to reply anymore.
Posted 11/4/12 , edited 11/4/12

GayAsianBoy wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



Your first article was about the study of ageing, and how even under ideal condition cells will eventually enter programmed cell death, aka apoptosis. It didn't disprove the theory of evolution due to epigenetics, since evolution can still take place without physically changing the genetic sequencing.



Firstly, I'm never angry, I welcome academic discussions. Secondly, stop putting words in my mouth and stop twisting my words and even the words of those journal articles.

Read through those articles and through my comment again before you try to debunk something that weren't there.

And to be honest, it seems you're the one who is angry/trolling here. You've use that aggressive tone of language for all of your replies to me.

I've never became aggressive. I do not like where this is going, so I'm not going to reply anymore.
So why did you deleted most of my comment, even the part that includes your own source? All the while you hadn't even read any of mine, that's not fair nor welcoming.

The reality is that you're only imaging that I'm angry, because there's no emotional tone ever expressed from my own person. While it's true that your own understanding of evolution is rather superficial at best, no matter what you feel.

So here are my challenge again. Your first article was about the study of ageing, and how even under ideal condition cells will eventually enter programmed cell death, aka apoptosis. It didn't disprove the theory of evolution due to epigenetics, since evolution can still take place without physically changing the genetic sequencing.

Juan Enriquez: Will our kids be a different species?
Throughout human evolution, multiple versions of humans co-existed. Could we be mid-upgrade now? At TEDxSummit, Juan Enriquez sweeps across time and space to bring us to the present moment -- and shows how technology is revealing evidence that suggests rapid evolution may be under way.

.... And as you're thinking about this, we're continuing to mutate. So about 10,000 years ago by the Black Sea, we had one mutation in one gene which led to blue eyes. And this is continuing and continuing and continuing.

And as it continues, one of the things that's going to happen this year is we're going to discover the first 10,000 human genomes, because it's gotten cheap enough to do the gene sequencing. And when we find these, we may find differences.

And by the way, this is not a debate that we're ready for, because we have really misused the science in this. In the 1920s, we thought there were major differences between people. That was partly based on Francis Galton's work. He was Darwin's cousin. But the U.S., the Carnegie Institute, Stanford, American Neurological Association took this really far. That got exported and was really misused. In fact, it led to some absolutely horrendous treatment of human beings. So since the 1940s, we've been saying there are no differences, we're all identical. We're going to know at year end if that is true....

.... And as you think about it, let me close with an example of the brain. The first place where you would expect to see enormous evolutionary pressure today, both because of the inputs, which are becoming massive, and because of the plasticity of the organ, is the brain.

Do we have any evidence that that is happening? Well let's take a look at something like autism incidence per thousand. Here's what it looks like in 2000. Here's what it looks like in 2002, 2006, 2008. Here's the increase in less than a decade. And we still don't know why this is happening. What we do know is, potentially, the brain is reacting in a hyperactive, hyper-plastic way, and creating individuals that are like this. And this is only one of the conditions that's out there. You've also got people with who are extraordinarily smart, people who can remember everything they've seen in their lives, people who've got synesthesia, people who've got schizophrenia. You've got all kinds of stuff going on out there, and we still don't understand how and why this is happening.

But one question you might want to ask is, are we seeing a rapid evolution of the brain and of how we process data? Because when you think of how much data's coming into our brains, we're trying to take in as much data in a day as people used to take in in a lifetime. And as you're thinking about this, there's four theories as to why this might be going on, plus a whole series of others. I don't have a good answer. There really needs to be more research on this.

One option is the fast food fetish. There's beginning to be some evidence that obesity and diet have something to do with gene modifications, which may or may not have an impact on how the brain of an infant works.

A second option is the sexy geek option. These conditions are highly rare. But what's beginning to happen is because these geeks are all getting together, because they are highly qualified for computer programming and it is highly remunerated, as well as other very detail-oriented tasks, that they are concentrating geographically and finding like-minded mates. So this is the assortative mating hypothesis of these genes reinforcing one another in these structures.

The third, is this too much information? We're trying to process so much stuff that some people get synesthetic and just have huge pipes that remember everything. Other people get hyper-sensitive to the amount of information. Other people react with various psychological conditions or reactions to this information. Or maybe it's chemicals.

But when you see an increase of that order of magnitude in a condition, either you're not measuring it right or there's something going on very quickly, and it may be evolution in real time.

Here's the bottom line. What I think we are doing is we're transitioning as a species. And I didn't think this when Steve Gullans and I started writing together. I think we're transitioning into Homo evolutis that, for better or worse, is not just a hominid that's conscious of his or her environment, it's a hominid that's beginning to directly and deliberately control the evolution of its own species, of bacteria, of plants, of animals. And I think that's such an order of magnitude change that your grandkids or your great-grandkids may be a species very different from you.
That's you with a 1940's mindset here, not me. Because while you're still stuck with a small sample group of "lactose intolerance" which in reality is rather benign/normal, you also didn't heed the warning from your own source regarding the unknown/ignored "secondary lactose intolerance" and "weaning". You're sloppy when it comes to proofreading.

Lactose Intolerance

The wide variation in prevalence has caused speculation that lactase deficiency is the “normal” or “natural” state, and the persistence of significant lactase activity into adult life in northern European populations is an “abnormal” mutation that provides a selective advantage to groups using diary products.1 It is unknown whether the continued use of dairy products after weaning leads to the retention of lactase activity or if the persistence of lactase enables the incorporation of dairy products into the diet.

Patients with secondary lactose intolerance require further investigation to identify the primary problem. Effective treatment of the underlying condition, such as administration of metronidazole (Flagyl) for treatment of giardiasis or a gluten-free diet for management of celiac disease, may not only ameliorate symptoms but also improve lactose intolerance. Patients with bacterial overgrowth may benefit from antibiotics such as tetracycline, metronidazole, or ciprofloxacin (Cipro).
In fact, when we consider cross cultural demographic study, we can see how the absence of lactose intolerance among adults is due to genetic mutation caused by behavioural change.

LACTOSE INTOLERANCE - DEMOGRAPHICS - BY UXL EOD
most cases, lactose intolerance is part of the normal human developmental process. Most mammals stop producing lactase after they are weaned because they are eating solid food instead of drinking milk from the mother. Humans begin to slow down the production of lactase some time around age three to five years. thus most human adults are at some risk of developing lactose intolerance. It is noteworthy, however, that the levels of lactose intolerance vary quite widely among different ethnic groups. In some groups, almost 100 percent of the adult population may be lactose intolerant. In the United States and Canada, lactose intolerance is estimated to affect between 20 and 60 percent of the adult population. In terms of specific ethnic groups, people of Dutch, Swedish, German, or other northern European descent have low rates of lactose intolerance (about 5 percent). persons of southern European ancestry have rates between 18 and 25 percent. African Americans have a rate around 45 percent. persons from Japan or southeastern Asia have rates above 95 percent. and Native Americans are almost 100 percent lactose intolerant. One theory that has been proposed to explain these differences is the long-standing differences among human societies in milk consumption after childhood. In Asia and Africa, children were rarely given milk after being weaned. in these societies, lactase production generally falls by 90 percent by the time the child is four years old. In societies in which milk consumption continues into adult life, however, a mutation on chromosome 2 that bypasses the normal shutdown of lactase production became widespread in the population. Thus members of these groups can continue to consume milk and dairy products throughout their adult lives. Some researchers have traced the mutation back as far as 4500 BCE in both Sweden and the Middle East.

So say nothing, you genetic deterministic slow poke. Don't get angry, and grow a tumour instead because of your self-imposed anger suppression behaviour.

Are You a Type C (Cancer) Personality?
Recently, behavioural oncologists have attempted to conceptualize a “Type C” personality type, i.e. a personality type more at risk for cancer. Based on their findings, the following characteristics describe a Type C personality:

• denial and suppression of emotions, in particular anger
• pathological niceness
• avoidance of conflicts
• exaggerated social desirability
• harmonizing behaviour
• over-compliance
• over-patience
• high rationality
• rigid control of emotional expression (anti-emotionality)
What's the matter, afraid that people won't agree with you if you get angry and stop being nice? While you'll only interact with those who agrees with you without question? You rationalized your own hypocrisy , yet you automatically assumed that people who disagreed with you and questioned you are trolls? Does yourself playing the victim here fits your exaggerated social role of "the nicest guy"?
75 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/8/12
Whales have the coolest evolution journey
Well humans have come a long way from being apes living in trees to now we have cities and have become the most dominant species on this planet. Congratz to humanity making it this far hopefully we can colonize other planets soon.
You guys think if we colonize other planets the humans living on those planets will change their appearance/maybe evolve over time due to not being under earths conditions?
15657 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / In the middle of...
Offline
Posted 11/12/12 , edited 11/12/12
Human evolution is still trying to catch up with Chuck Norris
42 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 11/12/12
We would look the same unless everyone turned crazy stupid and had fashion sense like lady gaga.
We would be immune to more disease but, that won't stop new diseases from killing us.
I think its impossible to combat natural disaster only possible to minimize the damage it causes.
If the new diseases don't kill us maybe a few more years added it doesn't seem possible by the way we age to be able to live for 200 years+.
Humanity will live on as our population increases there is a higher chance we will live on as whole race.
@ Topic
16023 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 11/14/12
I don't think much will change. Evolution works of the principle of Natural Selection, which means, usually, certain variants of the species that are more suited to living in its environment will survive long enough to pass down its genes by reproduction. The ones that are less suited to survive will eventually die out.

However in the modern world, the survival of individuals are not usually determined by natural means, such as, lack of food (Yes I realize there's poverty) and predators. Evolution by natural selection as come to a halt for us humans. For example poor eye site will not get you killed and you will most likely survive long enough to reproduce. Thus the ratio of genes stays the same, as the ratio of people who live long enough to reproduce stays the same.

I believe it is unlikely that the state of the human race will change physically very much from what it is like now. That is, no evolving and no devolving.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.