seedmagazine.com— We may have evolved beyond monkeys, but if we could produce one of their proteins, our bodies might be able to effectively fight HIV.
Aug 21, 2006View in Crawl 4
Why argue an irrelevant point? This has nothing to do with what the article is about. Sometimes I think that people start lame arguments on here because they have already pissed off everyone in the real world around them and they have nobody left.
You are absolutely correct. Darwin himself never used the term Evolution. The process he described he called Natural Selection. Evolution implies a direction, whereas the mechanism of Natural Selection is driven by random mutations that either help the animal survive, or not, in its current environment. Did whales "un-evolve" when they went "back" to the sea? Direction is meaningless. Nature does not calculate if the changes are "better", or more advanced, or the best possible change that could be made. Over time they simply work and are passed on, or not, and Nature it only has to be "good enough".
@RivetgeekActually it goes in 2 or more directions all the time. We've been evolving since we departed from monkeys and so have they. So both species have been becoming more fit to their environments by the process of natural selection.I disagree with MonkeyLives that evolution is not a "directed process" - it isn't directed by any conscious entity but it is directed by the nature of the environment an organism is evolving in. It is directed to be better adapted to its environment. However, I agree with him in that: as far as evolution is concerned we aren't "beyond" monkeys, both are evolved to their environment.There *is* a concept in evolutionary biology which names what you're talking about: it is "derived traits." You can say we have more derived traits than monkeys do. That just means we have *more recently* evolved traits, more traits that differ from our ancestors. But newness does not equal better on its own. The monkeys' use of old traits to adapt to their environment may be just as effective as our use of new traits to adapt to ours.All that said, I'd choose our niche...which involves unprecendented control over nature...over that of the monkeys who do much less alteration of their environment and much more accomodation to it. But that isn't a matter of comparing how much "more evolved" we are compared to monkeys. Modern day c**kroaches are just as "evolved" as we are.
Wish I had the link (think it was on Public Radio). The "best guess" right now is the following story with lots of details missing as I don't remember the names/dates too well:During the Colonial times in Africa the English and French (mainly) were using the native people as very cheap/slave labor to harvest/mine natural goods. One group in particular was forced to move to the deep jungles where few humans lived to harvest rubber. The natives fed themselves on local animals which included the chimps that carried the SIV (side note; the chimps in the area were one poster noted they may have made vaccine with did not have the SIV virus as it was one isolated to this group of chimps who were 800 miles away from each other). Probably someone was butchering a chimp and accidentally cut him/herself and picked up the SIV. Now SIV may not have been deadly to the person but it might have been able to survive. Now at this time Doctors were starting mass vaccinations for all sort of diseases and for people living in the jungle this would have been even more important. Well problem was that hypodermic needles at the time were NOT disposable but were reused. Most likely the people vaccinating the native workers in the jungle were either not cleaning the hypodermics well or not at all. So the same needle was used to vaccinate tens of Thousands of people. So the SIV was spread from one person to hundreds if not thousands. The virus then mutated to become the HIV and people traveling back from the jungles to the cities spread it. It may have taken some time for the new HIV to mutate to become as deadly as it became in the early 80s.Anyway, just the current theory. Given that the US can drop 30+ billion dollars a year for a failed and poorly thought out attempt to pacify an area that has had a long history of violence, you would think dropping 30+ billion to find a cure would be but a few strokes of a pen away. That sort of money would really be a shot in the arm for finding a cure/effective vaccine. Guess killing people to take their oil is more important.
That is Natural Selection for you. The energy required to make those proteins was more than the benefits they gave so over time we stopped making them. Our appendix is what used to make vitamin C but it seems we were eating enough fruit that there was little need to make it ourselves. But the appendix adds a little to your immune response so for it to completely fade away would cause enough of a drop in the immune response that those without it would not survive as well as those with it. However the diminished size, and it's shape make it susceptible to infection for some people (appendicitis) which will can kill them. But it happens so infrequently that it is not a major force in the natural selection. That is why the appendix is there and why it can be removed without ill effects.See Richard Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene" for a good overview.
@becominglumbergNo, because the monkeys are still around too. All you can say in terms of evolutionary biology is that both species are "beyond" what they were in the past. Neither one is "beyond" the other evolution-wise. As another user pointed out, the sense of "beyond" here isn't in terms of overall evolutionary fitness but in terms of mental abilities.
Im seeing a lot of new articles reguarding the cureing of HIV. It looks like we'll be able to cure it pretty soon, maybe within the next five to eight years I hope. This makes me feel all gitty inside :)
qbyteAug 21, 2006
Why argue an irrelevant point? This has nothing to do with what the article is about. Sometimes I think that people start lame arguments on here because they have already pissed off everyone in the real world around them and they have nobody left.
thinkingbearAug 21, 2006
You are absolutely correct. Darwin himself never used the term Evolution. The process he described he called Natural Selection. Evolution implies a direction, whereas the mechanism of Natural Selection is driven by random mutations that either help the animal survive, or not, in its current environment. Did whales "un-evolve" when they went "back" to the sea? Direction is meaningless. Nature does not calculate if the changes are "better", or more advanced, or the best possible change that could be made. Over time they simply work and are passed on, or not, and Nature it only has to be "good enough".
lanser84Aug 21, 2006
@RivetgeekActually it goes in 2 or more directions all the time. We've been evolving since we departed from monkeys and so have they. So both species have been becoming more fit to their environments by the process of natural selection.I disagree with MonkeyLives that evolution is not a "directed process" - it isn't directed by any conscious entity but it is directed by the nature of the environment an organism is evolving in. It is directed to be better adapted to its environment. However, I agree with him in that: as far as evolution is concerned we aren't "beyond" monkeys, both are evolved to their environment.There *is* a concept in evolutionary biology which names what you're talking about: it is "derived traits." You can say we have more derived traits than monkeys do. That just means we have *more recently* evolved traits, more traits that differ from our ancestors. But newness does not equal better on its own. The monkeys' use of old traits to adapt to their environment may be just as effective as our use of new traits to adapt to ours.All that said, I'd choose our niche...which involves unprecendented control over nature...over that of the monkeys who do much less alteration of their environment and much more accomodation to it. But that isn't a matter of comparing how much "more evolved" we are compared to monkeys. Modern day c**kroaches are just as "evolved" as we are.
gecko1969Aug 21, 2006
Wish I had the link (think it was on Public Radio). The "best guess" right now is the following story with lots of details missing as I don't remember the names/dates too well:During the Colonial times in Africa the English and French (mainly) were using the native people as very cheap/slave labor to harvest/mine natural goods. One group in particular was forced to move to the deep jungles where few humans lived to harvest rubber. The natives fed themselves on local animals which included the chimps that carried the SIV (side note; the chimps in the area were one poster noted they may have made vaccine with did not have the SIV virus as it was one isolated to this group of chimps who were 800 miles away from each other). Probably someone was butchering a chimp and accidentally cut him/herself and picked up the SIV. Now SIV may not have been deadly to the person but it might have been able to survive. Now at this time Doctors were starting mass vaccinations for all sort of diseases and for people living in the jungle this would have been even more important. Well problem was that hypodermic needles at the time were NOT disposable but were reused. Most likely the people vaccinating the native workers in the jungle were either not cleaning the hypodermics well or not at all. So the same needle was used to vaccinate tens of Thousands of people. So the SIV was spread from one person to hundreds if not thousands. The virus then mutated to become the HIV and people traveling back from the jungles to the cities spread it. It may have taken some time for the new HIV to mutate to become as deadly as it became in the early 80s.Anyway, just the current theory. Given that the US can drop 30+ billion dollars a year for a failed and poorly thought out attempt to pacify an area that has had a long history of violence, you would think dropping 30+ billion to find a cure would be but a few strokes of a pen away. That sort of money would really be a shot in the arm for finding a cure/effective vaccine. Guess killing people to take their oil is more important.
gecko1969Aug 21, 2006
That is Natural Selection for you. The energy required to make those proteins was more than the benefits they gave so over time we stopped making them. Our appendix is what used to make vitamin C but it seems we were eating enough fruit that there was little need to make it ourselves. But the appendix adds a little to your immune response so for it to completely fade away would cause enough of a drop in the immune response that those without it would not survive as well as those with it. However the diminished size, and it's shape make it susceptible to infection for some people (appendicitis) which will can kill them. But it happens so infrequently that it is not a major force in the natural selection. That is why the appendix is there and why it can be removed without ill effects.See Richard Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene" for a good overview.
majordangerAug 21, 2006
It appears my plan for dating below my species does seem to have some validity ;-)
lanser84Aug 21, 2006
@becominglumbergNo, because the monkeys are still around too. All you can say in terms of evolutionary biology is that both species are "beyond" what they were in the past. Neither one is "beyond" the other evolution-wise. As another user pointed out, the sense of "beyond" here isn't in terms of overall evolutionary fitness but in terms of mental abilities.
redchannelAug 23, 2006
Im seeing a lot of new articles reguarding the cureing of HIV. It looks like we'll be able to cure it pretty soon, maybe within the next five to eight years I hope. This makes me feel all gitty inside :)