Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by omega_x, Jun 5, 2001.
~We cannot rely on technology~
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
From what I understand, mankind has to evolve, due to the fact that we now are using computers.
Computers do tend to increase a trend in the increasement of IQ within people that use them, this in a way is shown through the first use of the Abacus in Greek times, it too help the IQ of the people of that period and made them develop mathematic skills and formula's that we still use today.
The main problem we have to contend with is that computers are becoming faster, and as they become faster we demand more from them, this can cause something that has been noted in the medical profession as "Information Overload", When some tries to go beyond their capacity of multitasking and overloading on information.
I can see the future will cause more cybernetic intergration between man and machine, the purpose can be split between trying to fix disabilities that a person might suffer, to enhancing a person further than most.
In essence I know test have been carried out on people just to see the changes that occur through the use of Cybernetics.
I might mention that not or Cybernetics is placing a chip in your head, or replacing a limb, it could just be a head set that measures thought activity and allows you to do alot of manipulation with a computer and a viewscreen.
As for man, Cancer's and Ailments like illnesses.
Mankind had been plagued for centuries with diseases, that have been partially assimulated into our genetics to help combat those diseases continuing.
(A bit like a Tetnus Jab having some sterile Tetnus that's placed into your body for your immune system to fight off. Naturally the sterile Tetnus doesn't kill you because it can't reproduce through the restructuring of protein chains, so you body manages to beat it.)
With every disease that your ancestors have had, a preportion of your genetic code has been keyed to dealing with those particular diseases.
What I noticed is if those disease although defunct exist within your genes, certain forms of radiation could quite easily retrigger some disease that you originally didn't have.
(Namely the radiation causes your Protein's to produce that long dead virus, that makes you patient zero.)
Perhaps of course with Genetic checking you might find out what particular virii you have within your code, and what percentage they are and the chances of any radiation triggering off a particular virus.
Take for instance most people can only have Chicken pox once, now if your ancestors all had chicken pox once, it most definitely means if you haven't had it, you will eventually get it with or without somebody else making you contract it.
Is that true? I use two computers on my desk as a multi-tasking way. Since I started out at 187 when I was a child, by now my IQ must have gone up to 650! Sounds about right! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think you make an interesting point. I am not an expert on any of this subject matter but do have a question .... If we are predispositioned - via ancestry - to be better prepared biologically then WHY are some diseases (e.g., cancer, "heart disease") still prevalent in our genetic code and not decreasing in occurrence? How (sorry, I guess I really have 2 questions) does the body develop the ability to resist virii yet not cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.?
With advances in genetics humans will be able to change many things in many ways. Imagine going to another planet and altering the genes to match the environment there, how easy it would be to live anywhere then.
Genetic modification of mankind in the future is very likely, and will almost certainly overshadow Darwinian evolution in our species before many thousands of years have passed;
it may be that the biological body itself is abandoned and we all become robots and AI, but I like to think that diversity will be a desirable trait in itself.
some future human species
My apologies, but Stryder, what the hell are you talking about?
Immunity is not inherited. We gain immunity through vaccinations to the more serious infections that we face, like you mentioned, but we are forced to become immune to lesser pathongenic organisms through exposure to them. If I am inoculated for, say tetanus, to continue with your example, it does not mean that my children will be immune to tetanus infection.
Another example is the chicken pox. This is caused by a virus. When you are infected the first time, you develop red marks as a symptom. However, your immune system soon recognizes the viral particles as foreign, and creates antibodies against them (specifically against surface proteins on the viral coat). Since your immune system will continue to produce these antibodies, you will be protected from future infection. However, children of people who have become immune to chicken pox still must go through the pain-in-the-ass that is infection before they become immune.
Do you have a link with a source for this? I haven't heard of this happening before, and it is quite unlikely.
Cancer is caused by mutations in the DNA that affect the cell's division cycle. There are numerous ways this can happen. If certain proteins are over-expressed, or others are under-expressed, then the cell can begin to divide without control, and a tumour will develop. Cancer cells are immortal, in that they don't have a limit to how many times they can divide, which also leads to problems.
Viruses are a different problem altogether. They are foreign particles (basically, they are a nucleic acid, either single-stranded or double-stranded RNA, or single-stranded or double-stranded DNA that codes for a few genes, and a protein coat) that enter the cells and try to use the hosts replication and transcription 'machinery' to make copies of themselves. In order to enter the cells, they need to have recognition proteins on their surface that bind to receptors on the cell they are trying to enter. These surface proteins on the viral coat are recognised as foreign by cells of the immune system (becoming antigens), which create antibodies against them. These antibodies bind to the surface proteins on the virus, and act as 'flags' that tag the particle for destruction by the immune system.
Diabetes is again different. It can be caused by a mutation, or it can be inherited. Depending on the type of diabetes, there is either too much, or too little insulin produced by the liver, which leads to too little, or too much glucose in the blood respectively. If you disrupt the pathway that leads to the creation of insulin in any way, then you decrease the amount of functional insulin, and increase the blood-sugar level. However, if a mutation causes an inhibitor of insulin to be damaged, then the insulin level becomes too high, and blood-sugar levels drop.
I don't know enough about heart disease to comment.
Genetic modifications have already started. Athelates are using Gene therapy designed for MS patients to improve their performance.
Diabetes is again different. It can be caused by a mutation, or it can be inherited.
Diabetes is not a disease. It is a defect in the human body. If it has to be inherited, this presupposes that a defect in the body due to external factors such as eating too much sugars for a long period somehow gets coded into the person's DNA and then transmitted the same defect to the child through the DNA expression.
If that is the case, why can not certain other changes in physiological processes be coded into the DNA and be passed on? It sounds perfecting logical.
BTW: You can buy mice with different genetic traits that are bred from healthy mice. Does it ring a bell?
Well, not once did I call it a disease, but I think it could be defined as one. A lot of diseases arise due to defects in parts of the body.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, and for that I apologise. There are different types of diabetes. The defective ones are the ones I described in a little more detail. But, there is a hereditary type of diabetes in which a defective insulin can be passed on to the children.
No, it doesn't ring any bells. Unless you are referring to an autosomal recessive disease passed on by mating two mice that are heterozygotic for the damaged allele...
Separate names with a comma.