Evolution: The Scientific Evidence

[Maybeso]

Ernst,

Wasn't there a theory that the y chromosome, (and therefore males, and therefore sexual reproduction), was originally the result of a retroviral mutation of the x chromosome?

I vaguely remember the tabloidesque title, but didn't read the article carefully enough to be sure of the premise. It was around the same time as the selfish-gene concept first surfaced. Was that before retroviral theory even?

Not sure what to Google, so I didn't find much there.

At the time it seemed a tall order to transform a species from asexual to sexual with one 'accident' and get it right. Even a simple species.

Bruce

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

Can you, or anyone else here, explain to me why this was even done? I don't understand what it is supposed to accomplish except maybe physical proof of the theory that the retroviruses were there in the past.

If you're referring to the study -- I expect because many folks find discovering facts about how we evolved as a species (and how species' genomes evolve over time in general) to be quite interesting. Why would you *not* be interested in "Who are we and where are we going as a species?"-related work like this?

I find this news rather unnerving because it basically sounds like it means that we owe our current state of being to viruses. I know this will sound stupid, but could this mean that AIDS is just the next, for lack of a better way to say it, evolutionary leap to adding to our genome when humans have been almost the same for a long time?

Well, 8% of our genome is not exactly "our current state of being" -- it's just one piece of the puzzle. I find it fascinating: as a species we humans co-evolve with the pathogenic species that prey on us. At various times in our evolutionary history (quite possibly going very, very far back indeed) we get exposed to a nasty virus, which possibly kills many of of the fellow members of our species. Some of those who don't die still get some piece of the virus permanently added to their genome, i.e. ones whom the virus doesn't manage to kill but in whom the reverse transcription happens to occur in germcell DNA. Over time the original viral DNA gets inactivated by way of mutation, but it does nonetheless provide new genetic material for the grand genomic experiment that is evolution. Some of it surely gets used to advantage, i.e. the same virus that almost killed one of your ancestors may at some point eons down the road protect you from harm.

And yes, the HIV virus is no exception - there are people with natural immunity (due to mutations in certain cell-surface receptor proteins). In the absence of modern medicine, those folks would have a strong survival advantage and one would expect the genes encoding for those mutant receptors to eventually become predominant in the human population. Others might survive the viral assault just long enough to get some of the viral DNA passed on to their progeny, possibly in harmless inactivated form. Evolution at work. Modern medciines may change the detailed course of events here, but it's not a good/bad scenario, where human-style moral value judgments like you seem to like to make are appropriate. It is what it is. Why would you have a problem with the fact that a lot of who you are comes from humble viruses? What we know of evolution tells us that we all originally came from humble single-celled organisms, possibly seeded by chiral molecules that came from outer space. That doesn't make us any better or worse than we are. Why would you even apply moral value judgments in such matters? Immorality is a function of conscious behavior, not of blind genetics.

[jinydu]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

Well, I can think of a few technological developments that could have waited, I think, to be announced or released into use until a much later state of societal development.

You seem to be assuming that societies improve over time, at least in the long run. That is a rather dubious assumption in my opinion.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

If you're referring to the study -- I expect because many folks find discovering facts about how we evolved as a species (and how species' genomes evolve over time in general) to be quite interesting. Why would you *not* be interested in "Who are we and where are we going as a species?"-related work like this?

The societal implications of people widely knowing some things is something that I would rather not have happen.

Well, 8% of our genome is not exactly "our current state of being" -- it's just one piece of the puzzle. I find it fascinating: as a species we humans co-evolve with the pathogenic species that prey on us. At various times in our evolutionary history (quite possibly going very, very far back indeed) we get exposed to a nasty virus, which possibly kills many of of the fellow members of our species. Some of those who don't die still get some piece of the virus permanently added to their genome, i.e. ones whom the virus doesn't manage to kill but in whom the reverse transcription happens to occur in germcell DNA. Over time the original viral DNA gets inactivated by way of mutation, but it does nonetheless provide new genetic material for the grand genomic experiment that is evolution. Some of it surely gets used to advantage, i.e. the same virus that almost killed one of your ancestors may at some point eons down the road protect you from harm.

As scientifically fascinating as it is, these kinds of ideas take away from humanity's specialness, as I see it. If we just happened to come in contact with something that made us the way we are, we end up no better than the various uncivilized creatures/animals on the planet. Yes, we may find out that some mutation effect protects us from a disease, but the fact of how it got there, in my opinion, lessens humanity from what I think it's rightful place is when that idea becomes widely known or accepted.

And yes, the HIV virus is no exception - there are people with natural immunity (due to mutations in certain cell-surface receptor proteins). In the absence of modern medicine, those folks would have a strong survival advantage and one would expect the genes encoding for those mutant receptors to eventually become predominant in the human population. Others might survive the viral assault just long enough to get some of the viral DNA passed on to their progeny, possibly in harmless inactivated form. Evolution at work. Modern medciines may change the detailed course of events here, but it's not a good/bad scenario, where human-style moral value judgments like you seem to like to make are appropriate. It is what it is. Why would you have a problem with the fact that a lot of who you are comes from humble viruses? What we know of evolution tells us that we all originally came from humble single-celled organisms, possibly seeded by chiral molecules that came from outer space. That doesn't make us any better or worse than we are. Why would you even apply moral value judgments in such matters? Immorality is a function of conscious behavior, not of blind genetics.

See, there's where I differ from scientists. I don't think you can just "throw out" value and moral ideas because someone is possibly more comfortable with an idea of "cold hard facts" and wants to disallow anything that might stop something because a scientist thinks it "has to" come out. Alot of the details are possibly mildly interesting outside of scientific circles, but taken on a global or even societal scale would cause what I believe is a great deal of needless problems from some unnecessary ideas. As I said in another post, there are discoveries and ideas that I think society can't handle knowing or accepting at a certain time so, for the benefit of the whole society, I think some developments should wait to be talked about until society is prepared as a whole. For example, think of the world's most likely reaction if actual intelligent life on or above the level of humanity were to actually be found. Millions of religious people, not that alot of scientists would react any specific way to it, would almost certainly have a melt down over the knowledge and do some horrible things. Knowledge is power, yes, but knowledge is also dangerous as another saying says. Too much too fast, even if the knowledge is true, can end up causing more problems than it is really worth.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by jinydu

You seem to be assuming that societies improve over time, at least in the long run. That is a rather dubious assumption in my opinion.

Well, maybe improve is not the right word, but certainly assuming that every society will just devolve into a sort of post-apocalyptic hell-hole isn't that good either, or stagnation for that matter. I just think that eventually society becomes more able to accept new ideas and information without having huge chaos ensue from it. It just depends on how far you push the current limits of mental and physical acceptance of an idea at any given time.

[S485122]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

Third, genetic engineering could have been kept mostly hidden from the public until such time as it had been perfected. Society could have waited on it to develop past the point of entertaining the thought of "designer children". I hope those examples are what you asked for then.

My opinion is that society should not be kept ignorant of such developments. Representative democracy can only work if the people who delegate their power have knowledge. Otherwise it is the same as tiranny: a little minority rules and are not accountable. The only difference is cosmetic, you can chose your tyrant. The end result is the same: one has no say over decisions by the rulers.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by Jacob Visser

My opinion is that society should not be kept ignorant of such developments. Representative democracy can only work if the people who delegate their power have knowledge. Otherwise it is the same as tiranny: a little minority rules and are not accountable. The only difference is cosmetic, you can chose your tyrant. The end result is the same: one has no say over decisions by the rulers.

I view it more like giving a child a toy when the toy is not designed for someone that child's age. Yes, that child may enjoy it for a while, but the reason they put age ranges on toys is for the protection of the child, except in cases of mental ability to use the toy. Are you saying that you don't think humanity ever develops anything too fast for its own good?

[retina]

Originally Posted by 'Jwb52z"

As scientifically fascinating as it is, these kinds of ideas take away from humanity's specialness, as I see it. If we just happened to come in contact with something that made us the way we are, we end up no better than the various uncivilized creatures/animals on the planet. Yes, we may find out that some mutation effect protects us from a disease, but the fact of how it got there, in my opinion, lessens humanity from what I think it's rightful place is when that idea becomes widely known or accepted.

Science is not about proving or disproving "humanity's specialness", it just simply states what it sees. It is the philosopher that then try to interpret things like specialness etc. Just because you like to think humans are special is not a good reason to stop people publishing what thay have discovered.

Besides, every species, no matter the size or shape, is special in some way. Humans are no different in that respect. Each individual in each species is special in some way. No matter what science discovers, humans can always be special to you if you want them to be.

But, it would seem that, the discovery you mention is starting to make you uncomfortable with your beliefs and that you would rather not know the real truth. If discoveries like this are a serious challenge to you beliefs then you can always choose to ignore the discovered information and follow your own beliefs anyway. However, if you try hard enough, you may be able to modify your beliefs to incorporate the new found knowledge and thus restore your comfortableness with the information presented.

[brunoparga]

I agree with all the criticism that has been made to J52's idea of not publishing scientific discoveries. This criticism is directed to the idea itself; I'd like to add my comment on its feasibility.

What he's trying to suggest is that if a scientist finds out facts that point to the conclusion that we aren't special, that word taken to mean what J52 wants it to mean, then the scientist shouldn't make their discovery public. They should wait until "society gets ready" to know that.

I imagine J52 would point out it's not just his own particular values which are at issue here; then, *any* scientist who discovers *anything* shouldn't publish, because in a world people still choose to believe what they believe even if fact proves it wrong, then anything could be harmful to someone's values.

Now, this is a world without scientific publishing. The immediate consequence is the freezing of science itself, since new science relies on the publishing of previous existing science. Not only new discoveries are in practice rendered impossible, but even a better understanding, by society, of currently existing knowledge is hampered. That very article about viral DNA in our cells was published, as you can see, in the NY Times; also, scientists and/or journalists often publish books which intend to explain scientific discoveries to the general public.

So, your idea implies - like it or not - that no kind of scientific publishing can take place, since peoples' values must be respected. But, if it doesn't take place, then how does society "learn" how to deal with science? You seem to believe a society can learn how to better deal with scientific findings; what I'm trying to say is that making those findings publicly available is a crucial step of that learning.

Bruno

[mfgoode]

Bruno: Thank you for thinking; something we are losing in evolution I fear.
Now we have gone thru the creation of the universe and the quantum leap of man from animal to homo sapiens.

Happily, this is now way beyond us.

The evolutionists can stick to their science which requires facts and proof
The religionists may have their Faith and beliefs. These are two separate air tight compartments. Yes I have realised that.

In the future I am sure they can be reconciled bu some one from a different planet if needs be.

What matters now is where we stand. But more than that lets ask ourselves where are we heading. Im not thinking of a billion years but just say a few years when we will be dead.

I have asked the question to the evolutionists and so far they have side stepped the issue, in this thread anyway.

My straight forward question; What happens after death? What does Darwin and his honchos say ?

I give myself at the most ten years to live. Have they got a message for me?

Is there any hope of an after life or am I going to end up like the monkey who fell off a tree and left his whatnots behind on a branch with enough HIV to contaminate the world long after he has become a fossil?

Should I give up in life as defeated or strive to better an after life?

I came across this 'story' which illustrates a point (Not form the NYT!)
An old couple were holidaying in Jerusalem when the wife suddenly died.

The undertaker told the surviving gentleman the cost of burying his wife in Jerusalem would be $150 or transhipment to the U.S (where else?) would cost him $5000.

The gentleman replied he would prefer the transhipment to the U.S.

'Crazy' said the undertaker (evidently an evolutionist!). 'Whats the difference?'

The man thought and said 'Well in Jerusalem a man died and was buried and we thought thats the end of him. Strange enough he resurrected after three days'!

So you evolutionists please give me even a straw to cling too.

Mally

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by brunoparga

I agree with all the criticism that has been made to J52's idea of not publishing scientific discoveries. This criticism is directed to the idea itself; I'd like to add my comment on its feasibility.

What he's trying to suggest is that if a scientist finds out facts that point to the conclusion that we aren't special, that word taken to mean what J52 wants it to mean, then the scientist shouldn't make their discovery public. They should wait until "society gets ready" to know that.

I imagine J52 would point out it's not just his own particular values which are at issue here; then, *any* scientist who discovers *anything* shouldn't publish, because in a world people still choose to believe what they believe even if fact proves it wrong, then anything could be harmful to someone's values.

Now, this is a world without scientific publishing. The immediate consequence is the freezing of science itself, since new science relies on the publishing of previous existing science. Not only new discoveries are in practice rendered impossible, but even a better understanding, by society, of currently existing knowledge is hampered. That very article about viral DNA in our cells was published, as you can see, in the NY Times; also, scientists and/or journalists often publish books which intend to explain scientific discoveries to the general public.

So, your idea implies - like it or not - that no kind of scientific publishing can take place, since peoples' values must be respected. But, if it doesn't take place, then how does society "learn" how to deal with science? You seem to believe a society can learn how to better deal with scientific findings; what I'm trying to say is that making those findings publicly available is a crucial step of that learning.

Bruno

I was not intending to say that no science could continue. I was simply saying, "Let's not tell the general public anything that we don't absolutely have to until the social development is at a level where a release of a discovery won't cause problems. You can have societal progression without having to tell them specific things to learn to accept or forced to accept. You can teach a child how to be responsible, but you don't give them anymore responsibility than they are ready for or more than they can handle. Scientists, by their nature and their chosen work, can handle things without problems in that area that the general public is not as likely to be able to cope with just because it's found to be true. You teach a child by giving them responsibilities as time goes by, not by forcing them to adapt every time something changes. It's like this, "Let's deal with what's on our plate that is already a controversy and get that ironed out before we have to deal with the next thing that will be a problem".