Is man tampering with evolution?

[Logan13]

This is from Feb.2007, but I found the article interesting regardless.
Is man tampering with evolution?
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/165

The scientific study of what evolution is does not seem to have produced a unified response as to what this developmental course of life actually means. Charles Darwin claimed that his theory of natural and sexual selection was central to the understanding of evolution as a science. Darwin stated that variation was central to the idea of evolution, claiming that diversification in nature was what caused it to flow.

“And it is this change of populations of organisms that is designated as evolution.” (p84. What Evolution Is, Ernst Mayr)

Therefore, the non constancy of a particular species continues the path of evolution. Davyd Greenwood in his book “The Taming of Evolution” speaks of Darwin’s theory of evolution: “Rather than seeing species as eternal categories that empirically vary around the perfect expression of the species’ inherent character, he makes variation the real and eternal feature of nature converting species into momentary historical embodiments of these variations.” (p.52)

Technology and experimentation has had a huge impact on our lives and on the course of evolution. With today’s knowledge of genetic variation scientists are able to discover new cures, helping people to survive longer. Is this improving the quality of life? [B]Many years ago, people who carried diseases or weak and vulnerable genes would have died, preventing these genetic “errors” from being passed on to their potential offspring. This could be seen as evolutions way of weeding out the bad DNA, ensuring the survival of the fittest. If this is the case, we are allowing people who carry poor genetics to survive and pass on these flaws to their offspring. If the natural process is survival of the fittest or the species specific desire for perfection, then science and technology are intervening. [/B]
Recently the Embryonic stem cell research bill passed by a vote of 253 to 174. This bill could potentially allow the federal funding of embryonic research on spare embryos that have been abandoned in fertility clinics (www.religioustolerance.org/resstem07.htm). Many moral and ethical issues arise if the President chooses not to veto this bill. In one view, we could be curing millions of people throughout the world suffering from illness such as cancer. On the other hand we are completely tempering with the course of nature. However, in curing millions and creating new methods of prevention of illness, we have the ability to become almost super human.

This scientific experimentation and discovery could result in a stronger human race resulting in the ability to live longer, build stronger work forces and save a lot of money. The financial aspect is also linked with agriculture. The mass production of genetically perfected foods results in less loss. In genetically modifying foods, farmers are able to produce crops that are impermeable to disease.

On the downside, insects and diseases are able to evolve as these scientific revelations are introduced. Thus, in creating cures and disease resistant foods, we are also producing new strains of bacteria and other such microorganisms that could become of harm to evolution and nature itself. Considering evolution in its most simple explanation is change over time “through descent with modification” (evolution.berkley.edu, Agriculture Article), modification seems to be some-what controllable through science due to the recent embryonic and stem cell research. Darwin’s explanation of evolution was through natural selection, not artificial selection, which is what science is attempting to do.

As a group we have discussed the idea of a human being existing as an error, only to be weeded out with the process of evolution. This idea may come across as controversial, but in some sense it could be true. As I have stated, many years ago people with genetic illness such as cancer would have died due to lack of treatment. Therefore their illness would not have been passed on.

Today, with treatments such as chemotherapy we are able to help those people to live a longer life, thus allowing them to pass on their genes. Saving a life is rewarding as well as beneficial, but in the long run, could we just be allowing their weak genetics to be passed on? In this case we cannot be sure exactly how beneficial tampering with evolution can be. If it is about natural selection, then the more science evolves the less natural the process will become. As time has evolved, so has humanity and science; perhaps the development of scientific cures should be viewed as evolution taking its course. If this is the case, the result will surface in hundreds of years to come.

[DSM4Life]

Thats an interesting way of looking at it.

[Logan13]

Thats an interesting way of looking at it.

It is definitely not politically correct, but science should not concern itself with being PC.

[Kärnfysikern]

Doesnt matter in the long run. Within 50 years or so our genes will be ours to adapt, change and improve as we se fit. So the evolution of the human race will soon be in our hands as will the evolution of life as a whole.

[RA]

I dont think James T would like that.

Doesnt matter in the long run. Within 50 years or so our genes will be ours to adapt, change and improve as we se fit. So the evolution of the human race will soon be in our hands as will the evolution of life as a whole.

[Kärnfysikern]

Kirk? Sure he would Why is it a bad thing to improve the human body, make us disease resistant, lenghten the lifespan ect. Or create plants that need less water and still grows better.

There is no reason not to improve things just because there is a risk that something might(and will sooner or later) go wrong.

[bulldawg_28]

Doesnt matter in the long run. Within 50 years or so our genes will be ours to adapt, change and improve as we se fit. So the evolution of the human race will soon be in our hands as will the evolution of life as a whole.

Wouldn't it take longer for our DNA to adapt to the other faster evolving microbes? I mean, looking back 50 years ago, it doesn't really seem we've adapted at all.

[Amorphic]

Wouldn't it take longer for our DNA to adapt to the other faster evolving microbes? I mean, looking back 50 years ago, it doesn't really seem we've adapted at all.

i would think so, evolution and adaptation are very long processes.

it sure is interesting what we can accomplish through science though. too bad the bush admin wont support stem cell research, then things would really start progressing forward

[Kratos]

natural selection is dead. Everything lives.

reverse evoloution is more what is happening

[Red Ketchup]

it sure is interesting what we can accomplish through science though. too bad the bush admin wont support stem cell research, then things would really start progressing forward

Bush won't be around forever... and besides stem cell research (and genetics and cloning and whatever other research impeaded by superstition in the US) is progressing elsewhere around the world.

natural selection is dead. Everything lives.

Indeed, I once read in some sci-fi book that once humans started to protect and save it's sick, weak and infirm we started to evolve socially, but stopped evolving as a species.

It makes sense as the basis of natural selection is that the strongest survive and the weak, sick and infirm die.

Red

[Kärnfysikern]

Wouldn't it take longer for our DNA to adapt to the other faster evolving microbes? I mean, looking back 50 years ago, it doesn't really seem we've adapted at all.

I meant that natural selection and adaption wont play any part in our genetic makeup anylonger. We will adapt and toy around with our own DNA as we se fit and improve what can be improved

[Logan13]

I meant that natural selection and adaption wont play any part in our genetic makeup anylonger. We will adapt and toy around with our own DNA as we se fit and improve what can be improved

Do you think it will occur within our lifetime?

[Kärnfysikern]

Sure, well I dont know how old you are but Im counting on it happening within my lifetime In 50-60 years alot of stuff can happen and biotech is a very new field and we can already construction chromosome from labb chemicals. If biotech advances half as fast as computer tech has during the last 30 years then there is no telling what we will be able to do.

But I dont know crap about biology and biochemistry so Im just optimistic Im sure nanotechnology will have a huge impact during the next 30 years atleast.

[Odpierdol_sie!]

Very interesting, but it is another "one mans" thought on a way forward in life.
I think we have already upset the balance on natures way of selection.
We have produced toxins that not only cause cancer but have damaged the ozone layer which is our only shield from radiation poisoning.
Im not gonna go in to the whole speal, but I saw a programme earlier on this year.
It was called animal farm. google it.
i think it was on Channel 4 (uk)
it was documentary in to the science of gene therapy in aminals.
im not kidding, the one place, a farm in france, breeds cows and bulls.
Jesus they were big, and never worked or taken juice.
its called selective breeding, so many generations ago they got the most athletic looking cow and bull and mated them, they did this with a number of "couples" and then mated the offspring (the fitest of the offspring). the result today is a cow/bull which has the most muscle mass ive ever seen in any animal, had absolutley no fat what so ever and like i said had never been on a tread mill or been injected with anything. so on that note yeah we are doing sumthign to evolution, weather it is a good thing, i really dont know but one thing i do know is that it contradicts Dariwns theory on evolution beacuse it is just not random selection.
Made me wonder if it was done in humans, im sure in time with embriotic research being carried out it will be.

p.s. so sorry botu the long windedness of this

[RA]

Yeah, thats who I meant

Its very interesting and also kind of scary.

Kirk? Sure he would Why is it a bad thing to improve the human body, make us disease resistant, lenghten the lifespan ect. Or create plants that need less water and still grows better.

There is no reason not to improve things just because there is a risk that something might(and will sooner or later) go wrong.