|
On November 10 2010 03:45 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 02:52 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 10 2010 02:35 ZeaL. wrote:On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote:
This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer. This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best. Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly. Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought. Please read anything about evolution before you post, people like you are the best creationst can hope for. Even wiki (as bad as it is) would give you reasonable idea of how evolution actually works. As the poster before me said, it works between generations, nothing that happens to your body (except what happens to your sperm cells ) has any influence on the evolution of the humans directly.
This is debatable and still under heavy research. Honestly, what do creationist have to do with this at all?
|
On November 10 2010 03:51 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 03:16 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 10 2010 02:56 InvalidID wrote:On November 10 2010 02:52 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 10 2010 02:35 ZeaL. wrote:On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote:
This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer. This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best. Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly. Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought. You do not evolve during the course of your life. During your life the traits you have determine whether or not you survive and or reproduce, and thereby selection occurs causing evolution. Again, what you are describing is Lamarkism, which was generally refuted in the 19th century. Your body changes over the course of your life based on environment, over generations these changes become big enough to be called "evolution", call it whatever you want. Saying Lamarkism has been generally refuted is not correct, it would be much more accurate to say that it is controversial and undecided as a whole - and all that really means is science just doesn't know yet.
No you are totally wrong, you even do not know the definitions of the terms you are using. Changes in your body die with you, none of those are propagated to another generation. Yes there is a debate about that, but the effects discussed are so small that they have no bearing on this discussion. Basically except your reproductive cells anything that happens to you during your life dies with you. Of course I am talking about evolution now, some things like your works etc. may survive in the culture but that has nothing to do with biological evolution.
You are basically contradicting yourself there, you say I am totally wrong and then admit there is a debate. So I'm not totally wrong, I'm the one who said it was a controversial issue. The effects being small is irrelevant because regardless of how small they are over long periods of time and many generations they could possible become quite big.
|
On November 10 2010 04:06 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 03:39 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 10 2010 03:34 ZeaL. wrote:On November 10 2010 02:52 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 10 2010 02:35 ZeaL. wrote:On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote:
This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer. This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best. Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly. Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought. You do not understand evolution. The process of evolution in essence is change in gene frequency in a population. Natural selection and genetic drift work on individuals to effect these changes. You are born with a set of genes that don't change no matter what you do. If you're born fat but decide to work out a lot to get skinny you wouldn't call that evolution would you? Your kids would have the same set of genes whether or not you had them while fat or skinny. There is a important distinction between changes in populations and changes individuals. No one completely understands evolution, but I already posted a source that backs up what I have been saying. Honestly it sounds like you think evolution is magic...how do you think natural selection and genetic drift occur without changes in individuals? First off, evolution is well understood. Secondly, do you even know what natural selection and genetic drift are? Changes in individuals have no relevance to them. All natural selection says is that organisms that are more reproductively fit will survive to produce progeny. New genes are introduced through recombination and mutation, and these new genes will increase in frequency if they are more reproductively fit. Its not magic, you just don't know anything about evolutionary biology. Secondly, I'm guessing you randomly googled some stuff and found epigenetics. Yep, your article is talking about genomic imprinting. Most of the research in this field is more focused on cancer and cell differentiation and not transgenerational evolution because it makes cells behave differently. In most cases, genomic imprinting is reset every generation so methylation is removed, histones are reset so whatever happens in one generation isn't passed on. Sometimes this isn't the case (Igf4 and water fleas are most famous for this). The reason why this isn't really "evolution" is because its not passed down to further generations, over time the epigenetic markers are removed. From your own source " In Feig's study, the offspring of enriched mice lost their memory benefits after a few months.". Its an interesting topic, but only affects a limited number of genes and in no way means that we have to redefine evolution.
I guess that depends, on your idea of "well understood". Nothing in science is understood at an absolute level, least of all evolution, it continues to be one of they most heavily researched and groundbreaking fields in recent years.
I didn't randomly google, this is something I read a long time ago and thought was very interesting. Not sure why that matters at all, it's a very weak argument on your end.
It passes to one generation to the next, but not to the 3rd. But one could speculate that the 2nd generation could use what was passed down to modify behavior, and the modified behavior could then effectively be passed down to the 3rd. This isn't unreasonable.
Certainly more research needs to be done and it will be done, and you are quoting the article completely out of context in a way that goes against a theme of the article. Which is that this could *possibly* be a factor in evolution (the development of life), and it is very clear that this is a confusing issue that is not completely understood. The reason he is saying this is not a reason to redefine evolution is because it does not contradict other "known" theories of evolution but it could possibly supplement them.
Yet you quote the article and try to use the quote to back up your opinion that this absolutely is not evolution, which is not what the article is saying - at all. You are just cherry picking a quote to try and make it say what you want it to say.
|
I wish we could stay on topic :D
We have a few questions we need to answer about myopia:
1. What is the genetic component? Meaning something to the effect of is your chamber size or shape less than ideal.
2. What is the environmental component?
You could have progressively worse vision unrelated to the OP's hypothesis, in which case it would be genetic or some other environmental influence, such as a vitamin deficiency, that causes progressive myopia.
I have not seen a physiology discussion, which I think makes the hypothesis more plausible. As you look at something close you pupils do change (constrict), but you ciliary muscle also constricts. The ciliary muscle is a circular band of muscle attached to your lens by fibers. When it constricts it's diameter decreases and the tension on the fibers is released, allowing the lens to form a thicker, more globoid, form.
Now I imagine most of you have had a few lecture on optics, and I really do not want to drag out the equations, but that is not the purpose of the present exposition, and any endeavor is left as an exercise for the reader (can you tell I studied math? haha).
The point is that prolonged near focus requires a prolonged contraction of the ciliary muscle. If there are troubles with ciliary relaxation, then, we could have problems seeing distant objects. Hence the hypothesis. Note that it is more complicated than just muscle involvement. While the lens is quite "elastic" perhaps maintaining it at a constant shape decreases this elasticity making the transient myopia normal eyes have (in transitioning from a near to far object) a more permanent one that many of us have.
I would also like to note that in any study where you give children bifocals that they have to actually use them in a disciplined fashion for results to be valid, so I am slow to believe such studies unless I can see that issue addressed.
Also, I think it important that any scientist (or any intellectual) should field a hypothesis without vitriol or insults hurled towards the one who posits the idea, providing a good discussion and not an argument. I have great respect for the TL community and the dedication they have to systematizing and making a science out of sc and sc2, but want to see grace extended to people with different ideas on various topics.
Happy Friday!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
