|
|
Re: Are We Still Evolving?
Osmo Ronkanen (ronkanen@cc.Helsinki.FI)
31 Oct 1995 17:54:30 +0200
In article <473i0b$72v@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, pete <VINCENT@REG.TRIUMF.CA> wrote:
>Deaser (noway@nothere) sez:
...
>
>` Of course, with such controlled environments as our homes, workplaces,
>`even our places of entertainment (ok, except the ski slopes), true
>`genome adaptation is not likely to occur.
>
>As far as genetic change goes these days, probably the most significant
>development is the result of our medical intervention, which allows
>all sorts of previously fatal genetic deficiencies to be preserved
>and passed on to future generations, as almost 100% of humans now
>surviving to adulthood will breed. If we were suddenly deprived
>of modern medicine, the mortality would today be small but significant.
>In a few tens of generations, if medicine does not progress to
>direct genetic intervention, the propagation of deficiencies through
>the population would mean that a sudden loss of medical technology
>(as a result of some natural disaster, or widespread conflict),
>would result in an immediate mortality of perhaps as much as
>1/3 of the population.
Are you joking or pushing some eugenic agenda? Genetic defects are
typically recessive. That means there are so many carriers that the fact
that those who have the disease survive does not affect much of the
total gene-pool. Everyone of us carries several genetic diseases, so if
you want to perform eugenics, then start form yourself.
Osmo
|