Darwin re-visited

[Michaelangelica]

That last article is very interesting! :)

 

In the future MA, please don't quote so much of the articles as it is copyrighted material. Two to three paragraphs should be fine as it would fall under "fair use". Thanks.

Sorry :rolleyes: "Fair Cop"

That was over the top (even for me :))

I got carried away with my enthusiasm for the article and found it difficult to cut without making it meaningless. Mostly I try to give intelligent "teasers' to encourage people to go to the original. I did remove some bits.;)

 

How do you go, when at the bottom of an article, it says "send this article to a friend"; "send it to digg, facebook, stumble etc etc etc?" They seem to be encouraging dissemination of their work.

I think they would find it hard to defend their (?) copyright, in a court of law, when the article is properly attributed, and the basis of the article is a public press release. But I'm no lawyer.

[freeztar]

How do you go, when at the bottom of an article, it says "send this article to a friend"; "send it to digg, facebook, stumble etc etc etc?" They seem to be encouraging dissemination of their work.

I think they would find it hard to defend their (?) copyright, in a court of law, when the article is properly attributed, and the basis of the article is a public press release. But I'm no lawyer.

 

I'm not a lawyer either, so I like to play it safe.

 

The article in question was from sciencedaily.com and I've included some snippets from their terms of use page:

 

Science Daily encourages the use of the RSS feeds to augment content on your own site or blog, provided that you do not publish the full text of our stories. You must use the RSS feeds as provided by Science Daily, and you may not edit or modify the text, content or links supplied by Science Daily. Any alteration of content or failure to display content will constitute a violation of these Terms of Use. You must also provide proper attribution (included in each RSS feed) by listing “Science Daily” in text as the source for each article.

 

Permissions

 

If you are an editor, producer, or webmaster of a web site or blog that wishes to include ScienceDaily's headlines and, optionally, summaries on your site, you may freely reproduce our headlines and summaries from stories with "/releases/" in the path of their URLs -- provided that you include the appropriate links to the corresponding articles on ScienceDaily's web server and mention Science Daily as the source of these links (and, optionally, any sources cited in the stories). You agree to use a functional link to the full story on the Science Daily website that shall display the full content immediately (e.g., no jump pages or other intermediate or interstitial pages).

...

An example of an included headline and link may look something like this:

 

Headline: Old Brains Can Learn New Tricks: Study Shows Older People Use Different Areas Of The Brain To Perform Same "Thinking Task" As Young

Link: Old Brains Can Learn New Tricks: Study Shows Older People Use Different Areas Of The Brain To Perform Same "Thinking Task" As Young

Source: Science Daily / University of Toronto

 

Permission is also granted to place ScienceDaily's linked headlines and summaries on your web site through the use of the RSS feed available through this link: RSS Feed. However, you are not permitted to use more content than what is provided through the RSS feed. See RSS Terms of Use for details.

 

Please note that some of ScienceDaily's articles are adapted from news releases issued by their respective institutions. These releases are intended for journalists and other members of the public. If you wish to quote from any part of these articles, we suggest that you credit the issuing institution as the original source of the news release, in addition to mentioning Science Daily as the source of any link to the corresponding article on our server.

 

ScienceDaily: Terms and Conditions of Use

 

I agree that it is very unlikely that people would pursue legal action on a copyright basis, but it's best not to find out. In a more general sense, it's best to display other's content as they have outlined. In this sense, it's more about courtesy.

[Moontanman]

I would have to say that DNA repair is a substitute for sex at least in the cases shown. Is sex necessary for evolution? I would say for the vast majority of organisms yes is a limited answer. Why do I say limited? Almost four billion years of evolution occurred without sex. Sex came into play when eukaryotes started becoming more complex than simple bacteria and really started to move things along as life became ever more complex. I think it's a reasonable question to ask will DNA repair as mentioned in the cases shown ever replace sex as a driving force for evolution? Or is it just a quirky footnote in evolution?

[Pyrotex]

I would have to say that DNA repair is a substitute for sex at least in the cases shown. Is sex necessary for evolution? ... Almost four billion years of evolution occurred without sex. ... I think it's a reasonable question to ask will DNA repair as mentioned in the cases shown ever replace sex as a driving force for evolution? Or is it just a quirky footnote in evolution?

I vote for "quirky footnote".

 

Sex is not necessary for evolution. It would be extremely difficult to imagine any biological self-reproducing system that did not change over time, however slowly. Change=evolution.

 

Having said that--sex is necessary for rapid and efficient evolution. Sex permits critters to store a library of past solutions and random diversities in their DNA without having to manifest all of them. By mating with another critter, random selections of their DNA libraries get combined to form a new critter that is virtually the same, but different in critical detail. In this way, the "gene space" of all possible viable DNA combinations for that critter can be explored much much faster than by relying merely on mutation.

 

Look at how much life evolved in the first, say, 3 billion years. Nowhere NEAR as much as the last 600 million years. Sex made that difference.

 

Having said that (2)--DNA repair is mandatory for all life on Earth. Mutations actually occur at such a rate that over the course of several million years, most species would go extinct from faulty gene replication, whether they practice sex or not. Apparantly, DNA repair evolved rather early in the emergence of life.

 

Richard Dawkins pointed out that in one way, it's amazing that evolution by mutation occurs at all, given the efficiency of DNA repair. We're lucky that it's NOT a perfect process. :eek_big:

[Kayra]

On a side note:

 

I believe that improving our genetic repair system without passing this improvement on to our children is essential for our future space travel needs.

 

If we are to be at home among the stars, DNS self repair at a level that will completely stifle mutation (and therefore evolution) will be essential. We could perhaps borrow such capabilities from other life forms that are far more successful at it.

 

Not having this repair system affect our Gametes preserves our ability to evolve, but involves modifying our offspring in the same way as ourselves.

[Overdog]

I realize this may be off topic...

 

It is interesting to note that the most vulnerable to the next Bird Flu are those with the best immune systems

Those between 15-20+ age group

How does this gel with Darwin's survival of the fittest (for the given environment)?

 

But I believe the answer is because the virus kills by triggering a massive immune response. Those with the strongest immune systems are the ones most vulnerable to completly self-destructing.

[Overdog]

Oh, and as for survival of the fittest...they will.

 

Although at present the virus is statistically the most dangerous for those with strong immune systems, it is likely there will be some individuals within that group who's immune systems will easily kill the virus with no ill effects, and in this case, they would be deemed the "fittest".

[freeztar]

I realize this may be off topic...

 

But I believe the answer is because the virus kills by triggering a massive immune response. Those with the strongest immune systems are the ones most vulnerable to completly self-destructing.

 

That makes sense to me, though I couldn't find any info on it with a quick search. I did find a summary of a study done on bird flu where the researchers noted that those with strong immune systems may fair worse than others (presumably by the reason given by Overdog).

Bird flu may over-stimulate immune system - UPI.com

 

But to answer Mike's question, a strong immune system does not necessarily mean fittest for the environment.

 

Edit: Didn't see your last post there Overdog. :thumbs_up

[Overdog]

To elaborate, those of us alive today have inherited an immune system that has survived countless attacks from viruses and organisms for millions and millions of years. Over all these ages, these organisms have never stopped evolving new ways to by-pass the immune systems defenses, yet the fact that we are here to discuss it is evidence enough that there were always some few among our ancestors that survived long enough to reproduce.

 

And it is also evidence that the human species, despite a relative lack of genetic diversity as compared to some other species, still has sufficient genetic diversity such that it is very unlikely that any single instance of a newly evolved virus is going to wipe us out.

 

An example of a situation where there was insufficient genetic diversity is with the case of the "potato blight" that occured in ireland in 1845 - 1851.

All the potatoes in ireland at that time were descended from just a few potatoes brought over from the new world, and as a result all the potato plants were genetically identical. In that kind of scenario, anything that comes along that kills one of them will likely kill all of them, which is pretty much exactly what happened. Leading to mass starvation.

 

My ancestors, who lived there at that time, immigrated to America in order to survive. So, you can see that survival of the fittest (with respect to my ancestors) has not always necessarily been the consequence of having a better immune system.

[freeztar]

My ancestors, who lived there at that time, immigrated to America in order to survive. So, you can see that survival of the fittest (with respect to my ancestors) has not always necessarily been the consequence of having a better immune system.

 

Don't ask me how, but that reminded me of a story I read many years ago.

A town had been wiped out from a "plague" and the only two living humans remaining were a drunk and a baby (now that I think about it, maybe it was a riddle).

 

Anyhow, the baby and the drunk had pH's above and below the "normal" human pH value. Thus they survived the plague that only affected the "fittest".

 

"Fittest" is such a deceptive term at times.

[Moontanman]

Don't ask me how, but that reminded me of a story I read many years ago.

A town had been wiped out from a "plague" and the only two living humans remaining were a drunk and a baby (now that I think about it, maybe it was a riddle).

 

Anyhow, the baby and the drunk had pH's above and below the "normal" human pH value. Thus they survived the plague that only affected the "fittest".

 

"Fittest" is such a deceptive term at times.

 

The Andromeda strain by Michael Crichton, both a book and a movie.

[freeztar]

The Andromeda strain by Michael Crichton, both a book and a movie.

 

:rolleyes: Thank you, that was driving me Crazy! :phones:

[modest]

The Andromeda strain by Michael Crichton, both a book and a movie.

 

and a recently made miniseries which unfortunately was not worth the free airwaves it was broadcast on :rolleyes:

[Moontanman]

and a recently made miniseries which unfortunately was not worth the free airwaves it was broadcast on :rolleyes:

 

I'm glad i didn't catch that if it was that bad. I really hate to waste my time on remakes that are not as good as th original. you would think with better technology at least the tech parts would be better.

[Buffy]

I'm glad i didn't catch that if it was that bad. I really hate to waste my time on remakes that are not as good as th original. you would think with better technology at least the tech parts would be better.

Oh I didn't want to pollute Michael's thread, but it won't be the first time....

 

Someone went way out of their way to overcome what they thought was a "weak" or maybe "dated" Michael Crichton book...as if it was. So the hack that did the screenplay felt compelled to throw in plot lines from everything from "Seven Days in May" to "Indiana Jones and the Lost Ark" (the final scene), along with bits of slasher film genre (the kids in the desert both at the beginning and the end), and just to get really pedestrian, "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," "Silent Running," "Desperate Housewives" and the worst of the endless Temporal-Anomaly plots from Star Trek.

 

I sat through the whole thing only because it was an excuse to stare at Benjamin Bratt for 4 hours... :phones:

 

A truly execrable movie, when the original (full disclosure, a family friend was assistant director on the first one) was a classic, as was the book...

 

Precisely Senator. What do we do? :rolleyes:

Buffy

[Symbology]

I realize this may be off topic...

 

 

 

But I believe the answer is because the virus kills by triggering a massive immune response. Those with the strongest immune systems are the ones most vulnerable to completly self-destructing.

 

"Fittest" doesn't necessarily mean strongest responding. To my observation "Fittest" is often the balanced group in the middle. For example most military pilots are under 6 feet tall. They aren't the biggest, but they apparently are the most dexterous.

[Buffy]

For example most military pilots are under 6 feet tall. They aren't the biggest, but they apparently are the most dexterous.

Actually I'm fairly certain that it's because they fit in those dinky cockpits. I sat in a Harrier once and I was amazed at how small it is in there. Stupid engineers provide the "hostile environment" that does the "natural selection".... :shrug:

 

I tell you, we got two categories of pilots around here. We got your prime pilots that get all the hot planes, and we got your pud-knockers who dream about getting the hot planes. Now what are you two pud-knockers gonna have? :cheer:

Buffy