rockytriton Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 My wife was watching one of those "feel-good" lifetime channel movies and it got me thinking. It was about some couple who couldn't get pregnant, so they were trying invitro fertilization. So do you think this has any effect on the evolution of man? People who by natures laws (or even by God's laws to some of you) should not be multiplying. The worse part about it is that when they use IVF, some times they end up having 3 or 4 kids instead of just 1. I don't know if it really has an effect, but it also happens in zoos with species that are endangered. They are always trying to breed the tigers, elephants, pandas, and other animals that are dwindling in numbers. Well, maybe they are becoming extinct for a reason, and maybe us breeding poor quality animals that allowed themselves to be caught is just making the species weaker. Maybe I am just being crazy, but it just got me thinking. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAHD Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 Disengenics was it? Or atleast along similar lines I'd think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 On humans: the problem is delaying having children that is the norm in the first world. Humans were evolved to start having kids at 14! It was important when the average life span was under 25. Lifespans have grown tremendously due to the removal of the factors that caused an early death, but there's been no time for us to evolve to making trying to have kids after 40 *normal*. I don't see anything wrong with any of this, nor evidence that our gene pool is going bad--or for you interventionist God folks--that we're being "punished." On the animals, their habitats are being destroyed, and if they're having trouble reproducing in captivity, all I can say is YOU try having sex downtown in the middle of rush hour on the sidewalk! Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 all I can say is YOU try having sex downtown in the middle of rush hour on the sidewalk! we have morals and well...do they?if they do, then i could see what a great analogy that is.but if they don't, that would be really strange. :) :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 we have morals and well...do they?What? Its *morals* that keep us from having sex in the street? Why? What good does it do? Doesn't it inhibit procreation? Weren't orgies common both in Rome and pre-Revolutionary France and a lot of places where they don't like to admit it? Naw, its just the *prudes*. Doesn't say you shouldn't have sex in the middle of the street in the Bible...just can't "lie with a man as with a woman" that's all. Honestly, I don't think they like to do it with all the people hanging over the fences with their digital cameras.... Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eMTee Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 With captive animals, in the middle of the zoo, I would have to say, it's probably not the best environment to have young, or having a desire to try...I think it downgrades thier capability. It's most definately sure that animals don't become embarised at their apearence, unless you do the shave the hair off the family dog kinda thing......Animals I would say don't have morals..but instincts that are more ballenced and solid that Peoples'. In some cases it has to do with mutations that harm the whatever the process is..in other cases, damage, I do not think we are changing into any other creature though. With people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 One of the biggest problems in captive breeding programs is the size of the gene pool. You keep inter-breeding the last 600 of some animal you wonder why they all have haemophilia and bad hips... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 orgies in rome? i'm there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockytriton Posted May 24, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 One of the biggest problems in captive breeding programs is the size of the gene pool. You keep inter-breeding the last 600 of some animal you wonder why they all have haemophilia and bad hips... It seems that we keep trying to save these species, but wouldn't part of natural selection be that the species should become extinct because it was unable to survive? I hear a lot of people say that it's because MAN is interfering with nature, but aren't we a part of nature as well? I think we are a part of the balance of nature and that we may be interfering with nature by trying to preserve species that are becoming extinct where it be our fault or not. :) I also want to make sure it's known that this isn't actually some kind of ideology that I live by, it's just something that I was thinking and wondering about. I don't want to start some kind of "let the animals die" campaign or anything. orgies in rome? i'm there. sorry, you are about 2000 years too late :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 sorry, you are about 2000 years too late :) :D :D :D :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 It seems that we keep trying to save these species, but wouldn't part of natural selection be that the species should become extinct because it was unable to survive? I hear a lot of people say that it's because MAN is interfering with nature, but aren't we a part of nature as well? I think we are a part of the balance of nature and that we may be interfering with nature by trying to preserve species that are becoming extinct where it be our fault or not. :) I also want to make sure it's known that this isn't actually some kind of ideology that I live by, it's just something that I was thinking and wondering about. I don't want to start some kind of "let the animals die" campaign or anything. The problem is not that animals are going extinct, it is the rate at which they are dying off that is a bit frightening. I think we can all agree that nature is a very complex web of intereactions. To loose a species or two really is not that big of a deal, but the rate we are going has been correlated to that of the boundry of the Cretaceous and Tertiary era (Also known as the KT boundry and ther time period that the dinos disapeared). It is a bit like chopping down a tree. It's not going to really matter if you chop one down, as long as you are not up in the branches....unfortunately I feel we are out on a limb already. bumab 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 Good question! You can take this a bit further: When a kid gets born, and there's several birth defects, some serious, others not so, and the kid spends a couple of years in and out of hospitals until the wonder of modern medicine have sorted him or her out, that doesn't change anything in the quality of genes the kid carries. For instance, buck teeth caused by genetic info are sorted out with braces - but the genes will be carried to the next generation. We might even reach a stage pretty soon where kids will die unless spending the first couple of months in hospital so that they can be panelbeated into shape.Case in point - my sister's kid was born with a inherited heart defect. According to Nature, the kid was supposed to die. He got open-heart surgery three weeks after birth, and survived. But the problem is, he's carrying those genes, and his kids will most likely die unless operated on in their first couple of weeks as well. And our society will not deny him the chance to procreate, so all we're doing is perpetuating the growth of defunct genes in the gene pool. Kinda makes you go hmmmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 ...and his kids will most likely die unless operated on in their first couple of weeks as well. And our society will not deny him the chance to procreate, so all we're doing is perpetuating the growth of defunct genes in the gene pool...Actually, lots of folks with genetic disease are counseled not to have children. Type I (juvenile) diabetics are strongly encouraged not to have children, particularly not with another Type I diabetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts