about asthma, evolution and sports
Mark
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/e46ececdcc333f4d/db62b00683bc872e#db62b00683bc872e
But the answers to the questions have created more questions. I think
the topic is separate from the original one, and so, this is a new
thread.
I have read all the answers. Thanks a lot to everybody who has found
time to answer.
It is appreciated very much.
So, generally, answer to my questions is:
1. for fish, the water goes thru the gills. A lot of water. All because
there is less oxygen dilluted in water than oxygen dilluted in air.
2. To process that much water a very good (much more perfect than
human lungs, because human lungs do not extract most of the oxygen,
there is more left for "rebreather" ) system was created in the process
of evolution.
3. Since fish, evolutionwise is older than mammal, there was more time
for "engineering", so the better machine was created.
4.The concept that is used in the gills to extract oxygen can be
duplicated already with existing technology. The problem is that
machine that does it is so bulky, uses that much energy, that it is
practically unsuited for the activity like SCUBA diving.
So, here are some more questions. Probably they are not really related
to original "gill-lungs" question. It looks to me that there is an
obvious correlation. The longer period of evolution driven
"engineering" ---- the more perfect machine was created. ------- Gils
are better designed than lungs, as far as they are more efficient than
lungs in extracting higher percentage of oxygen from the media organism
lives in ----- water for fish; air for mammals.
Questions:
a. Does it imply that we, human species, which are mammals are
continuing to evolve?
b. What I mean is --- Will our lungs become better with the time?
Because there will be less and less percentage of oxygen in the media
we live in (air) ?
c. Or will we die out as dinozaurs because we could not adapt?
d. Is the ever increasing number of people suffering from asthma a sign
that we are going to become extinct?
e. Or is there some evidence that new, better functioning lungs are in
existence today than 2000 years ago?
f. there are people that live on mountains as opposed to valleys.
Where the media we live in is an air thinner than in the valleys. On
the mountains. Using the concepts of adaptability and evoulution, would
it be correct to say that these people have better, more efficient
lungs than people that leave in the valley?
g. Let us make assumption that answer to "f" is "yes"
Would not one of the solutions to asthma or some other lung related
genetic diseases, be to breed people from mountains with people from
the polluted cities, to make probablity of children born with better
lungs prevail.
h. Is there any suggestion from doctors for the people that have asthma
running in the family to try to find mates from the mountains instead
of the urban dwellers?
h. Is there any evidence that people that come from the mountain areas
and live in the cities perform better in athletics than original valley
dwellers?
k. Is there any evidence that people that are from the valleys when
moving to mountains perform worse?
l. Is there any evidence that children born from the people
historically living in the mountains are having smaller percentage of
lungs related diseases? Like asthma?
m.Is there any statistical evidence in human history that it is
beneficial if people from mountains are mating from valey dwellers.
n. Can it be genetically traced down today that exceptional world
athlets today come from the areas where environment as far as breathing
is concerned was more harsh than usual?
Cubist
[el snippo]
> ...here are some more questions. Probably they are not really related
> to original "gill-lungs" question. It looks to me that there is an
> obvious correlation. The longer period of evolution driven
> "engineering" ---- the more perfect machine was created. ------- Gils
> are better designed than lungs, as far as they are more efficient than
> lungs in extracting higher percentage of oxygen from the media organism
> lives in ----- water for fish; air for mammals.
>
> Questions:
> a. Does it imply that we, human species, which are mammals are
> continuing to evolve?
Yes, we humans are continuing to evolve. We know this, not because
of any specific piece of information having to do with lungs or oxygen,
but, rather, because there isn't any known way to *prevent* evolution
from occuring. Okay, an extinct species doesn't evolve much, but you
know what I mean here...
> b. What I mean is --- Will our lungs become better with the time?
> Because there will be less and less percentage of oxygen in the media
> we live in (air) ?
What makes you so sure that the percentage of oxygen in the air
*will* be progressively less and less in the future? Even if the oxygen
percentage is *currently* decreasing (which I don't know, one way or
another; but, y'know, just for the sake of argument...), it's far from
clear how many years into the future this trend will continue to run!
All of which said: If oxygen levels did indeed become increasingly
low, yes, it's possible that our lungs might become better over time.
As a real example of this sort of thing, I invite you to consider those
native tribes that live high up in the Andes, and who have a number of
adaptations that allow them to thrive under low-pressure (hnce,
low-oxygen) conditions.
> c. Or will we die out as dinozaurs because we could not adapt?
Again, consider the tribes of the Andes. It's clear that we *can*
adapt; it's just not *guaranteed* that we *will* adapt.
> d. Is the ever increasing number of people suffering from asthma a sign
> that we are going to become extinct?
Not necessarily. It could merely be a sign that medical science is
getting better at keeping people alive who, in past eras, would
otherwise have died of their affliction(s).
> e. Or is there some evidence that new, better functioning lungs are in
> existence today than 2000 years ago?
Hmmm... I'm not sure there *could* be such evidence. Without a time
machine, how would we go about comparing the efficiency of the lungs of
today, to that of the lungs of 2,000 years ago? Hopefully, someone who
knows what he's talking about will be able to provide the straight dope
on this topic...
> f. there are people that live on mountains as opposed to valleys.
> Where the media we live in is an air thinner than in the valleys. On
> the mountains. Using the concepts of adaptability and evoulution, would
> it be correct to say that these people have better, more efficient
> lungs than people that leave in the valley?
Yes -- but mostly because it would *also* be correct to say so
*whether or not* you used "the concepts of adaptability and evolution".
> g. Let us make assumption that answer to "f" is "yes"
> Would not one of the solutions to asthma or some other lung related
> genetic diseases, be to breed people from mountains with people from
> the polluted cities, to make probablity of children born with better
> lungs prevail.
Yes, that would seem to be one possible solution. There are certain
practical problems associated with that particular solution, of
course...
> h. Is there any suggestion from doctors for the people that have asthma
> running in the family to try to find mates from the mountains instead
> of the urban dwellers?
> h. Is there any evidence that people that come from the mountain areas
> and live in the cities perform better in athletics than original valley
> dwellers?
> k. Is there any evidence that people that are from the valleys when
> moving to mountains perform worse?
> l. Is there any evidence that children born from the people
> historically living in the mountains are having smaller percentage of
> lungs related diseases? Like asthma?
> m.Is there any statistical evidence in human history that it is
> beneficial if people from mountains are mating from valey dwellers.
Same answer to all of these: I don't know.
> n. Can it be genetically traced down today that exceptional world
> athlets today come from the areas where environment as far as breathing
> is concerned was more harsh than usual?
I'm not sure. In principle, it would seem that the kind of genetic
tracing you speak of ought to be possible; in practice, I'm not sure if
anybody has ever *done* it. But given the time and resources that have
been expended on sports and athletes, it would not surprise me to learn
that someone *had* done it already.
Nashton
No.
> b. What I mean is --- Will our lungs become better with the time?
> Because there will be less and less percentage of oxygen in the media
> we live in (air) ?
There is? Oh well, if you say so. There are many more adaptations of the
cardiovascular system that can occur in order to better utilize O2
before we "evolve."
> c. Or will we die out as dinozaurs because we could not adapt?
Adapt to what? Humans, through culture and technology, which acutely
distinguishes them from animals, can adapt to any kind of environment.
" Culture: The system of shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviors,
and artifacts that the members of society use to cope with their world
and with one another, and that are transmitted from generation to
generation through learning." Bates and Plog
> d. Is the ever increasing number of people suffering from asthma a sign
> that we are going to become extinct?
Asthma is unrelated to an imaginary lack of oxygen, but to allergies
which decrease the capacity of lungs to evacuate air.
Listen, before you can ask these types of questions, you need to get a
better understanding of asthma (actually, any understanding at *all*
will do), its etiopathology and you'll understand why the above
questions are just silly.You also need to look up oxygen consumption and
notions such as VO2 max.
>
--
Nicolas
"And, heaving alljawbreakical expressions out of Sare Isaac's universal
of specious aristmystic unsaid, A is for Anna like L is for liv."
Finnegans Wake (293)
".... It means that all living things are the product of mindless
material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random
variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like
everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe.
Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that these claims go far
beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson, The Church Of Darwin
Nashton
<snip>
Oxygen consumption has at least as much to do with O2 delivery to
tissues and improved utilization than lung performance parameters.
His whole line of questioning is based on the false assumption that
asthma is somehow related to lung capacity. I should have just kept
quiet and waited until all the evo-goons had a shot at this one and made
complete ignoramuses of themselves.
Too funny.
Robert Weldon
"Nashton" <nan...@nb.ca> wrote in message
news:Zsrrg.7406$pu3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Cubist wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Oxygen consumption has at least as much to do with O2 delivery to tissues
> and improved utilization than lung performance parameters.
>
> His whole line of questioning is based on the false assumption that asthma
> is somehow related to lung capacity. I should have just kept quiet and
> waited until all the evo-goons had a shot at this one and made complete
> ignoramuses of themselves.
>
> Too funny.
Yes, you are, also stupid.
-lying weasel lawyer sig snipped
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>So, here are some more questions. Probably they are not really related
>to original "gill-lungs" question. It looks to me that there is an
>obvious correlation. The longer period of evolution driven
>"engineering" ---- the more perfect machine was created. ------- Gils
>are better designed than lungs, as far as they are more efficient than
>lungs in extracting higher percentage of oxygen from the media organism
>lives in ----- water for fish; air for mammals.
>
>Questions:
>a. Does it imply that we, human species, which are mammals are
>continuing to evolve?
Yes, all life continues to evolve.
>b. What I mean is --- Will our lungs become better with the time?
Yes, put yourself in a stuation where, generation after generation,
the air is thinner and lung capacity tends to grow.
>Because there will be less and less percentage of oxygen in the media
>we live in (air) ?
Where do you get that idea from?
>c. Or will we die out as dinozaurs because we could not adapt?
We do have technolgy on our side.
>d. Is the ever increasing number of people suffering from asthma a sign
>that we are going to become extinct?
No. Asthma has a number of causes only some of which are genetic.
>e. Or is there some evidence that new, better functioning lungs are in
>existence today than 2000 years ago?
No evidence ot all.
>f. there are people that live on mountains as opposed to valleys.
>Where the media we live in is an air thinner than in the valleys. On
>the mountains. Using the concepts of adaptability and evoulution, would
>it be correct to say that these people have better, more efficient
>lungs than people that leave in the valley?
Yes.
>g. Let us make assumption that answer to "f" is "yes"
>Would not one of the solutions to asthma or some other lung related
>genetic diseases, be to breed people from mountains with people from
>the polluted cities, to make probablity of children born with better
>lungs prevail.
In short, no. The differecne is not large though it is there.
>h. Is there any suggestion from doctors for the people that have asthma
>running in the family to try to find mates from the mountains instead
>of the urban dwellers?
No.
>h. Is there any evidence that people that come from the mountain areas
>and live in the cities perform better in athletics than original valley
>dwellers?
Yes. Though the advantage is very short lived.
>k. Is there any evidence that people that are from the valleys when
>moving to mountains perform worse?
Oh yes - you can try that yourself.
>l. Is there any evidence that children born from the people
>historically living in the mountains are having smaller percentage of
>lungs related diseases? Like asthma?
No. Not when you compare like with like.
>m.Is there any statistical evidence in human history that it is
>beneficial if people from mountains are mating from valey dwellers.
Doubt it.
>n. Can it be genetically traced down today that exceptional world
>athlets today come from the areas where environment as far as breathing
>is concerned was more harsh than usual?
Don't know.
--
Bob.
Robert Weldon
Liar, doesn't your Bible say something about the consequences of doing that?
>> b. What I mean is --- Will our lungs become better with the time?
>> Because there will be less and less percentage of oxygen in the media
>> we live in (air) ?
>
> There is? Oh well, if you say so. There are many more adaptations of the
> cardiovascular system that can occur in order to better utilize O2 before
> we "evolve."
Adaptations, you mean those changes that rational people call evolution?
>
>> c. Or will we die out as dinozaurs because we could not adapt?
>
> Adapt to what? Humans, through culture and technology, which acutely
> distinguishes them from animals, can adapt to any kind of environment.
We evolved that capacity.
You need to get a better understanding of biology, in particular, evolution.
Bill Hudson
All species evolve.
> b. What I mean is --- Will our lungs become better with the time?
> Because there will be less and less percentage of oxygen in the media
> we live in (air) ?
I don't think there's any clear indication that the percent of O2 is
going down.
> c. Or will we die out as dinozaurs because we could not adapt?
> d. Is the ever increasing number of people suffering from asthma a sign
> that we are going to become extinct?
No.
> e. Or is there some evidence that new, better functioning lungs are in
> existence today than 2000 years ago?
No.
> f. there are people that live on mountains as opposed to valleys.
> Where the media we live in is an air thinner than in the valleys. On
> the mountains. Using the concepts of adaptability and evoulution, would
> it be correct to say that these people have better, more efficient
> lungs than people that leave in the valley?
Natives of the Andes tend to develop barrel chests and larger lung
volumes. I'm not sure if this is genetically based or simply a
reaction by the organism to the thinner air and lower O2 percentage.
There's an article on it here:
http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/204/18/3151
A quote from the abstract: "...in humans, it is inherently very
difficult to determine what proportion of the trait is dictated by an
individual's genetic heritage and what proportion develops in
response to the environment in which the person is born and raised."
I need to correct you on one point, and this example is a good jumping
off point. To say 'better' you really have to consider the organism
*and* the environment. Larger lung volume is 'better' at high
altitude, but probably confers no real reproductive advantage at sea
level. If a Andean native moved from the high plateau down to sea
level, his or her children would only inherit the trait if it was
genetically based (as opposed to a developmental reaction to growing up
in the high altitude), and if the trait conferred a reproductive
advantage.
> g. Let us make assumption that answer to "f" is "yes"
> Would not one of the solutions to asthma or some other lung related
> genetic diseases, be to breed people from mountains with people from
> the polluted cities, to make probablity of children born with better
> lungs prevail.
Asthma (which I suffer from) has nothing to do with lung capacity.
> h. Is there any suggestion from doctors for the people that have asthma
> running in the family to try to find mates from the mountains instead
> of the urban dwellers?
No. Asthma arises from many causes.
> h. Is there any evidence that people that come from the mountain areas
> and live in the cities perform better in athletics than original valley
> dwellers?
They perform better in some athletics (such as long distance running).
Larger lung capacity probably has no advantage for things like discus,
weight-lifting, etc.
> k. Is there any evidence that people that are from the valleys when
> moving to mountains perform worse?
Yes, but it may have nothing to do with genetics.
> l. Is there any evidence that children born from the people
> historically living in the mountains are having smaller percentage of
> lungs related diseases? Like asthma?
Not to my knowledge.
> m.Is there any statistical evidence in human history that it is
> beneficial if people from mountains are mating from valey dwellers.
Not to my knowledge.
> n. Can it be genetically traced down today that exceptional world
> athlets today come from the areas where environment as far as breathing
> is concerned was more harsh than usual?
Natives of high altitude environments tend to do better in aerobic
activities than natives of lower altitude environments. However, the
human body is very adaptable, and having an athlete train for aerobic
activies at high altitude tends to even out the results.
Kermit
Correct, altho you are probably saying that simply because you don't
like the term evolution. The fact is that genetic adaptation (aka
"Evolution") has to work with what it has, and it may be that our lungs
cannot significantly improve its adaptation to our current environment.
>
> > b. What I mean is --- Will our lungs become better with the time?
> > Because there will be less and less percentage of oxygen in the media
> > we live in (air) ?
>
> There is? Oh well, if you say so. There are many more adaptations of the
> cardiovascular system that can occur in order to better utilize O2
> before we "evolve."
Correct. It is not clear that high mountain people like Tibetans and
Ades Indians have better lungs, per se. They have larger noses, to warm
and poisten the air they breathe in.
They have a higher hemoglobin count - for the lurkers, hemoglobin is
the molecule in red blood cells which carry oxygen. I do not know if
they have larger lung capacity. These adaptations are minor, and it is
not clear what further changes might be seen in a population that lived
there for hundreds of thousands of years.
>
> > c. Or will we die out as dinozaurs because we could not adapt?
>
> Adapt to what? Humans, through culture and technology, which acutely
> distinguishes them from animals, can adapt to any kind of environment.
Correct. Technology is far more important now than the evolutionary
processes which produced us.
>
> " Culture: The system of shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviors,
> and artifacts that the members of society use to cope with their world
> and with one another, and that are transmitted from generation to
> generation through learning." Bates and Plog
>
> > d. Is the ever increasing number of people suffering from asthma a sign
> > that we are going to become extinct?
>
> Asthma is unrelated to an imaginary lack of oxygen, but to allergies
> which decrease the capacity of lungs to evacuate air.
Seems to be, yup. I have mild asthma; I can run for several miles
(well, plod) but when lying in my bed at night the asthma is often
triggered by simple house dust.
Correct, if harsher than necessary.
>
> --
> Nicolas
>
>
<snip Joyce's description of ID theory>
<snip ID founder's admission that ID is based on religion, not science>
Kermit
Shane
> I have started a thread at:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/e46ececdcc333f4d/db62b00683bc872e#db62b00683bc872e
>
> But the answers to the questions have created more questions. I think
> the topic is separate from the original one, and so, this is a new
> thread.
> I have read all the answers. Thanks a lot to everybody who has found
> time to answer.
> It is appreciated very much.
> So, generally, answer to my questions is:
> 1. for fish, the water goes thru the gills. A lot of water. All because
> there is less oxygen dilluted in water than oxygen dilluted in air.
> 2. To process that much water a very good (much more perfect than
> human lungs, because human lungs do not extract most of the oxygen,
> there is more left for "rebreather" ) system was created in the process
> of evolution.
> 3. Since fish, evolutionwise is older than mammal, there was more time
> for "engineering", so the better machine was created.
Just the opposite, in all likelihood. Gills developed earlier in
evolutionary history, so there was less development time.
> 4.The concept that is used in the gills to extract oxygen can be
> duplicated already with existing technology. The problem is that
> machine that does it is so bulky, uses that much energy, that it is
> practically unsuited for the activity like SCUBA diving.
>
> So, here are some more questions. Probably they are not really related
> to original "gill-lungs" question. It looks to me that there is an
> obvious correlation. The longer period of evolution driven
> "engineering" ---- the more perfect machine was created.
Evolution does not produce perfection except in rare cases (which I am
too modest to give an example of), it generally produces adequacy. It
most frequently produces those with just enough of an edge to survive.
The human senses are a prime example. As far as I know there are other
animals that can out-perform the individual human senses, on a case by
case basis. Dogs hear better, birds see better, playtpuses are far more
sensitive to electric fields etc. In spite of our perceived success in
evolutionary terms, our senses are just enough to get us by.
> ------- Gils
> are better designed than lungs, as far as they are more efficient than
> lungs in extracting higher percentage of oxygen from the media organism
> lives in ----- water for fish; air for mammals.
Designed? Is an electric motor a better design than a petrol motor? As
my father is want to say, you are comparing two crooked sticks. Gills
and lungs are different mechanisms to acheive roughly the same purpose
in different mediums. As such, they both do their job adequately enough
for the dependent organisms to survive. No less, no more.
>
> Questions:
> a. Does it imply that we, human species, which are mammals are
> continuing to evolve?
It does not, although we are still evolving, as is any fpopulation of
organisms that successfully reproduces.
> b. What I mean is --- Will our lungs become better with the time?
Generally not, unless there is selective pressure for them to do so.
However there is always the chance mutation that may catch on.
> Because there will be less and less percentage of oxygen in the media
> we live in (air) ?
If that was the case, then that would provide a selection pressure that
may enable those with better lung efficiencey to reproduce easier. If
the change in atmosphere happens slowly enough then it may lead to
noticable changes.
> c. Or will we die out as dinozaurs because we could not adapt?
Possibly, although the dinosaurs had very little time to adapt to a
large meteor strike, I suspect our ability would be just as poor.
> d. Is the ever increasing number of people suffering from asthma a sign
> that we are going to become extinct?
No, it is merely a sign that more people suffer from asthma. This may be
a sign that modern medicine, transportation and communication has
allowed a higher percentage of asthma sufferers to survive and so a
weakness is being built in that otherwise may have been selected
against.
> e. Or is there some evidence that new, better functioning lungs are in
> existence today than 2000 years ago?
A very difficult question to answer, given the inability to make actual
comparisons.
> f. there are people that live on mountains as opposed to valleys.
> Where the media we live in is an air thinner than in the valleys. On
> the mountains. Using the concepts of adaptability and evoulution, would
> it be correct to say that these people have better, more efficient
> lungs than people that leave in the valley?
Generally yes, however the lowlanders can gain the same benefits by
moving to the mountains. That is why sports people do mountain training
to increase lung capacity and efficiency.
> g. Let us make assumption that answer to "f" is "yes"
> Would not one of the solutions to asthma or some other lung related
> genetic diseases, be to breed people from mountains with people from
> the polluted cities, to make probablity of children born with better
> lungs prevail.
Only if the increased lung efficiency of the mountain people was a
genetic difference. I do not think that it is. It is a usage difference,
similar to the muscular difference between a person who exercises and
one who does not.
> h. Is there any suggestion from doctors for the people that have asthma
> running in the family to try to find mates from the mountains instead
> of the urban dwellers?
No. see previous answer.
> h. Is there any evidence that people that come from the mountain areas
> and live in the cities perform better in athletics than original valley
> dwellers?
If their training regimes are the same, yes. But the mountain dweller
will lose their advantage if they stay out of the mountains, unless they
train harder to make up the difference.
> k. Is there any evidence that people that are from the valleys when
> moving to mountains perform worse?
For a short period until they gain the benefit of exercising their lungs
harder for the same training regime.
> l. Is there any evidence that children born from the people
> historically living in the mountains are having smaller percentage of
> lungs related diseases? Like asthma?
Probably, but more likely due to cleaner air than lower atmospheric
pressure. However the asthma rates for Mexico City would be an
interesting place to start, as it is very polluted and at a high
altitude.
> m.Is there any statistical evidence in human history that it is
> beneficial if people from mountains are mating from valey dwellers.
Not in the way you probably mean.
> n. Can it be genetically traced down today that exceptional world
> athlets today come from the areas where environment as far as breathing
> is concerned was more harsh than usual?
No. Arguably the best long distance runners in the world come from
Kenya, and few train in the elevated areas. Depending on the sport
involved, different body shpaes, percentage of fast twitch muscle and a
myriad other factors are involved. Altitude trainig can enhance existing
abilities, it cannot create them. The Mexico City Olympics were at the
highest elevation ever for an Olympic games. The Mexicans did not sweep
the field with that home town advantage.
Kermit
Mark wrote:
> I have started a thread at:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/e46ececdcc333f4d/db62b00683bc872e#db62b00683bc872e
>
> But the answers to the questions have created more questions. I think
> the topic is separate from the original one, and so, this is a new
> thread.
> I have read all the answers. Thanks a lot to everybody who has found
> time to answer.
> It is appreciated very much.
> So, generally, answer to my questions is:
> 1. for fish, the water goes thru the gills. A lot of water. All because
> there is less oxygen dilluted in water than oxygen dilluted in air.
> 2. To process that much water a very good (much more perfect than
> human lungs, because human lungs do not extract most of the oxygen,
> there is more left for "rebreather" ) system was created in the process
> of evolution.
> 3. Since fish, evolutionwise is older than mammal, there was more time
> for "engineering", so the better machine was created.
This assumes that there is further room for improvement. Assuming an
environment more or less like the late paleolithic, what evidence do
you have that lungs can be improved, given their current status as the
starting point for any future changes? From the neck down, what changes
have shown up in the fossil record over the last 1,000,000 years?
We are excelent long-distance runners; there are only a couple of
species that can give us a run for the money.
> 4.The concept that is used in the gills to extract oxygen can be
> duplicated already with existing technology. The problem is that
> machine that does it is so bulky, uses that much energy, that it is
> practically unsuited for the activity like SCUBA diving.
Wait 20 years :)
>
> So, here are some more questions. Probably they are not really related
> to original "gill-lungs" question. It looks to me that there is an
> obvious correlation. The longer period of evolution driven
> "engineering" ---- the more perfect machine was created. ------- Gils
> are better designed than lungs, as far as they are more efficient than
> lungs in extracting higher percentage of oxygen from the media organism
> lives in ----- water for fish; air for mammals.
>
Only assuming there is further adaptation possible. (Not design from
scratch.)
> Questions:
> a. Does it imply that we, human species, which are mammals are
> continuing to evolve?
Until we consciously control every birth and scan the genetic code and
make decisions... yes.
> b. What I mean is --- Will our lungs become better with the time?
> Because there will be less and less percentage of oxygen in the media
> we live in (air) ?
Please show evidence that there is decreasing oxygen content.
Please show evidence that asthma is related to insufficient oxygen. As
an asthmatic (mild), I have an interest. It seems to be caused by a
genetic propensity and childhood exposure to pollutants. It *may
involve auto-immune responses, which may be the result of a system
well-prepared for parasites which never show up, and it becoems overly
sensitive to minor allergens and irritants.
In othe words, asthma is likely caused by clean sheets, showers, and
dirty air.
> c. Or will we die out as dinozaurs because we could not adapt?
Technology is far more important than genetic adaption these days.
Soon, evolution may become a meaningless term in humanity, if we take
over our own genetic future.
> d. Is the ever increasing number of people suffering from asthma a sign
> that we are going to become extinct?
It's probably a sign that we need to clean up the air and tweak some
body chemistry.
> e. Or is there some evidence that new, better functioning lungs are in
> existence today than 2000 years ago?
2000 years is not much time for evolution to show up in creatures with
20-year generations. Especially when we change our own environment so
quickly, both deliberately and accidentally.
> f. there are people that live on mountains as opposed to valleys.
> Where the media we live in is an air thinner than in the valleys. On
> the mountains. Using the concepts of adaptability and evoulution, would
> it be correct to say that these people have better, more efficient
> lungs than people that leave in the valley?
It's not yet clear, last I heard. They haven't been living there but a
few thousand years; not much time to evolve. It's not clear how much of
their differnces are gentic and how much simple adapted from birth to
the environment.
> g. Let us make assumption that answer to "f" is "yes"
> Would not one of the solutions to asthma or some other lung related
> genetic diseases, be to breed people from mountains with people from
> the polluted cities, to make probablity of children born with better
> lungs prevail.
If you're going to breed people, perhaps your easiest methods is just
to remove asthmatics from the gene pool. I should warn you; I'm armed.
> h. Is there any suggestion from doctors for the people that have asthma
> running in the family to try to find mates from the mountains instead
> of the urban dwellers?
<snort>
I'm sure that would go over well with nearly all demographic groups.
Doctors occasionally give genetic cousneling, yes. Why not just
encourage asthmatics to mate with people without asthma?
> h. Is there any evidence that people that come from the mountain areas
> and live in the cities perform better in athletics than original valley
> dwellers?
In long distance running, perhaps. Cold climate people tend to have
shorter limbs, however (an adaptation to the cold). While runners will
often train in high climate (to increase their red blood cell count),
the winners of endurance events are usually medium-tall and lanky.
> k. Is there any evidence that people that are from the valleys when
> moving to mountains perform worse?
Yes, if the mountains are reasonably high. They can't all adapt. And
adaptation is always easier when you start young.
> l. Is there any evidence that children born from the people
> historically living in the mountains are having smaller percentage of
> lungs related diseases? Like asthma?
No. Since mountain air is generally clean, they have no inborn
resistance to air pollution. But adaptation to car exhaust may take a
few hundred generations to become significant. The environment may
change in that time...
> m.Is there any statistical evidence in human history that it is
> beneficial if people from mountains are mating from valey dwellers.
I think you need to learn a little more about asthma, thin air
adaption, genetics, and how tricky it would be trying to track down
the statistics you want.
> n. Can it be genetically traced down today that exceptional world
> athlets today come from the areas where environment as far as breathing
> is concerned was more harsh than usual?
Harsh? Do you mean hot, cold, thin, polluted, dry, or what?
And how much difference do you think this matters for fencers,
gymnasts, equestrians, weight lifters, etc?
Some of the best long distance runners are Kenyans, who collectively
have little money for other sports, tend to be lanky, and have the
perfect environment for running barefoot for long distances in the heat
(what a coincidence!).
Kermit
eyelessgame
Mark wrote:
> Questions:
> a. Does it imply that we, human species, which are mammals are
> continuing to evolve?
Everything that reproduces evolves, because there is always mutation
and recombination, and differential reproductive success. Period.
> b. What I mean is --- Will our lungs become better with the time?
> Because there will be less and less percentage of oxygen in the media
> we live in (air) ?
O2 will go down, over time, if we kill off enough plant life. The
bigger problem for the way our lungs currently work is that the CO2
content will go up.
As for whether it will cause our lungs to get better -- the answer to
that is "yes, if and only if better lungs actually help people survive
and reproduce." If we reach the point where better lungs produce better
sperm motility, or our current lungs start causing people to die off,
or a person with better lungs is better able to go clubbing all night
and goes home with more folks of the opposite gender... basically, it
has to affect our survival and reproduction.
And so long as we have technology, that's unlikely.
> c. Or will we die out as dinozaurs because we could not adapt?
We might. Not, probably, from changing O2 in the atmosphere, but we
could die off from any number of other things.
> d. Is the ever increasing number of people suffering from asthma a sign
> that we are going to become extinct?
No. Asthma is an environmental condition not related to the amount of
O2 in the atmosphere, and it's certainly not a sign we are going to
become extinct.
That people with asthma survive and thrive is a symptom of our
technology affecting our environment -- we can survive better because
our environment no longer disables and kills us -- because our
technology makes the human environment more forgiving (through
medicine, therapy, etc.) while aspects of it also change the overall
planetary environment to the detriment of most species.
> e. Or is there some evidence that new, better functioning lungs are in
> existence today than 2000 years ago?
No, there's no evidence of this. It would be extremely surprising if
there were, for two reasons: first, people are not dying off from not
having good enough lungs for the environment; second, two thousand
years is an absurdly short time for humans to evolve any new trait.
> f. there are people that live on mountains as opposed to valleys.
> Where the media we live in is an air thinner than in the valleys. On
> the mountains. Using the concepts of adaptability and evoulution, would
> it be correct to say that these people have better, more efficient
> lungs than people that leave in the valley?
Through exercise and use, yes. Through genetics, no. People simply
don't stay put that long, and don't evolve that rapidly.
> g. Let us make assumption that answer to "f" is "yes"
> Would not one of the solutions to asthma or some other lung related
> genetic diseases, be to breed people from mountains with people from
> the polluted cities, to make probablity of children born with better
> lungs prevail.
N/a.
> h. Is there any suggestion from doctors for the people that have asthma
> running in the family to try to find mates from the mountains instead
> of the urban dwellers?
No, see above.
> h. Is there any evidence that people that come from the mountain areas
> and live in the cities perform better in athletics than original valley
> dwellers?
People who are personally adapted (through habit and exercise) to
mountains perform better in the mountains. I'm not aware of any study
that suggests that they perform better overall.
> k. Is there any evidence that people that are from the valleys when
> moving to mountains perform worse?
Yes, until their lungs and circulatory systems adapt. There is not, to
my knowledge, any genetic difference -- once again, I am not aware of
any study suggesting people segregate into mountain and valley
populations for enough generations to produce genetic difference.
> l. Is there any evidence that children born from the people
> historically living in the mountains are having smaller percentage of
> lungs related diseases? Like asthma?
Not for genetic reasons. AGain.
> m.Is there any statistical evidence in human history that it is
> beneficial if people from mountains are mating from valey dwellers.
Not that I'm aware of.
> n. Can it be genetically traced down today that exceptional world
> athlets today come from the areas where environment as far as breathing
> is concerned was more harsh than usual?
No.
eyelessgame
Larry Moran
[snip]
> We are excelent long-distance runners; there are only a couple of
> species that can give us a run for the money.
Hmmm ... Let's see how we can test that hyptothesis.
Let's pick one hundred people at random from the streets of Toronto.
To make it fair we'll exclude pregnant women and people with obvious
physical disabilities.
Then we'll select 100 dogs, 100 ostriches, 100 wildebeest, 100 horses,
100 lions, 100 squirrels, 100 caribou, 100 hyenas, 100 Barbary apes,
100 mountain goats, 100 deer, 100 jack rabbits, and 100 kangaroos.
We will line everyone up at the beginning of a 50 mile race track on
the prairies outside of Regina. There will be tall fences along the sides.
At the back there will be a line of APC's with flamethrowers.
When the gun sounds the flamethrowers will advance creating a wall of
flame that moves forward at 5 mph. The winning species will be the one
with the greatest number of survivors when the APC's reach the end of
the track.
Place your bets. You have to pick the species winner as well as the
total number of humans who survive.
Larry Moran
Robert Grumbine
Make it 3 mph, 100 miles, and the humans and dogs win. Horses
lose to humans at that distance. 50 miles is a little dicier as
random Torontonians are not in as good a shape for their species
as random horses are for theirs. Depending on which breed of dog,
humans will win over the dogs. (Probably not wolves.)
Your list is a bit of stacking the deck, of course. All the
best non-human endurance are on your list, but you fail to list
some thousands of land animals which are greatly inferior to
humans as endurance athletes (tack up the amphibians and reptiles,
for instance).
Further stacking, of course, by equating a species in which
current exemplars are no longer selected for their endurance ability
and pitting against those which have not lost that selection.
Random, but _trained_, humans (and we'd be trained if we still had
need of the ability) are still among the outstanding endurance
athletes on land, in spite of the fact that there's no purpose
served by the ability any more. If you let the humans get in
to shape first, set the criterion at 5 mph and 50 miles and
put your money on:
Pronghorn Antelope
Wolves
Humans
critter flambee
... in this order. You'll lose none of the Pronghorn, some
of the wolves, something like half the humans, and all or nearly
all the rest. Humans run down horses in the long haul. We
also do 50 and 100 mile races for amusement, not even requiring
walls of flamethrowers to start the race. (Mass lobotomy rays
don't hurt, however.)
(See Noakes _The Lore of Running_ 4th edition for some ranking
of species for endurance ability.)
What is remarkable is not so much that only a few species
beat trained humans (note that I'm not talking about elite
humans -- I'm far from elite myself and in training expect
to be under 10 hours for 50 miles, maybe as low as 7.5 on
an easy course*.), but the contrast that even if you pick very
elite humans almost all land animals anywhere near our size
clobber us. The 'land speed records' for animals take random
examplars of the other animals and chase them with something
over unfriendly terrain, for some convenient-to-humans-to-measure
distance. The human they're compared to is an elite sprinter,
in spikes, on a track, for the fastest 10 meters of a 100 meter
sprint. Even with that, humans are behind elephants, rhinocerous,
alligators (or is it crocodiles, or both), ludicrously behind
ostrich, horses, dogs, cats, moose, polar bears, ...
*Being on that easy a course does raise the chance of not finishing
due to intense boredom. The ~10 hours is for a trail course
going up hill, down dale, crossing streams, and, above all, staying
off flat pavement.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Kermit
Larry Moran wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2006 08:08:03 -0700, Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > We are excelent long-distance runners; there are only a couple of
> > species that can give us a run for the money.
>
> Hmmm ... Let's see how we can test that hyptothesis.
>
> Let's pick one hundred people at random from the streets of Toronto.
> To make it fair we'll exclude pregnant women and people with obvious
> physical disabilities.
Nope. They don't live in the environment under which we evolved.
>
> Then we'll select 100 dogs, 100 ostriches, 100 wildebeest, 100 horses,
> 100 lions, 100 squirrels, 100 caribou, 100 hyenas, 100 Barbary apes,
> 100 mountain goats, 100 deer, 100 jack rabbits, and 100 kangaroos.
I'm fat and 55, and I can outrun more than half of these for a five
mile stretch.
>
> We will line everyone up at the beginning of a 50 mile race track on
> the prairies outside of Regina. There will be tall fences along the sides.
> At the back there will be a line of APC's with flamethrowers.
Grab the average Masaai.
Or get in your time machine and grab the average Sioux from 300 years
ago, or the average North European from 5000 years ago.
>
> When the gun sounds the flamethrowers will advance creating a wall of
> flame that moves forward at 5 mph. The winning species will be the one
> with the greatest number of survivors when the APC's reach the end of
> the track.
>
> Place your bets. You have to pick the species winner as well as the
> total number of humans who survive.
>
>
>
>
>
> Larry Moran
I've outrun couch potato dogs (not fat, just out of shape) over very
short distances. Here ya go:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041123163757.htm
Kermit
Larry Moran
Robert Grumbine <bo...@radix.net> wrote:
> In article <slrneat662....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>,
> Larry Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>On 7 Jul 2006 08:08:03 -0700, Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>> We are excelent long-distance runners; there are only a couple of
>>> species that can give us a run for the money.
>>
>>Hmmm ... Let's see how we can test that hyptothesis.
>>
>>Let's pick one hundred people at random from the streets of Toronto.
>>To make it fair we'll exclude pregnant women and people with obvious
>>physical disabilities.
>>
>>Then we'll select 100 dogs, 100 ostriches, 100 wildebeest, 100 horses,
>>100 lions, 100 squirrels, 100 caribou, 100 hyenas, 100 Barbary apes,
>>100 mountain goats, 100 deer, 100 jack rabbits, and 100 kangaroos.
>>
>>We will line everyone up at the beginning of a 50 mile race track on
>>the prairies outside of Regina. There will be tall fences along the sides.
>>At the back there will be a line of APC's with flamethrowers.
>>
>>When the gun sounds the flamethrowers will advance creating a wall of
>>flame that moves forward at 5 mph. The winning species will be the one
>>with the greatest number of survivors when the APC's reach the end of
>>the track.
>
> Make it 3 mph, 100 miles, and the humans and dogs win.
Amazing. I don't know many humans who could walk 100 miles in 33 hours.
You must have different friends than me!
> Horses lose to humans at that distance. 50 miles is a little dicier as
> random Torontonians are not in as good a shape for their species
> as random horses are for theirs. Depending on which breed of dog,
> humans will win over the dogs. (Probably not wolves.)
How do you know this?
> Your list is a bit of stacking the deck, of course. All the
> best non-human endurance are on your list, but you fail to list
> some thousands of land animals which are greatly inferior to
> humans as endurance athletes (tack up the amphibians and reptiles,
> for instance).
Of course I'm stacking the deck. I'm trying to make a point. The vaunted
superiority of humans at long distance running seems to be a myth.
Perhaps we're good at it but nowhere near the top of the heap as far as
I can see.
> Further stacking, of course, by equating a species in which
> current exemplars are no longer selected for their endurance ability
> and pitting against those which have not lost that selection.
Now that's not fair. You have no way of knowing whether our ancestors
were any better at it than us. I know it's quite popular to imagine that
all humans looked and behaved like an Olympic athlete but I doubt
whether that's an accurate picture.
If you get to pick the best-trained human athletes then I get to pick
animals that have been training for several years as well.
> Random, but _trained_, humans (and we'd be trained if we still had
> need of the ability) are still among the outstanding endurance
> athletes on land, in spite of the fact that there's no purpose
> served by the ability any more. If you let the humans get in
> to shape first, set the criterion at 5 mph and 50 miles and
> put your money on:
> Pronghorn Antelope
> Wolves
> Humans
> critter flambee
> .. in this order. You'll lose none of the Pronghorn, some
> of the wolves, something like half the humans, and all or nearly
> all the rest. Humans run down horses in the long haul. We
> also do 50 and 100 mile races for amusement, not even requiring
> walls of flamethrowers to start the race. (Mass lobotomy rays
> don't hurt, however.)
No sane human does 100 mile races for amusement. :-)
How come I don't get to train the other animals?
> (See Noakes _The Lore of Running_ 4th edition for some ranking
> of species for endurance ability.)
Don't know this book. What experiments did he do?
Larry Moran
Robert Grumbine
Larry Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:16:13 -0000,
>Robert Grumbine <bo...@radix.net> wrote:
>> In article <slrneat662....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>,
>> Larry Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>On 7 Jul 2006 08:08:03 -0700, Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
[snip]
>> Make it 3 mph, 100 miles, and the humans and dogs win.
>
>Amazing. I don't know many humans who could walk 100 miles in 33 hours.
>You must have different friends than me!
Of course I do. Some run 100 mile races up and down the Rockies
for amusement.
>> Horses lose to humans at that distance. 50 miles is a little dicier as
>> random Torontonians are not in as good a shape for their species
>> as random horses are for theirs. Depending on which breed of dog,
>> humans will win over the dogs. (Probably not wolves.)
>
>How do you know this?
Experience and the Noakes cite.
>> Your list is a bit of stacking the deck, of course. All the
>> best non-human endurance are on your list, but you fail to list
>> some thousands of land animals which are greatly inferior to
>> humans as endurance athletes (tack up the amphibians and reptiles,
>> for instance).
>
>Of course I'm stacking the deck. I'm trying to make a point. The vaunted
>superiority of humans at long distance running seems to be a myth.
I dunno. Being plausible contenders to beat > 90% of land animals
(species) at something is a fair sort of superiority.
>Perhaps we're good at it but nowhere near the top of the heap as far as
>I can see.
>
>> Further stacking, of course, by equating a species in which
>> current exemplars are no longer selected for their endurance ability
>> and pitting against those which have not lost that selection.
>
>Now that's not fair. You have no way of knowing whether our ancestors
>were any better at it than us. I know it's quite popular to imagine that
>all humans looked and behaved like an Olympic athlete but I doubt
>whether that's an accurate picture.
More or less well trained, but not especially selected humans have
been able to do 10-20 miles per day as a matter of routine for as
long as we've got any indicators on endurance. The Marathon run was
not especially long for a trained courier of that day, nor is it
today. The longer run done the day before was ca. 100 miles, which
is still a reasonable distance. (Friends have done it, including
over mountain ranges.)
Back then, as today, if someone had need of covering that sort of
distance, they could and did. Today it's just less common to choose
(need) to do it.
>If you get to pick the best-trained human athletes then I get to pick
>animals that have been training for several years as well.
Nope. I'm not picking elite humans. Nor even best trained humans.
Just humans who have some endurance experience to make the distance.
You're absolutely free to train your horses to the peak of horsely
endurance. You'll lose. The Western States 100 miler started
as a horse race. The horses kept dying and racers had to walk out.
The race then shifted to humans only, start to finish, and the
times got much faster (and the number of deaths plummeted). Western
States is a relatively easy 100 miler, and the winning times are in
the range of 15 hours. A friend runs the more difficult Vermont 100
miler in ca. 20 hours and doesn't even place.
>> Random, but _trained_, humans (and we'd be trained if we still had
>> need of the ability) are still among the outstanding endurance
>> athletes on land, in spite of the fact that there's no purpose
>> served by the ability any more. If you let the humans get in
>> to shape first, set the criterion at 5 mph and 50 miles and
>> put your money on:
>> Pronghorn Antelope
>> Wolves
>> Humans
>> critter flambee
>> .. in this order. You'll lose none of the Pronghorn, some
>> of the wolves, something like half the humans, and all or nearly
>> all the rest. Humans run down horses in the long haul. We
>> also do 50 and 100 mile races for amusement, not even requiring
>> walls of flamethrowers to start the race. (Mass lobotomy rays
>> don't hurt, however.)
>
>No sane human does 100 mile races for amusement. :-)
>
>How come I don't get to train the other animals?
Go ahead and train them however you like. Even untrained animals
can clobber elite humans at a sprint. That you're asking to train
them for an endurance race already makes the point that we're far
better endurance athletes than sprinters.
>> (See Noakes _The Lore of Running_ 4th edition for some ranking
>> of species for endurance ability.)
>
>Don't know this book. What experiments did he do?
Endurance testing and training of animals. The 3rd edition included
about 200 pages of citations. The 4th puts them on the web.
Mark
sign
that we are going to become extinct?
science is
getting better at keeping people alive who, in past eras, would
otherwise have died of their affliction(s)>>.
Now, this is not from the books but from reality.
Ok, I do not know how old you are, but I have graduated from high
school in 1967 in other country than a US. For my 10 years in school
which was a same group of kids, same 25-30 kids from grade 1 to grade
10, I have seen one with asthma.
At the same time my had graduated from high school in 1997 here in US.
As far as I remember in their class they always had at least 5-6 kids
with asthma running around with puffers. Also in about 25-30 kids
class. And since on the average every class had similar number I would
say it is statistically correct.
Now for my 10 years in school I remember death of only one student.
That was from heart problem. Nobody who had asthma died. So, where
other 3-4 came from. I can not see that it is just now people with
asthma do not die. It is a BS that is brainwashed in our heads. Do not
beleive this crap. At least not about asthma. There is more people sick
with asthma now per thousand people than it was 30-40 years ago.
Any statistics saying it is not the case is wrong.
So, this is about the number of asthmatics. If you tell me that it is
somehow our species are getting better and are adapting to environment,
I have a big doubt about it.
I would agree that on average evry adult now has more hours of
education than 30 or 200 or 1000 years ago, I would agree.
But if you are telling me that 100 kids from a 1000 years ago raised
today in New York will do in today school worse than a 1000 kids from
today New York or Moscow or Nairobi, I would doubt this very much.
Dana Tweedy
"Mark" <tent...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152264649.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
snipping
> Questions:
> a. Does it imply that we, human species, which are mammals are
> continuing to evolve?
Humans will either evolve, like any other population, or go extinct.
> b. What I mean is --- Will our lungs become better with the time?
That depends on what you mean by "better"? Asthmatics don't have "worse"
lungs, they have lungs that are more reactive to certian conditions and
allergens.
> Because there will be less and less percentage of oxygen in the media
> we live in (air) ?
What makes you think there will be less percentage of oxygen in the air?
> c. Or will we die out as dinozaurs because we could not adapt?
Extinction is always an option. The dinosaurs (except the avian ones)
died out probably due to a rare event, a bolide impact that caused a massive
and sudden climate change.
> d. Is the ever increasing number of people suffering from asthma a sign
> that we are going to become extinct?
No, it's more likely a sign that medical science is allowing those prone to
asthma to live longer, and thus make up a larger percentage of the
population.
> e. Or is there some evidence that new, better functioning lungs are in
> existence today than 2000 years ago?
Again, "better" is a relative term. 2000 years ago, those with asthma died
at a much higher rate.
> f. there are people that live on mountains as opposed to valleys.
> Where the media we live in is an air thinner than in the valleys. On
> the mountains. Using the concepts of adaptability and evoulution, would
> it be correct to say that these people have better, more efficient
> lungs than people that leave in the valley?
They are more likely to have lungs that are more capable of deriving oxygen
from the air. It's not necessarily "better", just different. Those who
live in the valley have lungs that work perfectly well for their enviroment.
Also, individuals can adapt to higher altitudes, which is not a genetic
change, and is not evolution.
> g. Let us make assumption that answer to "f" is "yes"
> Would not one of the solutions to asthma or some other lung related
> genetic diseases, be to breed people from mountains with people from
> the polluted cities, to make probablity of children born with better
> lungs prevail.
With asthma, the problem is not ability to derive oxygen from the air. The
problem is that in asthmatics, their airways are more reactive, ie, the tiny
muscles that constrict and expand the airway tend to contract in response to
allergens and pollutants in the air. This causes their airways to close
up, and makes it difficult for them to take in enough air. The size of
their lungs is not the issue.
> h. Is there any suggestion from doctors for the people that have asthma
> running in the family to try to find mates from the mountains instead
> of the urban dwellers?
It's not likely such a thing would help, for the reasons mentioned above.
> h. Is there any evidence that people that come from the mountain areas
> and live in the cities perform better in athletics than original valley
> dwellers?
That depends on where they compete.
> k. Is there any evidence that people that are from the valleys when
> moving to mountains perform worse?
In the short term, yes.
> l. Is there any evidence that children born from the people
> historically living in the mountains are having smaller percentage of
> lungs related diseases? Like asthma?
No.
> m.Is there any statistical evidence in human history that it is
> beneficial if people from mountains are mating from valey dwellers.
Depends on what you mean by beneficial. I'm sure that many such marrages
were beneficial to the people involved, or at least they thought so.
> n. Can it be genetically traced down today that exceptional world
> athlets today come from the areas where environment as far as breathing
> is concerned was more harsh than usual?
No.
DJT
>
Kermit
Dana Tweedy wrote:
> "Mark" <tent...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1152264649.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> snipping
>
> > Questions:
<snip>
>
> > d. Is the ever increasing number of people suffering from asthma a sign
> > that we are going to become extinct?
>
> No, it's more likely a sign that medical science is allowing those prone to
> asthma to live longer, and thus make up a larger percentage of the
> population.
>
Negative. We are increasing much too fast. It is:
Better diagnostics, or
Disease of the month instigating false positives, or
A plague of some sort, or
Environmental pollutants and the like inducing allergen sensitivities,
etc.
> > e. Or is there some evidence that new, better functioning lungs are in
> > existence today than 2000 years ago?
>
> Again, "better" is a relative term. 2000 years ago, those with asthma died
> at a much higher rate.
I probably wouldn't have had asthma 2000 years ago. On the other hand,
my myopia would have killed me. Certainly 20,000 years ago. We myopics
have been kept alive in higher numbers since the dawn of agriculture.
I'll bet there are more near-sighted Europeans and Egyptians than, say,
Apaches or Kalahari !Kung, whose ancestors did *not farm or live high
tech lives until very recently. I'd be interested in their asthma rates
in cities.
> > g. Let us make assumption that answer to "f" is "yes"
> > Would not one of the solutions to asthma or some other lung related
> > genetic diseases, be to breed people from mountains with people from
> > the polluted cities, to make probablity of children born with better
> > lungs prevail.
>
> With asthma, the problem is not ability to derive oxygen from the air. The
> problem is that in asthmatics, their airways are more reactive, ie, the tiny
> muscles that constrict and expand the airway tend to contract in response to
> allergens and pollutants in the air. This causes their airways to close
> up, and makes it difficult for them to take in enough air. The size of
> their lungs is not the issue.
>
Yes. Here's a good, quick intro. Mark, you might want to glance at
this:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Asthma/Asthma_WhatIs.html
<snip>
>
> DJT
>
Kermit
Bill Hudson
Kermit wrote:
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > "Mark" <tent...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1152264649.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > snipping
> >
> > > Questions:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > > d. Is the ever increasing number of people suffering from asthma a sign
> > > that we are going to become extinct?
> >
> > No, it's more likely a sign that medical science is allowing those prone to
> > asthma to live longer, and thus make up a larger percentage of the
> > population.
> >
>
> Negative. We are increasing much too fast. It is:
> Better diagnostics, or
> Disease of the month instigating false positives, or
> A plague of some sort, or
> Environmental pollutants and the like inducing allergen sensitivities,
> etc.
>
> > > e. Or is there some evidence that new, better functioning lungs are in
> > > existence today than 2000 years ago?
> >
> > Again, "better" is a relative term. 2000 years ago, those with asthma died
> > at a much higher rate.
>
> I probably wouldn't have had asthma 2000 years ago. On the other hand,
> my myopia would have killed me.
[snip]
Myopic Asthmatics Unite! Of course, at the annual convention we can't
see each other worth a damn, and we'd probably asphyxiate the
convention center staff with albuterol, but hey, where else could you
go see so many people wheezing, puffing, and bumping into things?
John Wilkins
Well the kangaroos would just jump over the fence.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Robert Grumbine
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>I've outrun couch potato dogs (not fat, just out of shape) over very
>short distances.
Some breeds of dogs have very poor cardiovascular systems. My
fiancee's dogs have such small windpipes that after 50-100 meters
they have to stop to catch their breath. So even as short as
400 meters I could beat them (even not being in shape myself).
Longer distances favor me even more.
Some breeds of dogs, however, are good runners. Beagles,
perhaps surprisingly, are one such. No surprise that huskies
are; not for nothing they get used for the Iditarod. Less known,
however, is that some people run the distance outright, and
that the mushers do a fair amount of running.
Yes, mention of the Nature paper which argued that endurance
running was a capability directly selected for rather than a
byproduct.
When I saw first mention (at PZ Myers' Pharyngula), I was not
very impressed with the strength of the work and wrote Paul
about the weak points as I saw them from his description. It turns
out that this was a matter of the limited selection of points that
Paul had up. The issues I raised to Paul were addressed in the paper.
Stanley Friesen
>I have started a thread at:
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/e46ececdcc333f4d/db62b00683bc872e#db62b00683bc872e
>
>a. Does it imply that we, human species, which are mammals are
>continuing to evolve?
Actually the mere fact that we exist and reproduce implies that we
continue to evolve.
>b. What I mean is --- Will our lungs become better with the time?
Maybe. If differences in lung efficiency effect human reproduction.
>Because there will be less and less percentage of oxygen in the media
>we live in (air) ?
THIS is probably false. Oxygen is in approximate equilibrium, and is,
if anything, increasing in concentration.
>c. Or will we die out as dinozaurs because we could not adapt?
Maybe.
>d. Is the ever increasing number of people suffering from asthma a sign
>that we are going to become extinct?
No. It is a sign we are entering a new environment - one called
civilization.
>f. there are people that live on mountains as opposed to valleys.
>Where the media we live in is an air thinner than in the valleys. On
>the mountains. Using the concepts of adaptability and evoulution, would
>it be correct to say that these people have better, more efficient
>lungs than people that leave in the valley?
Maybe. But the difference may not be genetic. Merely being raised in
that environment may trigger adaptation to it.
>h. Is there any suggestion from doctors for the people that have asthma
>running in the family to try to find mates from the mountains instead
>of the urban dwellers?
Wouldn't help in the least. The cause of asthma is not inefficient
lungs per se, it is *inflammation* of the passages. It is an autoimmune
reaction triggered by something in our environment.
>h. Is there any evidence that people that come from the mountain areas
>and live in the cities perform better in athletics than original valley
>dwellers?
>k. Is there any evidence that people that are from the valleys when
>moving to mountains perform worse?
Yes.
>l. Is there any evidence that children born from the people
>historically living in the mountains are having smaller percentage of
>lungs related diseases? Like asthma?
Not to my knowledge.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Stanley Friesen
>
>Now for my 10 years in school I remember death of only one student.
>That was from heart problem. Nobody who had asthma died. So, where
>other 3-4 came from. I can not see that it is just now people with
>asthma do not die. It is a BS that is brainwashed in our heads. Do not
>beleive this crap. At least not about asthma. There is more people sick
>with asthma now per thousand people than it was 30-40 years ago.
>Any statistics saying it is not the case is wrong.
This is just one aspect of the rise in *allergies* in general. Asthma is
just one type of allergy symptom. The increase in allergies is almost
certainly due to some life-style change that happened in the last 40
years. Exactly which of the many changes in that time is the critical
one is still much debated.
Stanley Friesen
>
>
>Negative. We are increasing much too fast. It is:
>Better diagnostics, or
>Disease of the month instigating false positives, or
>A plague of some sort, or
>Environmental pollutants and the like inducing allergen sensitivities,
>etc.
>
major factor here since allergies are mostly fairly obvious even without
diagnosis tools.
However, you did leave out one factor: changes in how we raise children
might effect allergy rates.
Walter Bushell
Shane <rema...@Netscape.net> wrote:
> Dogs hear better, birds see better, playtpuses are far more
> sensitive to electric fields etc. In spite of our perceived success in
> evolutionary terms, our senses are just enough to get us by.
Almost all mammals are better at smelling.
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any
charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his
peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totali-
tarian government whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
Dana Tweedy
"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-E51E2E....@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <1mc9ayauihxf0$.u12k89r9on9w$.d...@40tude.net>,
> Shane <rema...@Netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> Dogs hear better, birds see better, playtpuses are far more
>> sensitive to electric fields etc. In spite of our perceived success in
>> evolutionary terms, our senses are just enough to get us by.
>
> Almost all mammals are better at smelling.
Except skunks.....
DJT
John Wilkins
> In article <1mc9ayauihxf0$.u12k89r9on9w$.d...@40tude.net>,
> Shane <rema...@Netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Dogs hear better, birds see better, playtpuses are far more
> > sensitive to electric fields etc. In spite of our perceived success in
> > evolutionary terms, our senses are just enough to get us by.
>
> Almost all mammals are better at smelling.
Why yes. My dog smells so much more than I do...
Dick C
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1mc9ayauihxf0$.u12k89r9on9w$.d...@40tude.net>,
>> Shane <rema...@Netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Dogs hear better, birds see better, playtpuses are far more
>> > sensitive to electric fields etc. In spite of our perceived success in
>> > evolutionary terms, our senses are just enough to get us by.
>>
>> Almost all mammals are better at smelling.
>
> Why yes. My dog smells so much more than I do...
Especially when wet.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
Kermit
Robert Grumbine wrote:
> In article <1152300803.3...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
>
> >I've outrun couch potato dogs (not fat, just out of shape) over very
> >short distances.
>
> Some breeds of dogs have very poor cardiovascular systems. My
> fiancee's dogs have such small windpipes that after 50-100 meters
> they have to stop to catch their breath. So even as short as
> 400 meters I could beat them (even not being in shape myself).
> Longer distances favor me even more.
This was a two-year old German Shepard. She was friendly, but had been
passed from house to house. We were the third or fourth house to get
her (we were active duty military, and would have to dump her - again -
poor thing, in a year or so. She had taken to just sitting politely on
the couch while the people of the month ran about the house doing their
apish things. After we aquired her I grabbed her and her leash when I
went for my usual two to five mile jog (I was young then; late
thirties), but I had to circle around after a few blocks and drop her
off at the house.
The only problem with her really was that she had spent two years on
various couches. (Yes, I eventually got her in shape, and I moved her
into a stable local family before I got reassigned.)
>
> Some breeds of dogs, however, are good runners. Beagles,
> perhaps surprisingly, are one such. No surprise that huskies
> are; not for nothing they get used for the Iditarod. Less known,
> however, is that some people run the distance outright, and
> that the mushers do a fair amount of running.
>
>
> >Here ya go:
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041123163757.htm
>
> Yes, mention of the Nature paper which argued that endurance
> running was a capability directly selected for rather than a
> byproduct.
>
> When I saw first mention (at PZ Myers' Pharyngula), I was not
> very impressed with the strength of the work and wrote Paul
> about the weak points as I saw them from his description. It turns
> out that this was a matter of the limited selection of points that
> Paul had up. The issues I raised to Paul were addressed in the paper.
>
>
> --
> Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
> Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
> evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
> would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Kermit
Kermit
Stanley Friesen wrote:
> "Kermit" <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Negative. We are increasing much too fast. It is:
> >Better diagnostics, or
> >Disease of the month instigating false positives, or
> >A plague of some sort, or
> >Environmental pollutants and the like inducing allergen sensitivities,
> >etc.
> >
> Allergies in general are increasing, and I doubt that diagnosis is a
> major factor here since allergies are mostly fairly obvious even without
> diagnosis tools.
Yeah, I was just listing logical possibilities; they are all
explanations for *some problem or other.
>
> However, you did leave out one factor: changes in how we raise children
> might effect allergy rates.
Oops! You're right!
I have heard reports that kids raised in families with multiple pets
have fewer problems with hayfever and asthma. The researchers postulate
that exposure to (two or more mammals) animal dandruff and crud gave
their immune systems something real to react to, and they didn't become
hypersensitive to other stuff.
>
> --
> The peace of God be with you.
>
> Stanley Friesen
Kermit
Kermit
Another thought: kids are much less likely to be exposed to animals
these days, as well as dirt in general. Tangent note: Temple Grandin
says that we have been co-existing with dogs for 100,000 years!
>
> --
> The peace of God be with you.
>
> Stanley Friesen
Kermit
Mark
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/34d2c35a2c720107/7d63a680882839b8#7d63a680882839b8
Stanley Friesen
>
>Stanley Friesen wrote:
>>
>> However, you did leave out one factor: changes in how we raise children
>> might effect allergy rates.
>
>Oops! You're right!
>
>I have heard reports that kids raised in families with multiple pets
>have fewer problems with hayfever and asthma. The researchers postulate
>that exposure to (two or more mammals) animal dandruff and crud gave
>their immune systems something real to react to, and they didn't become
>hypersensitive to other stuff.
Yep, that is one of the suggestions I had in mind - I have heard it
taken further in the idea that failure to stimulate or challenge the
immune system in general as a child tends to promote allergies. Mind I
have not heard of any conclusive research supporting this as yet.
[It is interesting that I am more allergic to cats, which we did NOT
have than I am to dogs, which we did].
Richard Smol
Mark wrote:
> I have started a thread at:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/e46ececdcc333f4d/db62b00683bc872e#db62b00683bc872e
>
> the topic is separate from the original one, and so, this is a new
> thread.
> I have read all the answers. Thanks a lot to everybody who has found
> time to answer.
> It is appreciated very much.
> So, generally, answer to my questions is:
> 1. for fish, the water goes thru the gills. A lot of water. All because
> there is less oxygen dilluted in water than oxygen dilluted in air.
> 2. To process that much water a very good (much more perfect than
> human lungs, because human lungs do not extract most of the oxygen,
> there is more left for "rebreather" ) system was created in the process
> of evolution.
> 3. Since fish, evolutionwise is older than mammal, there was more time
> for "engineering", so the better machine was created.
> duplicated already with existing technology. The problem is that
> machine that does it is so bulky, uses that much energy, that it is
> practically unsuited for the activity like SCUBA diving.
>
> to original "gill-lungs" question. It looks to me that there is an
> obvious correlation. The longer period of evolution driven
> "engineering" ---- the more perfect machine was created. ------- Gils
> are better designed than lungs, as far as they are more efficient than
> lungs in extracting higher percentage of oxygen from the media organism
> lives in ----- water for fish; air for mammals.
>
> a. Does it imply that we, human species, which are mammals are
> continuing to evolve?
Yes.
> b. What I mean is --- Will our lungs become better with the time?
> Because there will be less and less percentage of oxygen in the media
> we live in (air) ?
Is that so? Either way, we have no way of predicting how we evolve. In
any case, it will be into something based on how we are now.
> c. Or will we die out as dinozaurs because we could not adapt?
That is a possibility.
> d. Is the ever increasing number of people suffering from asthma a sign
> that we are going to become extinct?
That depends. Do those people procreate?
> e. Or is there some evidence that new, better functioning lungs are in
> existence today than 2000 years ago?
No.
> f. there are people that live on mountains as opposed to valleys.
> Where the media we live in is an air thinner than in the valleys. On
> the mountains. Using the concepts of adaptability and evoulution, would
> it be correct to say that these people have better, more efficient
> lungs than people that leave in the valley?
No. The efficiency lies mostly in the amount of red blood cells.
Anybody from a valley moving to the mountains will likely see an
increase. Human beings are adapted to a wide range of environments.
> g. Let us make assumption that answer to "f" is "yes"
But it isn't!
> Would not one of the solutions to asthma or some other lung related
> genetic diseases, be to breed people from mountains with people from
> the polluted cities, to make probablity of children born with better
> lungs prevail.
People living in the mountains don't have a genetic predisposition for
"better" lungs.
> h. Is there any suggestion from doctors for the people that have asthma
> running in the family to try to find mates from the mountains instead
> of the urban dwellers?
Since that likely will have no effect on the children, that would be a
silly advice.
> h. Is there any evidence that people that come from the mountain areas
> and live in the cities perform better in athletics than original valley
> dwellers?
No.
> k. Is there any evidence that people that are from the valleys when
> moving to mountains perform worse?
No. All you need is time to adapt.
> l. Is there any evidence that children born from the people
> historically living in the mountains are having smaller percentage of
> lungs related diseases? Like asthma?
No.
> m.Is there any statistical evidence in human history that it is
> beneficial if people from mountains are mating from valey dwellers.
No.
> n. Can it be genetically traced down today that exceptional world
> athlets today come from the areas where environment as far as breathing
> is concerned was more harsh than usual?
No.
I recommend a course in biology and perhaps introductory genetics.
Glad to be of service.
RS
LSR
Robert Grumbine
>This may be of interest:
>
>http://www.man-v-horse.org.uk/
This was one of the things I had in mind, though the report I heard
said the actual distance was 20 miles, not the 26.2 of a proper marathon.
(marathon is a rather vague distance when you get down to it). The
first two finishers of 2005 were in 2:19 (on horse) which, if 26.2 miles,
would take an international caliber human to beat. Human record is under
2:06 now, and 2:19 won't be near placing in any large race. The list
drops off rapidly, such that 10th is 2:36:50, which is 'just' a pretty
good club runner for humans.
Now crank up the distance to something like 50 miles (maybe we can
get a horse category for the London-Brighton race).