Vitamin C is a bug that needs to be patched(bbot.org)
bbot.org
Vitamin C is a bug that needs to be patched
http://bbot.org/blog/archives/2012/02/24/the_pinnacle_of_evolution/
95 comments
The bees (like the ants and wasps) are hymenopters. The sex determination and matting habits are very different of used in mammals (and in particular humans). So a female is more related to her sisters than to her own children. Then for her it is preferable to help her mother to have more female offspring. (This behavior is determined genetically, not a "free" choice of each individual.)
So it is not a good idea to try to extrapolate the ideas of how a society should be organized from bees, ants or wasp to mammals or humans, or vice versa. (Like in the movie "Antz".)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymenoptera#Sex_determination
So it is not a good idea to try to extrapolate the ideas of how a society should be organized from bees, ants or wasp to mammals or humans, or vice versa. (Like in the movie "Antz".)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymenoptera#Sex_determination
And that's not necessarily true because may be the six children are influenced by the guy who won six dozen of Nobel prizes. There is another kind of evolution that is social evolution and that can hack natural evolution in some way.
> there are a lot of organisms where they've evolved to have a large percentage of the population not reproduce, yet are absolutely vital to the species
It sounds like post-hoc rationalizing to apply this logic to humans.
> Humans have evolved in symbiosis with our gut flora. Why would we want to eliminate them?
It complicates the system to have to maintain a balanced internal ecology; look at the probiotic yogurts out there to see how often it gets out of whack in the real world.
It sounds like post-hoc rationalizing to apply this logic to humans.
> Humans have evolved in symbiosis with our gut flora. Why would we want to eliminate them?
It complicates the system to have to maintain a balanced internal ecology; look at the probiotic yogurts out there to see how often it gets out of whack in the real world.
> It sounds like post-hoc rationalizing to apply this logic to humans.
With the complexity of human social interactions, it would bewildering were it not the case that there are at least some small instances of genetic advantage being conferred to population groups based on the existence of non-reproductive members.
The concrete case where I've heard this considered is (strict) homosexuality. Logically, in so far as there's a genetic component to such, one would expect homosexuality to be eliminated from the gene-pool over time. One of the guesses as to why that has not happened is that homosexuality may confer some social benefit which increases the overall survival and reproductive capacity of the genetic group to which the homosexual members belong. (There are other plausible explanations as well, but it's not incredibly far fetched to believe that such could be the case.)
With the complexity of human social interactions, it would bewildering were it not the case that there are at least some small instances of genetic advantage being conferred to population groups based on the existence of non-reproductive members.
The concrete case where I've heard this considered is (strict) homosexuality. Logically, in so far as there's a genetic component to such, one would expect homosexuality to be eliminated from the gene-pool over time. One of the guesses as to why that has not happened is that homosexuality may confer some social benefit which increases the overall survival and reproductive capacity of the genetic group to which the homosexual members belong. (There are other plausible explanations as well, but it's not incredibly far fetched to believe that such could be the case.)
While that's certainly a conceivable explanation (the "gay uncle" theory, that the gay members of a family help raise their family's offspring), I've always found it really tough to swallow the numbers there. More or less, it would require that each gay uncle increases the fitness of the family [see note 1 below, "family" is very important here, as opposed to "group"!] by enough to make sure that on average, more than 1 additional child is produced per gay uncle. Put another way, with a 10% rate of homosexuality in the population at large, that would mean that at least 10% of our total reproductive success should be due to the helping hand that gays provide for family members' children. That's a lot, probably more than I'd realistically believe.
More likely, the gene that predisposes us to homosexuality (it doesn't cause it, as MZ vs DZ twin studies have shown that homosexuality has well below 50% genetic cause, with a much higher component based on individual environment, both pre and post-natal) is either beneficial in some other way (for instance, a recent study showed that female relatives of homosexuals tend to have more children, which could mean that the heritable bits behind homosexuality actually increase female reproductive rates enough to overwhelm the negatives on the male end), or live close on the chromosome to another gene that's more important, so the gene tends to stick around because of linkage even if it's harmful in some cases.
[1] The "gay uncle" theory relies on the fact that it's family members, i.e. people that are causally likely to share the gene in question, that are helped by the behavior. Google "kin selection" and "group selection" to understand the difference - briefly, kin selection is a totally legitimate effect because a gene helps itself through its prevalence in a family (and specifically, due to the fact that the gene will appear in the offspring that the gene helps make possible, even if it comes from other individuals), but group selection is completely bogus, because Prisoner's Dilemma-style defection is always the right strategy for a gene there.
More likely, the gene that predisposes us to homosexuality (it doesn't cause it, as MZ vs DZ twin studies have shown that homosexuality has well below 50% genetic cause, with a much higher component based on individual environment, both pre and post-natal) is either beneficial in some other way (for instance, a recent study showed that female relatives of homosexuals tend to have more children, which could mean that the heritable bits behind homosexuality actually increase female reproductive rates enough to overwhelm the negatives on the male end), or live close on the chromosome to another gene that's more important, so the gene tends to stick around because of linkage even if it's harmful in some cases.
[1] The "gay uncle" theory relies on the fact that it's family members, i.e. people that are causally likely to share the gene in question, that are helped by the behavior. Google "kin selection" and "group selection" to understand the difference - briefly, kin selection is a totally legitimate effect because a gene helps itself through its prevalence in a family (and specifically, due to the fact that the gene will appear in the offspring that the gene helps make possible, even if it comes from other individuals), but group selection is completely bogus, because Prisoner's Dilemma-style defection is always the right strategy for a gene there.
Your numbers seem to assume that being homosexual means you will have 0 children, which I doubt always is and has been the case.
I also wonder about the 10% figure.
I also wonder about the 10% figure.
That's not really the right way to look at the figures.
The assumption that you'd need to make sure that 1 additional child would need to be produced per gay uncle misses out on the possibility that the increase in offspring comes in later generations.
The effect could easily be much more than just one child per gay uncle, depending on how far down the tree of offspring you'd be willing to accept as a direct effect of the presence of a gay uncle higher up in the tree.
Also, gay does not mean sterile, but I take it that you assume for simplicity's sake that gays don't have children, or that if they do that they're not subject to this particular explanation since it concentrates on gay people without direct offspring.
The assumption that you'd need to make sure that 1 additional child would need to be produced per gay uncle misses out on the possibility that the increase in offspring comes in later generations.
The effect could easily be much more than just one child per gay uncle, depending on how far down the tree of offspring you'd be willing to accept as a direct effect of the presence of a gay uncle higher up in the tree.
Also, gay does not mean sterile, but I take it that you assume for simplicity's sake that gays don't have children, or that if they do that they're not subject to this particular explanation since it concentrates on gay people without direct offspring.
>both pre and post-natal
Wait - if twin studies showed bellow 50% correlation, how can it be pre-natal environment ?
But you make a stronger point in the footnote, his initial argument relies on group selection and can be dismissed on those grounds, no need to debate how that relates to homosexuality.
Wait - if twin studies showed bellow 50% correlation, how can it be pre-natal environment ?
But you make a stronger point in the footnote, his initial argument relies on group selection and can be dismissed on those grounds, no need to debate how that relates to homosexuality.
> It complicates the system to have to maintain a balanced internal ecology; look at the probiotic yogurts out there to see how often it gets out of whack in the real world.
Probiotic yogurts are mostly marketing as far as any research I've seen in metagenomics. I'm unaware of any scientific evidence that eating Activa gives you anything more than expensive poop. However, legitimate medical probiotic treatments tend to be the result of mucking with gut flora, for example, in other ways, such as taking antibiotics (I'm thinking of stool transplants for C. diff which is a fairly simple, disgusting, and effective treatment). But my point is really, how much does it complicate the system because I don't think anyone is aware of a working alternative so this could be the simplest solution to get all of the functionality we need.
Probiotic yogurts are mostly marketing as far as any research I've seen in metagenomics. I'm unaware of any scientific evidence that eating Activa gives you anything more than expensive poop. However, legitimate medical probiotic treatments tend to be the result of mucking with gut flora, for example, in other ways, such as taking antibiotics (I'm thinking of stool transplants for C. diff which is a fairly simple, disgusting, and effective treatment). But my point is really, how much does it complicate the system because I don't think anyone is aware of a working alternative so this could be the simplest solution to get all of the functionality we need.
> It complicates the system to have to maintain a balanced internal ecology; look at the probiotic yogurts out there to see how often it gets out of whack in the real world.
If I were engineering the human body, I would replace the liver with a system of symbiotic flora. It would be easier to replace without having to figure out how to clone organs or take a liver from someone else.
From Wikipedia, "Rodents raised in a sterile environment and lacking in gut flora need to eat 30% more calories just to remain the same weight as their normal counterparts."
If I were engineering the human body, I would replace the liver with a system of symbiotic flora. It would be easier to replace without having to figure out how to clone organs or take a liver from someone else.
From Wikipedia, "Rodents raised in a sterile environment and lacking in gut flora need to eat 30% more calories just to remain the same weight as their normal counterparts."
> It sounds like post-hoc rationalizing to apply this logic to humans.
I couldn't agree more. Humans are (mostly) monogamous and are born from combinations of parental genes (with the exception of the mitochondrial DNA). Thus the properties we inherit are directed. This is why we bully: a group of humans hate dissimilar properties an individual has.
As much as you hate it, we are heavily dictated by our genetics: identical twins are often mistaken has "having the same thoughts" to the point of mistaken telepathy.
It irks me that many attempt to explain away dysgenics as inherently impossible. As the article points out, simple changes to our metabolism can improve our bodies greatly. Natural selection is one tool of many that powers evolution, as evolution only rewards those who reproduce the fastest.
I couldn't agree more. Humans are (mostly) monogamous and are born from combinations of parental genes (with the exception of the mitochondrial DNA). Thus the properties we inherit are directed. This is why we bully: a group of humans hate dissimilar properties an individual has.
As much as you hate it, we are heavily dictated by our genetics: identical twins are often mistaken has "having the same thoughts" to the point of mistaken telepathy.
It irks me that many attempt to explain away dysgenics as inherently impossible. As the article points out, simple changes to our metabolism can improve our bodies greatly. Natural selection is one tool of many that powers evolution, as evolution only rewards those who reproduce the fastest.
But wheels is not invoking kin selection, but group selection - when we're talking about worker bees helping out the rest of the hive, that's kin selection, because they share a genetic line, and the presence of a gene is directly correlated with the presence a generation or two down the line.
When we talk about a long-living Nobel Prize winner that doesn't have children, the things that such a person does "for the world" are irrelevant to the propagation of his/her specific genes, except as they directly affect the people in the population that actually have those genes. If their contributions help everyone equally, their genes will not rise in frequency within the overall population, and hence, the mutations are failures, genetically speaking.
When we talk about a long-living Nobel Prize winner that doesn't have children, the things that such a person does "for the world" are irrelevant to the propagation of his/her specific genes, except as they directly affect the people in the population that actually have those genes. If their contributions help everyone equally, their genes will not rise in frequency within the overall population, and hence, the mutations are failures, genetically speaking.
>If their contributions help everyone equally, their genes will not rise in frequency within the overall population, and hence, the mutations are failures, genetically speaking.
Mutations? Shuffling a deck of cards doesn't "mutate" any cards in the deck, but you will also never get the same sequence twice. I think you are mixing things up a bit about how our genes work from generation to generation.
I think that must just be an opinion. It falls short of observing everything relevant to what our genes, and what we as individuals and as species are "winning" for. It might work to say such a thing on the meta scale, but it just doesnt work to say that about someone whose DNA is undoubtedly fully represented in his/her extended family, et al. For instance, my opinion of what I would call a genetic failure would be one which persists continually without ever contributing to the greater human intellect.
It's also worth noting that we have little knowledge of genes anyways, but that might fall on deaf ears.
tl;dr Someone who is a long-living nobel prize winner is IMHO, a genetic success, regardless of procreation.
Mutations? Shuffling a deck of cards doesn't "mutate" any cards in the deck, but you will also never get the same sequence twice. I think you are mixing things up a bit about how our genes work from generation to generation.
I think that must just be an opinion. It falls short of observing everything relevant to what our genes, and what we as individuals and as species are "winning" for. It might work to say such a thing on the meta scale, but it just doesnt work to say that about someone whose DNA is undoubtedly fully represented in his/her extended family, et al. For instance, my opinion of what I would call a genetic failure would be one which persists continually without ever contributing to the greater human intellect.
It's also worth noting that we have little knowledge of genes anyways, but that might fall on deaf ears.
tl;dr Someone who is a long-living nobel prize winner is IMHO, a genetic success, regardless of procreation.
> Mutations? Shuffling a deck of cards doesn't "mutate" any cards in the deck, but you will also never get the same sequence twice. I think you are mixing things up a bit about how our genes work from generation to generation.
I understand perfectly well the distinction between mutations and crossover, but I stick by my original language - to a large degree, competing alleles do ultimately arise via mutation (including insertion/deletion/other funny business), not crossover, which primarily just randomizes selection between different alleles rather than altering them in detail (human crossover probabilities are roughly 1% per million base pairs, which is too infrequent to be doing much bit twiddling within genes themselves, though it will occasionally happen).
> tl;dr Someone who is a long-living nobel prize winner is IMHO, a genetic success, regardless of procreation.
That's fine, but "genetic success" in the context of evolution means quite specifically that copies of their genes are more likely to be present N generations down the line than copies of competing ones.
In this sense, if your particular set of genes enables you to help all humanity equally in some significant way, you're doing your own genes no particular favor unless you somehow help your own family out more than others. That's not a moral judgment by any means, but it's the nature of the game of evolution...
I understand perfectly well the distinction between mutations and crossover, but I stick by my original language - to a large degree, competing alleles do ultimately arise via mutation (including insertion/deletion/other funny business), not crossover, which primarily just randomizes selection between different alleles rather than altering them in detail (human crossover probabilities are roughly 1% per million base pairs, which is too infrequent to be doing much bit twiddling within genes themselves, though it will occasionally happen).
> tl;dr Someone who is a long-living nobel prize winner is IMHO, a genetic success, regardless of procreation.
That's fine, but "genetic success" in the context of evolution means quite specifically that copies of their genes are more likely to be present N generations down the line than copies of competing ones.
In this sense, if your particular set of genes enables you to help all humanity equally in some significant way, you're doing your own genes no particular favor unless you somehow help your own family out more than others. That's not a moral judgment by any means, but it's the nature of the game of evolution...
>> there are a lot of organisms where they've evolved to have a large percentage of the population not reproduce, yet are absolutely vital to the species
>It sounds like post-hoc rationalizing to apply this logic to humans.
I don't think so. Perhaps it is less rational to apply this reasoning to the ability of a society to produce warriors (i.e. abundance of young males) but more so in philosophy, science, ideas, inventions, and thought. So long as these evolutions of thought are not lost to time (and they are far more fragile than genetics which sex is the only communication required) then it can be argued that they often times have a far greater impact on the human species as a whole than the passing of any certain genes over others. [1]
Humans are remarkable and unique in regards to this in the animal kingdom as far as we (humans) can tell.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates
>It sounds like post-hoc rationalizing to apply this logic to humans.
I don't think so. Perhaps it is less rational to apply this reasoning to the ability of a society to produce warriors (i.e. abundance of young males) but more so in philosophy, science, ideas, inventions, and thought. So long as these evolutions of thought are not lost to time (and they are far more fragile than genetics which sex is the only communication required) then it can be argued that they often times have a far greater impact on the human species as a whole than the passing of any certain genes over others. [1]
Humans are remarkable and unique in regards to this in the animal kingdom as far as we (humans) can tell.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates
[deleted]
> The same hormone [vasopressin] that controls your blood pressure also determines if you can form a relationship. [..] Who the fuck designed this? The answer is, of course, "nobody". The blind idiot god of evolution cares not at all for separation of concerns, or design elegance
This is a very uncharitable interpretation of how the body works.
Vasopressin is being used as a signal mechanism here. Saying that it being involved with things from blood pressure to pair bonding is evidence of inelegant design is like saying that the web is inelegant, because TCP is involved in both code (transmitted JS) and data (transmitted JPEG images). Yes, TCP is a mechanism used to deliver both of those (like vasopressin is a mechanism used to cause pair bonding and change blood pressure), but that doesn't mean there is a tangled web of dependencies here.
This is a very uncharitable interpretation of how the body works.
Vasopressin is being used as a signal mechanism here. Saying that it being involved with things from blood pressure to pair bonding is evidence of inelegant design is like saying that the web is inelegant, because TCP is involved in both code (transmitted JS) and data (transmitted JPEG images). Yes, TCP is a mechanism used to deliver both of those (like vasopressin is a mechanism used to cause pair bonding and change blood pressure), but that doesn't mean there is a tangled web of dependencies here.
See also the recurrent laryngeal nerve for more of nature's absurdity.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/the-longe...
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/the-longe...
and large parts of our genome is bit-rotted and non functional
Larry Moran has a lot of good material on this http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/02/theme-genomes-junk-dna....
Larry Moran has a lot of good material on this http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/02/theme-genomes-junk-dna....
Bit rot is a feature. It allows genes that don't impact survival to attain greater diversity within the population so that, if the environment changes and the gene becomes relevant, some part of the population may be better able to adapt.
Does your explanation for junk DNA pass the onion test?
http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/04/onion-test/
This is just hubris.
A worm has the same number of protein coding genes as us. Obviously the 'non-functinal' DNA is doing something important, we just haven't worked it out yet.
I would be very hesitant to criticize an evolutionary construct that has developed on a billion year timescale.
I would be very hesitant to criticize an evolutionary construct that has developed on a billion year timescale.
Fun post, but I don't think it supports its own conclusion. Given the tangle of dependancies involved in a properly functioning human, why put focused effort into patching something as easily remediated as the inability to synthesize Vitamin C, given the opportunity for unforeseen side effects?
I think he just doesn't want to eat his applesauce like a good wittle man.
I think he just doesn't want to eat his applesauce like a good wittle man.
Why would we expect patching vitamin C to be hard or come with consequences? As pointed out, it's trivial enough that almost all animals do it.
We don't know whether any other genes have adapted in the last 10 million years to the lack of the pathway needed to synthesize vitamin C. Reintroducing the proteins for this pathway may cause unintended interactions with existing proteins.
Imagine a large software system that had a small mobile website. New changes to the code must be compatible with this mobile website and can't break it. Now imagine that one day this mobile website was taken out. Development continues but since there's no need to worry about the mobile site numerous incompatible changes creep in over time.
Now suddenly new management comes in and decides that the mobile site should be brought back. Clearly, as soon as they try to put it back in they run into every incompatible change ever made to the code and the whole thing becomes highly unstable.
So that's what (might) have happened in the body. With no worrying about whether a new mutation might negatively interact with the vitamin C pathway that new mutation can proliferate freely, especially if it is beneficial. All reverse-compatibility is lost.
Imagine a large software system that had a small mobile website. New changes to the code must be compatible with this mobile website and can't break it. Now imagine that one day this mobile website was taken out. Development continues but since there's no need to worry about the mobile site numerous incompatible changes creep in over time.
Now suddenly new management comes in and decides that the mobile site should be brought back. Clearly, as soon as they try to put it back in they run into every incompatible change ever made to the code and the whole thing becomes highly unstable.
So that's what (might) have happened in the body. With no worrying about whether a new mutation might negatively interact with the vitamin C pathway that new mutation can proliferate freely, especially if it is beneficial. All reverse-compatibility is lost.
In theory it might be possible to test this experimentally. Rather than genetically modify them from the start, synthesize the protein in question and try to get it into cell cultures. This should make it possible to get an idea of what will happen in that situation, e.g. will it kill the cells or cause anything obviously wrong. After that test it on some animals with similar Vitamin C problems. Shouldn't be impossible to test this, after the animals test it in adults to find out. etc.
"Why would we expect patching vitamin C to be hard or come with consequences?"
Because most such things are hard, and come with consequences?
Hell, even erectile dysfunction drugs have consequences ("if erection lasts more than four hours, seek medical treatment"), and we found those by accident.
Because most such things are hard, and come with consequences?
Hell, even erectile dysfunction drugs have consequences ("if erection lasts more than four hours, seek medical treatment"), and we found those by accident.
So we are talking about modifying the human organism at birth. There are a couple of things to consider if you start doing this.
1. If you correct the enzyme deficiency, you will create a new genetic disease caused by a deficiency in that enzyme. You won't be able to successfully correct it in everyone, and even if you do, there will still be children born with the deficiency due to random variation. (Given that the deficiency isn't detrimental in our society otherwise we would all have scurvy, there is no selection pressure to remove it from the gene pool, so there may actually end up being a fairly large number of people with this deficiency unless you keep gene editing every child.) Now, you have an ethical obligation to find these deficeint kids who would have been 'normal' 5 years ago and look after them, and make sure they eat enough vegetables. This means once you start correcting the gene deficiency, you have to screen every baby to make sure they are corrected.
2. It is very difficult to prove that correcting this enzyme is not somehow dangerous, especially since nobody gets scurvy apart from the occasional university student. The point here is that there is almost nothing to gain by correcting it in a society which has the money and technology to actually do it. You therefore must go to great lengths to prove that correcting this deficiency is safe. This will take probably 2 generations of humanity and several hundred thousand people from all ethnicities. Looking at the biochemical pathway someone has drawn on a whiteboard and saying "It should be ok." isn't good enough.
I would also say that I have never heard anyone who actually studies biology complain that the designs are 'dumb'. Filled with wonder, perplexed, humbled etc would be more common responses...
1. If you correct the enzyme deficiency, you will create a new genetic disease caused by a deficiency in that enzyme. You won't be able to successfully correct it in everyone, and even if you do, there will still be children born with the deficiency due to random variation. (Given that the deficiency isn't detrimental in our society otherwise we would all have scurvy, there is no selection pressure to remove it from the gene pool, so there may actually end up being a fairly large number of people with this deficiency unless you keep gene editing every child.) Now, you have an ethical obligation to find these deficeint kids who would have been 'normal' 5 years ago and look after them, and make sure they eat enough vegetables. This means once you start correcting the gene deficiency, you have to screen every baby to make sure they are corrected.
2. It is very difficult to prove that correcting this enzyme is not somehow dangerous, especially since nobody gets scurvy apart from the occasional university student. The point here is that there is almost nothing to gain by correcting it in a society which has the money and technology to actually do it. You therefore must go to great lengths to prove that correcting this deficiency is safe. This will take probably 2 generations of humanity and several hundred thousand people from all ethnicities. Looking at the biochemical pathway someone has drawn on a whiteboard and saying "It should be ok." isn't good enough.
I would also say that I have never heard anyone who actually studies biology complain that the designs are 'dumb'. Filled with wonder, perplexed, humbled etc would be more common responses...
Your #1 is possibly the most ridiculous thing I have read today. So by eliminating even the possibility of scurvy from ~100% of society, that will somehow increase the potential?
No. There would be no increase. We would not have to worry about these kids. Why? BECAUSE VITAMIN C IN FOOD WOULD BE UNAFFECTED. What, in this bizarro world does the addition of vitamin C magically cause vitamin C to disappear from all meats and plants? Of course not! These oh so unfortunate kids that we have an 'ethical obligation' to will be in exactly the same situation the entire current global population is in: getting vitamin C as normal from their diet. Screen every baby? Absurd. This sort of intervention is fire and forget: it's insurance against the rare scurvy-circumstances.
Point 2, on the other hand, is a good point. You should have solely responded with that - that because scurvy is so rare, the benefit is small, and even small risks of the intervention going wrong outweigh the benefit.
No. There would be no increase. We would not have to worry about these kids. Why? BECAUSE VITAMIN C IN FOOD WOULD BE UNAFFECTED. What, in this bizarro world does the addition of vitamin C magically cause vitamin C to disappear from all meats and plants? Of course not! These oh so unfortunate kids that we have an 'ethical obligation' to will be in exactly the same situation the entire current global population is in: getting vitamin C as normal from their diet. Screen every baby? Absurd. This sort of intervention is fire and forget: it's insurance against the rare scurvy-circumstances.
Point 2, on the other hand, is a good point. You should have solely responded with that - that because scurvy is so rare, the benefit is small, and even small risks of the intervention going wrong outweigh the benefit.
No need for the caps, friend.
(First of all, there isn't much vitamin C in meat, unless you eat liver.)
Obviously vitamin C in food would be unaffected, but the way people eat may well be if they think they are vitamin C proofed. Vitamin C is added to everything these days, and this would likely stop happening in a post-patch world when its value as a health gimmick diminishes. Intake of fruit and vegetables is already poor.
So although it is likely there will be a reduction in scurvy cases initially, there may be a resurgence when changes in dietary habits/food production occur and are misapplied in people who are not patched.
Post-patch this becomes a problem we created, inadvertently or not. I disagree that this situation is ethically OK.
There are numerous examples of paradoxical/unintended trends in public health:
1. Increasing incidence of HIV infection in developed countries in some communities, possibly due the notion that the disease is now easier to treat.
2. Outbreaks of polio after apparent eradication due to isolated anti-vaccine communities.
3. Increasing numbers of multi-resistant bacteria and even new infections arising from widespread indiscriminate antibiotic use (by doctors and farmers).
4. Patients who develop a false sense of security after a negative test for a mutation predisposing to breast cancer, then don't participate in routine screening (which is why anyone who has such a test should receive professional genetic counselling).
I don't think there are any fire and forget interventions where human health is concerned...
(First of all, there isn't much vitamin C in meat, unless you eat liver.)
Obviously vitamin C in food would be unaffected, but the way people eat may well be if they think they are vitamin C proofed. Vitamin C is added to everything these days, and this would likely stop happening in a post-patch world when its value as a health gimmick diminishes. Intake of fruit and vegetables is already poor.
So although it is likely there will be a reduction in scurvy cases initially, there may be a resurgence when changes in dietary habits/food production occur and are misapplied in people who are not patched.
Post-patch this becomes a problem we created, inadvertently or not. I disagree that this situation is ethically OK.
There are numerous examples of paradoxical/unintended trends in public health:
1. Increasing incidence of HIV infection in developed countries in some communities, possibly due the notion that the disease is now easier to treat.
2. Outbreaks of polio after apparent eradication due to isolated anti-vaccine communities.
3. Increasing numbers of multi-resistant bacteria and even new infections arising from widespread indiscriminate antibiotic use (by doctors and farmers).
4. Patients who develop a false sense of security after a negative test for a mutation predisposing to breast cancer, then don't participate in routine screening (which is why anyone who has such a test should receive professional genetic counselling).
I don't think there are any fire and forget interventions where human health is concerned...
> why put focused effort into patching something as easily remediated as the inability to synthesize Vitamin C, given the opportunity for unforeseen side effects?
I think you're missing the point: Why should there be a huge opportunity for unforeseen side effects?
If you were grading an undergraduate programming project with the property that fixing an obvious bug makes who-knows-what else break, what grade would you assign?
Further, what does that observation do to the idea that "Natural is better than human-made"?
> I think he just doesn't want to eat his applesauce like a good wittle man.
This comes off as really, really condescending. How does it add to the discussion?
I think you're missing the point: Why should there be a huge opportunity for unforeseen side effects?
If you were grading an undergraduate programming project with the property that fixing an obvious bug makes who-knows-what else break, what grade would you assign?
Further, what does that observation do to the idea that "Natural is better than human-made"?
> I think he just doesn't want to eat his applesauce like a good wittle man.
This comes off as really, really condescending. How does it add to the discussion?
"If you were grading an undergraduate programming project with the property that fixing an obvious bug makes who-knows-what else break, what grade would you assign?"
This is not about homework. If you discovered a bug in some basic function that changes a few globals in the software for a nuclear facility that had been running for a few decades, would you fix it without doing a thorough check of the places where the globals get used (or even at all)?
This is not about homework. If you discovered a bug in some basic function that changes a few globals in the software for a nuclear facility that had been running for a few decades, would you fix it without doing a thorough check of the places where the globals get used (or even at all)?
Interesting. I would like to point out, though, that The pathway for L-ascorbate (Vitamin C) synthesis is not trivial http://www.genome.jp/kegg-bin/show_pathway?map00053, but in first world countries, ingesting sufficient amounts of the vitamin is trivial.
What's interesting is that the human body still does most of the synthesis - it's only the enzymes for the last step that have been disabled.
I don't see how the requirement to ingest $SPECIFIC_CHEMICAL_A is any different than the need to ingest any other chemical i.e. food.
Because the chemical in this case is something we have all the necessary things to produce.
I can't make energy (ie. food) from no input, but with some energy expenditure, my body could carry out the set of reactions to convert glucose (which is readily available in the diet) to Vitamin C.
I can't make energy (ie. food) from no input, but with some energy expenditure, my body could carry out the set of reactions to convert glucose (which is readily available in the diet) to Vitamin C.
Nearly every other mammal on the planet can make their own vitamin C. Aren't primates & guinea pigs the only exceptions?
Quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C :
It is made internally by almost all organisms although notable mammalian group exceptions are most or all of the order chiroptera (bats), guinea pigs, capybaras, and one of the two major primate suborders, the Anthropoidea (Haplorrhini) (tarsiers, monkeys and apes, including human beings).
So not all primates.
It is made internally by almost all organisms although notable mammalian group exceptions are most or all of the order chiroptera (bats), guinea pigs, capybaras, and one of the two major primate suborders, the Anthropoidea (Haplorrhini) (tarsiers, monkeys and apes, including human beings).
So not all primates.
Ok, look back at the wiki.
Do you know <i>why</i> you can't internally produce Vit C?
Do you know <i>why</i> you can't internally produce Vit C?
Because a mutation turned off our precursor's ability to do so, and (due to the abundance of vitamin C in their diet), wasn't immediately deleterous but instead managed to spread throughout the entire population.
Is the process to convert glucose into Vitamin C understood? Would it require something that could be seen as a tradeoff in our case?
Probably not a tradeoff. Scurvy is devastating and Wikipedia says an animal like a 70 kg goat makes ~13 grams of Vitamin C a day (which isn't very much of anything).
Scurvy might be devastating, but it's ridiculously easy to prevent. Especially nowadays.
Sure. I was responding to the tradeoff question. It just doesn't seem very likely that some animal survived because it wasn't making Vitamin C (the other case is some animal surviving even though it didn't properly make it).
I would assume so, just because I've never seen a shark eating a lime.
This doesn't mean that they don't tend secret lime farms on the ocean floor.
What kind of cellular machinery would be required? Where would this cellular machinery exist? Would we have a vitamin-C creating gland? How susceptible would this gland be to outright failure a la diabetes? The body could do a lot of things, but without a working alternative model simply saying the existing model is faulty suggests a deep understanding we clearly lack.
We already have the mechanism built into us. Other creatures do it. It's just broken in humans and our near relatives.
Very fun article.
Perhaps we'll be able to eliminate the bacteria one day, but it's a tall tall order. Beyond a certain level of complexity paratisitism seems to spontaneously emerge for reasons we don't fully understand. To avoid it you'd have to either centrally design (micromanage) complex systems at least 4 orders of magnitude larger than anything attempted so far, or you'd have to come up with a set of simple rules that causes complex behavior without parasitism. I suspect the latter especially is an ill-posed meaningless question.
Personally I think all our largest codebases today already have a parasitism 'problem'. They suffer from two kinds of parasites: dead code and crappy programmers living off maintaining them.
I would bet on attaining immortality before eliminating parasites from the human body. It's not a bug but a feature.
Perhaps we'll be able to eliminate the bacteria one day, but it's a tall tall order. Beyond a certain level of complexity paratisitism seems to spontaneously emerge for reasons we don't fully understand. To avoid it you'd have to either centrally design (micromanage) complex systems at least 4 orders of magnitude larger than anything attempted so far, or you'd have to come up with a set of simple rules that causes complex behavior without parasitism. I suspect the latter especially is an ill-posed meaningless question.
Personally I think all our largest codebases today already have a parasitism 'problem'. They suffer from two kinds of parasites: dead code and crappy programmers living off maintaining them.
I would bet on attaining immortality before eliminating parasites from the human body. It's not a bug but a feature.
Calling out bacteria as parasites is pretty silly. One might as well call out the appendix (which is composed entirely of human cells) as parasitic. Bacteria are much more like shared libraries. Libraries can of course have malicious code embedded in them, and human systems are prepared for that inevitability, but that doesn't mean the wholesale removal of shared libraries is very desirable.
Funny that you mention the appendix in a post about bacteria - because that is the function of the appendix: To tend to and maintain bacteria during times of intestinal illness.
Hell, we might as well call our mitochondria "parasites", if we're going all the way - those things have their own DNA, which evolves in tandem but separately from our own, in a rather different way from "normal" DNA.
Couldn't some of those stomach bacteria be patched to produce Vitamin C? I suppose some humans already have such bacteria in their gut, without knowing it?
Yes, but what's in it for them? Vitamin C synthesis uses a lot of energy. Patched microbes that mutated to stop making vitamin C would rapidly outcompete their ancestors.
That can be dealt with, just like nitrogen fixing bacteria in legumes are punished if they try to cheat. All you need is some method of signaling who cheats and who doesn't.
I've looked around to find more about the N2 fixing bacteria, and found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhizobia#Nodule_formation_and_f... - but no definitive treatment.
If you have a chance, can you please point an interested reader to more info?
If you have a chance, can you please point an interested reader to more info?
The second paragraph in the section you linked to discusses how the plant punishes cheaters.
I don't think there is a definitive treatment. There are lots of experiments and many possible mechanisms that have been discovered or proposed, and probably all are used by the plant.
I don't think there is a definitive treatment. There are lots of experiments and many possible mechanisms that have been discovered or proposed, and probably all are used by the plant.
Colon bacteria are all mixed together, so selectively rewarding symbiotes is hard.
And anyway vitamin C is sufficiently energy-rich that if a bacterial species started making it in quantity, other species would rapidly evolve to eat vitamin C for energy.
And anyway vitamin C is sufficiently energy-rich that if a bacterial species started making it in quantity, other species would rapidly evolve to eat vitamin C for energy.
Here's one possible design:
Currently the immune system prevents bacteria from living too close to the cells of the intestines (they have to stay in the mucus).
Setup a signaling system where bacteria that make vitamin C are permitted to stay close, and are shielded from the actions of the immune system. This lets you selectively host those bacteria, and it puts the vitamin C right where it can be immediately absorbed before other bacteria can get to it.
It also punished cheaters, since without the vitamin C the immune system would attack them and force them to stay farther from the food.
It's not much father from there to a dedicated organelle (or cells) the specifically host desired bacteria and all others are killed by the immune system.
And from there the host might incorporate the genes from the bacteria in the same way mitochondria are setup.
Currently the immune system prevents bacteria from living too close to the cells of the intestines (they have to stay in the mucus).
Setup a signaling system where bacteria that make vitamin C are permitted to stay close, and are shielded from the actions of the immune system. This lets you selectively host those bacteria, and it puts the vitamin C right where it can be immediately absorbed before other bacteria can get to it.
It also punished cheaters, since without the vitamin C the immune system would attack them and force them to stay farther from the food.
It's not much father from there to a dedicated organelle (or cells) the specifically host desired bacteria and all others are killed by the immune system.
And from there the host might incorporate the genes from the bacteria in the same way mitochondria are setup.
> evolution cares not at all for separation of concerns
That is not really quite true. Look at human anatomy: it is structured into various discrete organs. That is separation of concerns.
Evolution indeed appears to create, adjust, and maintain systems of abstraction, somehow . . . and when you think about it, it seems central to what evolution is doing.
You can start with the thought that there must be some coherent, discrete, mapping from genome to body -- otherwise evolution, by selection, could not work. It is not simple or clear, but there must be significant logical structure.
Chaitin postulates hierarchy as a basic form (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/jack.html): it is a way to restrict the effects of mutation, and is indeed evident in the body. Chaitin also explains the genome/body separation (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/ev.html): it is a way of amplifying mutation -- small changes in the genome make large effects in the body (otherwise, large changes in the body would require comensurately large mutation) -- thereby making evolution more powerful.
It seems there must be some significant relationship to software yet to be unravelled.
http://www.hxa.name/notes/note-hxa7241-20090831T2006.html
That is not really quite true. Look at human anatomy: it is structured into various discrete organs. That is separation of concerns.
Evolution indeed appears to create, adjust, and maintain systems of abstraction, somehow . . . and when you think about it, it seems central to what evolution is doing.
You can start with the thought that there must be some coherent, discrete, mapping from genome to body -- otherwise evolution, by selection, could not work. It is not simple or clear, but there must be significant logical structure.
Chaitin postulates hierarchy as a basic form (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/jack.html): it is a way to restrict the effects of mutation, and is indeed evident in the body. Chaitin also explains the genome/body separation (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/ev.html): it is a way of amplifying mutation -- small changes in the genome make large effects in the body (otherwise, large changes in the body would require comensurately large mutation) -- thereby making evolution more powerful.
It seems there must be some significant relationship to software yet to be unravelled.
http://www.hxa.name/notes/note-hxa7241-20090831T2006.html
> You can start with the thought that there must be some coherent, discrete, mapping from genome to body -- otherwise evolution, by selection, could not work. It is not simple or clear, but there must be significant logical structure.
Sorry, I can't follow that logic. Could you please elaborate?
Sorry, I can't follow that logic. Could you please elaborate?
The benefit of a tangle of dependences or lack of separation of concerns is that you need less energy to drive the organism. Analogously, the benefit of having thing look like a nail when all you've got is a hammer is that you only "need" the hammer.
I'm approaching the tautological thought that organisms are by definition perfect for their ecological niche because if they weren't, they would be something else (given enough stability and time in that niche)
Random fun trivia: dogs do synthesize vitamin C.
I'm approaching the tautological thought that organisms are by definition perfect for their ecological niche because if they weren't, they would be something else (given enough stability and time in that niche)
Random fun trivia: dogs do synthesize vitamin C.
> Random fun trivia: dogs do synthesize vitamin C.
And another random fun trivia: chocolate is poisonous to dogs. I'm happy to be human! :D
And another random fun trivia: chocolate is poisonous to dogs. I'm happy to be human! :D
It's more accurate to say that theobromine is poisonous to dogs: 100mg to 1kg of body weight.
Which is why my shepherd can filch the occasional candy bar and not die. One candy bar - annoying (to me) but not fatal. A pound of bakers chocolate and she'd be in doggy heaven.
Which is why my shepherd can filch the occasional candy bar and not die. One candy bar - annoying (to me) but not fatal. A pound of bakers chocolate and she'd be in doggy heaven.
Yet another fun fact: if your dog eats something bad like a hotdog or chocolate, pour some hydrogen peroxide down its throat. It'll make the dog puke up the bad bits. Obviously, do this outside or in an area you can easily clean up.
> I'm approaching the tautological thought that organisms are by definition perfect for their ecological niche because if they weren't, they would be something else
Meditate on what a simple hill-climbing algorithm does when it finds a tiny foothill right below a major peak.
> Random fun trivia: dogs do synthesize vitamin C.
From Wikipedia:
"It is made internally by almost all organisms although notable mammalian group exceptions are most or all of the order chiroptera (bats), guinea pigs, capybaras, and one of the two major primate suborders, the Anthropoidea (Haplorrhini) (tarsiers, monkeys and apes, including human beings)."
That's one reason guinea pigs are used as, well, guinea pigs.
Meditate on what a simple hill-climbing algorithm does when it finds a tiny foothill right below a major peak.
> Random fun trivia: dogs do synthesize vitamin C.
From Wikipedia:
"It is made internally by almost all organisms although notable mammalian group exceptions are most or all of the order chiroptera (bats), guinea pigs, capybaras, and one of the two major primate suborders, the Anthropoidea (Haplorrhini) (tarsiers, monkeys and apes, including human beings)."
That's one reason guinea pigs are used as, well, guinea pigs.
Late response, but yes, the article mentioned local maxima.
But I think it's hubris to think we could do a LOT better. The human body is a gigantic "engineering" effort involving a vast number of trade-offs and compromises.
But I think it's hubris to think we could do a LOT better. The human body is a gigantic "engineering" effort involving a vast number of trade-offs and compromises.
The best thing in this post was a link to http://idlewords.com/ . Very interesting blog.
guy brags about CSS and has a website that renders one word per line on an iphone.
yeah.
yeah.
Shit, really? It rendered fine on Pre Webkit, which was the only mobile platform I could test against.
Screenshot?
EDIT: Added some new rules to the 600px @media block that remove the 215 pixel left margin, and the #links div. Which is a pretty dumb way to "fix" the problem, but after all, I'm a dumb guy.
Screenshot?
EDIT: Added some new rules to the 600px @media block that remove the 215 pixel left margin, and the #links div. Which is a pretty dumb way to "fix" the problem, but after all, I'm a dumb guy.
The author seems to confuse natural selection with evolution.
Natural evolution is just super lazy - it does just enough to get by, and won't lift a finger for anything else...
I'm no biologist or evolutionist but it appears to me that welfare society and mass healthcare greatly reduced the effects of natural selection. As long as Vitamin C food supplements are easily accessible and people are educated to take them, there's simply no evolutionary imperative to "fix this bug." Maybe the author was referring to some sort of future artificial genetic engineering-based solution?
As far as I can tell, the term "evolutionist" is not used within the scientific community. It does, however, seem to have found a home in the vocabulary of anti-evolution, creationist communities. This makes me suspect something of your political/spiritual philosophy.
Your use of the phrases "welfare society" and "mass healthcare" strengthen the above suspicion. You next suggest that the "welfare society" (which has been practiced by a small fraction of the global population for - what, four generations now?) might already have reduced the effects of natural selection.
First, let me opine that welfare societies and mass healthcare would not "reduce the effects" of natural selection, they would simply re-order the traits that were being selected for.
Second, let me respectfully suggest that you would benefit from a more detailed study on the topic of natural selection.
Lastly, I would encourage you to consider the evocative power of the words you use in your arguments. Because of your choice of words a lazy reader, or one who arrived at this thread with conflicting opinions, might write you off as a politically conservative creationist who does not understand some (or several) of the terms you are using. You would be well served by avoiding shorthand terms like "evolutionist."
Your use of the phrases "welfare society" and "mass healthcare" strengthen the above suspicion. You next suggest that the "welfare society" (which has been practiced by a small fraction of the global population for - what, four generations now?) might already have reduced the effects of natural selection.
First, let me opine that welfare societies and mass healthcare would not "reduce the effects" of natural selection, they would simply re-order the traits that were being selected for.
Second, let me respectfully suggest that you would benefit from a more detailed study on the topic of natural selection.
Lastly, I would encourage you to consider the evocative power of the words you use in your arguments. Because of your choice of words a lazy reader, or one who arrived at this thread with conflicting opinions, might write you off as a politically conservative creationist who does not understand some (or several) of the terms you are using. You would be well served by avoiding shorthand terms like "evolutionist."
You seem to have misunderstood my comment which is probably my fault due to unclear wording. Evolutionist was indeed a bad choice of word but in my defence over here in Europe the word "evolution" is really not that emotionally charged. I should have written "evolution researcher" or something similar.
Welfare society is a common expression to describe the model of post-1960 Western and North European societies. America is rather different but my understanding is that in many states there have are at least some measures in place to help people in need.
About "mass healthcare": here in Europe we have universal healthcare. That's not the case in America, however, regardless of its problems, healthcare is accessible to large portions of the American society, as opposed to other countries or historical times where only a very small percentage of the society has or had access to any form of healthcare. I don't think that this expression is a very bad way to describe that.
It's really nobody's business but to put things in context, I do believe that "welfare society", "universal healthcare" are very good things, and I would describe myself as a "non-believer" and a "European conservative".
I agree that with your opinion that these phenomena "re-order the traits that are being selected for" but I stand by my assertion that being able to compose Vitamin C is not one of those traits. In general, my understanding is that many genetic features in the past that put individuals at disadvantage are considerably less relevant today. Even in extreme cases where these traits make reproduction impossible these effects mean that individuals affected by them will be able to stay around and increase the survival chances of others in the family. Once again, I would like to mention that this is only my understanding and I am not qualified enough in these areas to make authoritative statements. However, I would consider myself to be as well-informed about these subjects as anyone in the general population cat get, having read numerous books on the subject aimed at the general population authored by scientists who are considered to be experts in the area. One of them is a well-known advocate of atheism these days which I personally think is a shame, I much preferred when he was "only" a very good writer of books about evolution.
In addition, I appreciate your constructive intentions but this kind of patronising tone is really not necessary.
Welfare society is a common expression to describe the model of post-1960 Western and North European societies. America is rather different but my understanding is that in many states there have are at least some measures in place to help people in need.
About "mass healthcare": here in Europe we have universal healthcare. That's not the case in America, however, regardless of its problems, healthcare is accessible to large portions of the American society, as opposed to other countries or historical times where only a very small percentage of the society has or had access to any form of healthcare. I don't think that this expression is a very bad way to describe that.
It's really nobody's business but to put things in context, I do believe that "welfare society", "universal healthcare" are very good things, and I would describe myself as a "non-believer" and a "European conservative".
I agree that with your opinion that these phenomena "re-order the traits that are being selected for" but I stand by my assertion that being able to compose Vitamin C is not one of those traits. In general, my understanding is that many genetic features in the past that put individuals at disadvantage are considerably less relevant today. Even in extreme cases where these traits make reproduction impossible these effects mean that individuals affected by them will be able to stay around and increase the survival chances of others in the family. Once again, I would like to mention that this is only my understanding and I am not qualified enough in these areas to make authoritative statements. However, I would consider myself to be as well-informed about these subjects as anyone in the general population cat get, having read numerous books on the subject aimed at the general population authored by scientists who are considered to be experts in the area. One of them is a well-known advocate of atheism these days which I personally think is a shame, I much preferred when he was "only" a very good writer of books about evolution.
In addition, I appreciate your constructive intentions but this kind of patronising tone is really not necessary.
I don't get it - do I keep taking these 1000mg Vitamin C supplements or not?
They almost certainly won't hurt, but, unless you're otherwise in danger of Vitamin C deficiency, they likely aren't doing you a lot of good, either.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/colds....
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/colds....
I would take anything from quackwatch with a huge grain of salt. It is very biased against all non-synthetic, non-pharmaceutical medical treatments. The author either willfully ignores the science published on herbal pharmacology and nutritional medicine, or he isn't paying attention, or he has an agenda. In any case, I'd rather get my info on medicine from a more balanced source.
Edit: here's a balanced source on the current research on vitamin C supplements. Scroll down to disease treatment (http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminC/)
Edit: here's a balanced source on the current research on vitamin C supplements. Scroll down to disease treatment (http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminC/)
This is my first response, so I'll try and make it information>noise.
This is a typically non-biological / ecological dunce post for Ycomb, n/and an ignorant post that I see commonly espoused by the bottom layers of the 2.0 / transitional ideological parties.
The lack of a genetic ability to produce Vitamin C is neither a bug nor an issue for the mammals that do not possess it. In all cases, either the mammal in question gains from the lack [i.e. the lack has driven forward other behaviours that have proved more beneficial whilst searching out sources of Vit C, e.g. dextral abilities to harvest fruit from trees in the case of some early primates] or is neutrally aligned to it [i.e. Vit C is already a mainstay of their diet, so there is never a lack of it, e.g. fruitivores].
The proof? They. Fucking. Survived. For. Millions / 100' Thousand Years.
This is only a "bug" when you add in a modern [last 3000 years] lifestyle where fruit / veg is a "limited resource".
>> The "bug" is not the inability to produce Vit C, the real bug is living in a system that doesn't allow easy access to Vit C. Living on a ship off worm-riddled meat for a year? That's an environmental problem. Same goes for inner city "food deserts" where Walmart has stomped on any and all local garden produce.
Category error. Sheesh, I'd have hoped you people were more intelligent than this.
[and for the record: producing Vit C chemically is a hella lot easier than genotyping in a fix, you fucking moron]
This is a typically non-biological / ecological dunce post for Ycomb, n/and an ignorant post that I see commonly espoused by the bottom layers of the 2.0 / transitional ideological parties.
The lack of a genetic ability to produce Vitamin C is neither a bug nor an issue for the mammals that do not possess it. In all cases, either the mammal in question gains from the lack [i.e. the lack has driven forward other behaviours that have proved more beneficial whilst searching out sources of Vit C, e.g. dextral abilities to harvest fruit from trees in the case of some early primates] or is neutrally aligned to it [i.e. Vit C is already a mainstay of their diet, so there is never a lack of it, e.g. fruitivores].
The proof? They. Fucking. Survived. For. Millions / 100' Thousand Years.
This is only a "bug" when you add in a modern [last 3000 years] lifestyle where fruit / veg is a "limited resource".
>> The "bug" is not the inability to produce Vit C, the real bug is living in a system that doesn't allow easy access to Vit C. Living on a ship off worm-riddled meat for a year? That's an environmental problem. Same goes for inner city "food deserts" where Walmart has stomped on any and all local garden produce.
Category error. Sheesh, I'd have hoped you people were more intelligent than this.
[and for the record: producing Vit C chemically is a hella lot easier than genotyping in a fix, you fucking moron]
The posting guidelines are here:
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation."
"Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
Also, your post uses a lot of symbols as well as some poor punctuation, capitalization, sentence fragments, and abbreviations, which makes the general quality aside from the contents poor overall. Comments on HN tend to be well written. Think snail mail and not text message for style.
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation."
"Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
Also, your post uses a lot of symbols as well as some poor punctuation, capitalization, sentence fragments, and abbreviations, which makes the general quality aside from the contents poor overall. Comments on HN tend to be well written. Think snail mail and not text message for style.
You're being downvoted because your arguments sound like post-hoc rationalizations and you're adopting a very combative, insulting tone. Mainly the second one, to be honest.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14962674
I can provide many more: this "bug" is a field of science that many, many papers have addressed: I'm being downvoted because few people here are mature enough to do their own research and instead prefer a "cool, wacky, zeitgeist" take on it.
Trust me: about 100 years of biology has been done on this "bug". The OP piece is a joke.
I can provide many more: this "bug" is a field of science that many, many papers have addressed: I'm being downvoted because few people here are mature enough to do their own research and instead prefer a "cool, wacky, zeitgeist" take on it.
Trust me: about 100 years of biology has been done on this "bug". The OP piece is a joke.
You're still coming off as as really, really insulting. That doesn't help you get your point across.
Besides, you're missing the main point, which is "Wow human biology is a huge mess." Did you read the part about the same hormone being related to both blood pressure and pair-bonding?
Besides, you're missing the main point, which is "Wow human biology is a huge mess." Did you read the part about the same hormone being related to both blood pressure and pair-bonding?
-2?
This Angel is getting a good 'vibe' for the average user already ~ and here we were thinking this was different from Reddit or Zero Hedge.
>Here's a tip: if you downvote, add a response to the why, otherwise, we ignore your input<
This Angel is getting a good 'vibe' for the average user already ~ and here we were thinking this was different from Reddit or Zero Hedge.
>Here's a tip: if you downvote, add a response to the why, otherwise, we ignore your input<
> Sheesh, I'd have hoped you people were more intelligent than this.
"You people"? Really? I wonder who you are imagining "you people" to be?
> and here we were thinking this was different from Reddit or Zero Hedge
Well, you're wrong. Still humans, I'm afraid, a lot of them, in a wide range of shades and dispositions.
"Use of Weapons" is one of my favourite books, if you're going to assume its name as your HN identity then please do it justice.
"You people"? Really? I wonder who you are imagining "you people" to be?
> and here we were thinking this was different from Reddit or Zero Hedge
Well, you're wrong. Still humans, I'm afraid, a lot of them, in a wide range of shades and dispositions.
"Use of Weapons" is one of my favourite books, if you're going to assume its name as your HN identity then please do it justice.
You got a response; your first post had an awful tone not suited for HN. You can do better.
My thought is we are built for our world, you try tinker with the natural processes bad stuff will likely result. We know a lot about how we function, but we don't really get the big picture of how everything here on earth works with us and we with it.
We're actually pretty intelligent, though, and we don't need to know how everything works together in order to be able to tinker with natural processes just enough to keep from dying, in a lot of cases.
Keep in mind that a healthy percentage of the people reading this discussion would be dead right now if it weren't for modern medicine. I've personally had several bacterial infections as a child that would have stood a reasonable chance of killing me if it wasn't for antibiotics, and one nasty infected wound as an adult that I was told would have had me at 50/50 if it wasn't for the meddling that doctors were able to do to clean it up.
Keep in mind that a healthy percentage of the people reading this discussion would be dead right now if it weren't for modern medicine. I've personally had several bacterial infections as a child that would have stood a reasonable chance of killing me if it wasn't for antibiotics, and one nasty infected wound as an adult that I was told would have had me at 50/50 if it wasn't for the meddling that doctors were able to do to clean it up.
That's not necessarily true. Since our genetic programming can also dictate social behaviors, the fundamental genetic unit isn't always the individual: there are a lot of organisms where they've evolved to have a large percentage of the population not reproduce, yet are absolutely vital to the species. For example, worker bees aren't a "failure". Whether or to what extent such things influence human evolution is hard to speculate on.
I don't get the point that the author is trying to make about gut flora either, but it also seems misguided. Humans have evolved in symbiosis with our gut flora. Why would we want to eliminate them? There seems to be a built in assumption that having foreign cells in our body must be inherently bad, but that has no basis in science. If a foreign, symbiotic organism can perform a task efficiently inside of the human body, what is the advantage of having it instead done by that person's cells?