Is mankind actually de-volving?

Question

With genetic disorders and diseases ever increasing---from 1400 to 12,000 in the 33 years from 1966 to 1999 and projected to increase further, are we doomed to extinction by the end of this century as some researchers have stated?
Quote "By 2031, it is estimated (R2 = 0.995) there will be 100,000 human genetic disorders and by 2096 1,000,000 (see Figure 3). “At least one clinical disorder has been related to 1,318 of the mapped loci (roughly 30%)” (McKusick, 1998, Vol. 1, xiii - xviii). That suggests genetic disorder saturation of each locus by 2031 and supersaturation by 2096. These data confirm human devolution and suggest imminent permanent genetic extinction in this century."
Source--http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/data3.html
Related articles....
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu.WwrTJHLIgAycFXNyoA?p=genetic+disorders+on+the+rise&fr=ush-ans
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu.WwrTJHLIgAycFXNyoA?p=genetic+disorders+on+the+rise&fr=ush-an

To biochemist....You and others state that some of the genetic disorders may actually be beneficial which indeed is true in some part of sickle cell anemia for populations in malaria-prone areas. To your knowledge, how many of the 14,000 current genetic disorders stated in the paper are beneficial? Isn't it true that the overwhelming majority of disorders are not beneficial? Are we not getting worse rather than better as humans, genetically speaking?

Answer 1

The very first line of the "paper" is:

"The foundation of evolution is abiogenesis, life spontaneously generated from nonlife."

This is completely false. Since a supposedly peer-reviewed paper can not even get the opening line of the abstract correct, it is safe to ignore the rest of the paper.

While it is correct that abiogenesis means that life is generated from non-life, that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution makes zero claims about the origins of life.

The increase in genetic disorders can probably be accounted for in a number of ways, the most significant of which are diagnosis and classification. If you suddenly discover that some rare condition that has killed one person every 3 years for as long as anyone knows is caused by a genetic defect you have added to the list of genetic disorders but this does not mean that it is a NEW disorder, just that is is newly discovered and classified.

While the pressure of natural selection has been largely removed from human populations, there are still selective pressures. We are still evolving, whether it will ultimately be for the good of the bad of the species can only be discovered in retrospect.

Finally, even if there IS an increase in the number of genetic disorders, it is entirely possible that these disorders confer some benefit in the right circumstances. Case in point, the sickle cell mutation, when present in one copy of the gene but not the other, confers some resistance to malaria. So while sickle cell is a genetic disorder, there is selective pressure to retain the mutation in populations where malaria is a problem.

Answer 2

There is no such thing as de-evolution.

Genetic disorders are not "new" - they have always been around. It is just that, with the completion of the Human Genome Project, we are able to assign a genetic cause (or predisposition) to many more disorders than we were previously able.
Additionally, advances in medicine have meant that diseases that might have previously killed people are now more treatable - so sufferers live longer, increasing the proportion of the population that display that trait.
And as and when gene therapy become possible - many of these disorders might actually be fully curable.

And reading even just the abstract of that article reveals numerous errors:
Abiogenesis has *nothing* to do with evolution: abiogenesis is an hypothesis about how life *began* (and a highly controversial one at that), while evolution describes how life has *changed* and continues to change (and is entierly uncontroversial, except for among an extremely vocal minority).
It also states that evolution is a religion. In what way is that even vaguely true? Religions deal with the *supernatural*, while evolution is a part of science, and therefore deals putely with the natural world. Science can say *nothing* about supernatural subjects like the afterlife, the existence of any creator, and so on.
"Devolution to extinction" is not a scientific concept. Species do not devolve: they evolve, and they become extinct (either because they have all evolved - leaving none of the original species remaining, or because drastic environmental change occurred faster than they could adapt to it).
Evolution is not "the antithesis of science": blind faith is "the antithesis of science"! And the current accelerating extinction is far from the greatest extinction event in history: that would be the Permian-Triassic extinction event 250 million years ago, which killed off 96% of all marine species and 70% of all land species (~75% of all species became extinct).

I'm sorry, but any website that proposes a Young Earth is not to be trusted.

Answer 3

I'm fairly sure that we are not de-evolving. It's more like genetic mutations that are not compatible with a basic human DNA chain. We as human beings have created these disorders, cancers, diseases and malfunctions of our normal bio rythm through our own laziness and ignorence for the effects of technology. Since all new technology breaks through barriers if the safety risks are cut down a length of time, say 1 or 2 generations. It goes through because all goverments in the world want to be better than the others, and it's also due to the fact that money breeds corruption as it holds the key to the greatest sins of the power it holds over us. HF, UHF, VHF, X-Rays from space, wireless phones, televisions, even this computer screen, all contribute to the pollution in which we are emersed, that provide the climate for these genetic mutations to occur. It fairly simple to see the changes in overall human health as technology progresses from the industrial revolution on to today.

Answer 4

No, we are not devolving. What humans are experiencing is the absence of natural selection. In other animals, specimens with defects (diseases and genetic disorders) are unlikely to mate and thereby do not pass on their genes. This is basically a Survival of the fittest game.

With us, humans rarely choose who you are going to have your kid with based on your genetic compatibility. Your more likely to go for looks.

Basically we are evolving but not for the greater good.

Answer 5

Drones of humanity delight in sensual pleasures that ultimately are engagements in reproduction and replication. The environment is such at leisure that even the unfit make it through to the throne of the beast. The sensification of man eternally sets his hopes of supremacy aside and leads to his deep suffering. If the species is to survive, the fit should be vary of making the next generation and only selectively breed with theirs.

Answer 6

in step with probability cuz.....our inhabitants has risen, cultures have mixed...it incredibly is not rocket technological know-how, we at the instant are not-devolving exceptionally because of this. We could be by way of fact we save saving human beings from dieing, subsequently no longer removing the susceptible genes from out gene pool. If we enable human beings die for sure we would have extra suitable human beings interior the destiny.

Answer 7

our body constantly recharges itself to fight dieseases. Same for genentic disorders,especially after birth, the body will find a way to fight it. We cannot say for sure if humans are actually on the verge of extinction based on genentic disorder alone, there are other factors too.

Answer 8

Watch the movie Idiocracy it has the answer ...

Answer 9

You are thinking way too deep.....wow! I bet you get like get no sleep. Kinda scary.