Technological applications of evolution?

[Az]

I am not aware of this, but it could be true. In any case, that doesn't change the main point, that evolution transcends it's biological application. Evolution, as the process, not the scientific theory that describes it.

[Elok]

I was referring to our knowledge of said scientific theory and how it is useful to us. Many things are perfectly true and probably interesting but utterly useless to know for the sake of progress. "The sky is blue:" it's factually correct, but does it really affect us as human beings?

[Az]

Oh. Ignore all that I've said, then.

[CyberGnu]

Mutegenecity of chemical compounds is tested via a direct application of evolution.

You take a petri dish covered with agaros (a sugar), and apply a drop of bacteria which has been genetically modified to lack the enzyme for agaros breakdown. Since they can't use the agaros, they have no nutrition and they can't grow. They can still replicate, though, by feeding on each other, and eventually one of them will mutate into a form that can use the agaros, and a colony will grow.

If you also add a chemical that promotes mutations (i.e. it is mutagenic), the rate of mutations will be increased. Practically, what you do is simply take 200 petri dishes, use 100 as the standard, apply the chemical to the other 100, and then see how much faster the ones with added chemical mutates.

The faster they mutate, the more mutagenic the chemical is, and consequently more cancer inducing.


Now, this really isn't important enough for a "wonder of the world", but I think it is a pretty cool application

[St Leo]

People, are you all illiterate?

First few paragraphs of Scientific American's Evolve New Circuits

New Scientist's Radio emerges from electronic soup

Evolutionary laws are being actively applied in circuit and software design. Obviously, our results are faster than Nature's because our criteria are teleological rather than self- and environment-defined.

[Az]

St Leo, he talked about the theory of evolution in Biology, not the process of evolution itself.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
I agree about the pesticide thing, but people have been domesticating and cultivating since *long* before Darwin(or Lamarck, or Aristotle, for that matter).

That's true. Don't forget that for most of human's history, we invented things without knowing the theories behind them. For example, earthernware, gunpowder, and compass. So was domestication of plants and animals, which is really just evolution applied.

Don't forget, the definition of evolution is "changes in frequencies of alleles in a species within a region."

Originally posted by Elok
I'm not sure whether I agree about the altered-worldview bit either, because the scientific method also predates Darwin, and I think the general idea of "only the strong survive" could arise from a context not involving the belief that survival of the fittest was the most active process in shaping our ecosystem; to put it another way, do you need to believe that we are the distant descendents of fish in order to appreciate the improvement value of competition? Laissez-faire capitalism is a similar concept in some respects, but unrelated in its development.

The application of certain knowledge does not require the knowledge itself. For example, if you are hammering a nail, you are applying physics. You don't need to know physics to use a hammer, however.

That's a bit confusing, so think about that.

[Boris Godunov]

Speaking of this (though off-topic), I have to say a big "**** You" to the folks at Greenpeace and their knee-jerk opposition to GMOs. IMO, they are partly responsible for the deaths of millions in Africa by starvation.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Speaking of this (though off-topic), I have to say a big "**** You" to the folks at Greenpeace and their knee-jerk opposition to GMOs. IMO, they are partly responsible for the deaths of millions in Africa by starvation.

Easy, Boris.

The big problem with starvations in Africa isn't with food production, it's with distribution. The world grows enough food for everybody, but it's just that the food can't get to places where it is needed.

Growing more food won't solve the problem. Besides, genetically modified crops have largely unknown environmental effects. Genes spliced into them have been found to drift out into the environment through unknown vectors.

The last problem being that of seeds and monopolisation of seed supplies.

[Boris Godunov]

Except that nations like Kenya, Zaire, etc, who are undergoing huge famines, rejected donations from the West of genetically-modified crops because of Greenpeace's lobbying efforts.

And the reason we produce enough food today is because we have been modifying food to be more productive, more resistant to pests and better for the soil. I can't remember his name, but one of the formost biologists behind GMOs is credited with saving almost a billion lives through his research.

[Urban Ranger]

All, if not most, of crops grown today are not genetically modified.

A Chinese botanist was able to improve the yield of rice by 8 times in 40 years, all done through traditional method.

AFAIK, genetic modification doesn't really increase crop yield. These genes just make the plants product things they don't before.

Plant genomes are hugely complex, much more complex than animal ones. Without knowing what's going on, doing GM on plants is not a wise idea. It reminds one of using pesticides without knowing much about ecology.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Elok
I was referring to our knowledge of said scientific theory and how it is useful to us. Many things are perfectly true and probably interesting but utterly useless to know for the sake of progress. "The sky is blue:" it's factually correct, but does it really affect us as human beings?

I think that depends on how narrow a view you want to take. To use your example, the fact that the sky is blue does not in and of itself affect us, but the reasons behind why the sky is blue does have a major impact on the study of optics (ok, chicken and egg thing here, don't get bogged down in it), which in turn does affect us greatly.

[Az]

Speaking of this (though off-topic), I have to say a big "**** You" to the folks at Greenpeace and their knee-jerk opposition to GMOs. IMO, they are partly responsible for the deaths of millions in Africa by starvation.

A mixed reaction here, Boris. I applaud you for ignoring the bull**** ( Sorry, UR ) that is getting spread around, and embracing GMOs as viable, and productive measures, but I am really not knowlegeable on the exact details of famines there.

AFAIK, genetic modification doesn't really increase crop yield. These genes just make the plants product things they don't before.

It can do both. You've said yourself that a chinese biologist had inreased rice crop yield through selective breeding, i.e. applying very strong evolutionary pressure to achieve a goal. Gentic Engineering could shorten the time needed a lot.

Plant genomes are hugely complex, much more complex than animal ones. Without knowing what's going on, doing GM on plants is not a wise idea. It reminds one of using pesticides without knowing much about ecology.

That's why you try to know what is going on. That's why things are checked for years before they are made available on the market. One could argue that not enough is done. If solid evidence would be presented to me, I would agree. But saying that we should throw out GMOs as a solution, and we should just "leave it alone" is completely unacceptabl.

[St Leo]

This question came to me one day while I was playing Civ2 and I wondered why Darwin's Voyage gives you civ advances when IRL the theory of evolution seems to be most useful as a philosophical statement. I've never heard of evolution leading to any device, medicine or process the way quantum mechanics led to the MRI or Einstein's work led, eventually, to the nuclear age.

St Leo, he talked about the theory of evolution in Biology, not the process of evolution itself.

No, he didn't.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
A mixed reaction here, Boris. I applaud you for ignoring the bull**** ( Sorry, UR ) that is getting spread around, and embracing GMOs as viable, and productive measures, but I am really not knowlegeable on the exact details of famines there.

You sound like a religious fundamentalist, ignoring your opponents arguments.

Originally posted by Azazel

AFAIK, genetic modification doesn't really increase crop yield. These genes just make the plants product things they don't before.

It can do both. You've said yourself that a chinese biologist had inreased rice crop yield through selective breeding, i.e. applying very strong evolutionary pressure to achieve a goal. Gentic Engineering could shorten the time needed a lot.

See my other point below.

Originally posted by Azazel

Plant genomes are hugely complex, much more complex than animal ones. Without knowing what's going on, doing GM on plants is not a wise idea. It reminds one of using pesticides without knowing much about ecology.

That's why you try to know what is going on. That's why things are checked for years before they are made available on the market. One could argue that not enough is done. If solid evidence would be presented to me, I would agree. But saying that we should throw out GMOs as a solution, and we should just "leave it alone" is completely unacceptabl.

Solution to what? To me, it is a solution looking for a problem. Besides the problems I have pointed out (genes getting spreaded into the environment, etc.), what do these GMO's attempt to solve?