Duh, moron that I am - not only could I not find that link but I OWN BOTH THE DAMN BOOKS of the series. This is an indicator I am spending too much time on the net...

I found an interesting idea on the question of black versus bubonic plague.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=15488668

This article, and the PBS website, assumes that the Eyam village most likely got the plague from fleas carried on clothing (i'm not sure if that's based on documentation of the fleas by the villagers or knowledge of a recent shipment to the patient zero of Eyam), with the initial infections being followed by mutation of the bacterium to a known, more virulant form that can pass between humans directly. They assume that the Black Death and Bubonic Plague are one and the same, and do not even mention an alternate possibility despite being after that book (from article linked at bbc) was published. The article that was previously posted about how the infection of an alternate small town says that the reason they don't think it was the bubonic plague is because rats were not found in that town. So maybe it was the same there as for this town of Eyam, where some kind of flea-infested clothing or person came to the town? In my personal experience, unfortunately, fleas seem to live for at least weeks on furniture, even without the animal that originally passed it on to the couch around.

Thanks Zuleikaa.

I noticed in the article that it says the mutation was shown to exist long before the plague would have selected for its prevanlence using bodies from Scandanavia. So, the mutation/allele EXISTED, at some low level in the population, likely neutral in fitness to the carriers, although this O'Brien guy suggests that selection for the allele may have been constantly maintained at some low level because it provides resistance to numerous pathogens. Then the large epidemic of the plague SELECTED for it, making it's numbers jump up in the population to this 14% or so, or maybe even higher and they have settled back down to 14%, after all these generations. What a neat example of natural selection at work in humans!

I see the advent of agriculture as a major change in man's environment. Self-inflicted, but I suppose that goes to our ability to control our environment to some degree. We just seem to be unable to predict the long term consequences of some of our manipulations.

So here we are, selecting now for individuals who happen to have genetic mutations and/or alleles that confer some degree of resistance to the negative effects of high carb diet. The next question is, what do you think are some single gene traits that might confer some sort of advantage? How can human metabolism better handle the large fluctuations on blood sugar that are a natural consequence of ingesting high carb foods?

I'm thinking, maybe something involving slower digestion and/or absorption, such that the rapid rise in blood sugar is dampened somewhat.

Also, wanted to compliment everyone for making this thread so interesting.

Well, heck, it's not that we don't already have "right" adaptations. We're SUPPOSED to put on fat in response to carbs.

Only when carbs are present intermittently, and probably in smaller quantities. Like fruit/vegetable season.

Strange to be thinking of genetic ways to protect ourselves from an ovberabundance of food, eh? Probably the better way would be to spread those carbs out across the world, solve the food shortage and save our health at the same time.

One thing that would help would be multi-chambered stomachs like cows and sheep. I doubt that we would find a single mutation or allele that would do this. It would be a series of related mutations, which would take a long, long time.

Thats a BAAAAAAAAHHHHD idea.

Well there is a debate about HIV and AIDS. Havent you heard about the AIDS dissidents and what is happening in South Africa. What about Duesburg and the Perth Group?

I should of said HIV will not lead to genetic change rather than cause genetic change. Lucky that there are pedantic types like you to keep on top of it

I doubt if many people have. I found their site and it has less hits than some journals here. http://www.theperthgroup.com/index.shtml and http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index.htm

I certainly had not heard of them. It seems an interesting argument and I'm always keen on dissident science (as long as it remains science). However, I don't have the expertise to evaluate it.

A fairly good rebuttal is at http://www.thebody.com/niaid/hiv/definition.html although it is dated at 2000 and I believe things have moved on from then.

It does seem that HIV isolation in the lab is still contentious. Odd.

A trawl around the web seems to suggest that the argument ground to a halt in 2002.

What I was aware of is the little sub-culture that supports this outlook.

Hidden in the depths of the Green and Alternative Health movements there is an embarrasing sub-group who don't believe in the classic theory of infection or that micro-orgonisms cause illness. This is the 'Pasteur were wrong!' gang.

Similarly there were a few silly groups who bought into MBeke's attempts to get more aide money without having to spend it on treating AIDS suffers with expensive drugs.

In terms of what we are discussing here it is somewhat irrelevant. If one accepts a biological origin for AIDS, then the same selection procedures would apply.



If one were really pedantic, one might point out that it is 'should HAVE said' rather than 'should of said'. But I'd never point out something like that.

Yes, i have heard of Duesberg, and I do know what the argument are. When I was in graduate school, I worked with a professor who was a student of Dr. Duesberg at one time. He used to be, and probably still is, a great scientist, but his crusade on the subject of HIV and AIDS has caused him to lose a lot of credibility and respect in his own field of retroviral study.

I am saying that among scientists, these arguments were valid and reasonable 10 years ago, and are NO LONGER valid and reasonable today.

The fact that Dr. Duesberg holds on to these ideas despite the proof that HIV does exist and does cause AIDS that has come about through many careful studies since the beginning of HIV and AIDS research is sad. He was right to question the connection between HIV and AIDS at the time that he did, but he is wrong not to accept the truth now. Continuing these arguments, especially in Africa, is causing many people to die needlessly, and blocking transmission of vaccines where they are needed, all because he can't let go of the fact that an assumption that shouldn't have been made back then has turned out to be the correct assumption. That happens sometimes.

As for whether or not I am pedantic, the reason that I pointed out that environmental pressure does not CAUSE mutation is because there have been numerous posts along this thread that seem to indicate that you and others do not KNOW that environmental pressure does not CAUSE mutation. If it was clear to you that the way you stated it was wrong, but just not worth correcting yourself, then I'm sorry for assuming that your repeatedly incorrect statements indicated a lack of understanding on the subject.

London Ian, I think that one of the issues with these websites (and really all websites, i guess) is that they link to papers and quotes that respected scientists made at a time when it WAS appropriate to question whether HIV causes AIDS or not. Dr. Duesberg's original ideas that AIDS was caused by environmental toxins (of various sources including drug use), WERE appropriate given the information that scientists knew AT THE TIME, and should have been researched more thoroughly then. Because of this, many scientists supported him in his attempts to prove his ideas correct (i'm simplifying here, he wasn't the only one questioning this, just the most famous). However, with time, he was proven wrong, and many of the people who are quoted on these websites no longer even agree with Duesberg, but they did say those things at one time. The websites that are anti-HIV-as-a-cause are twisting the literature, like all persuasive sites, to make it look like the debate is ongoing, when really it is being used by people like Mbeke to further their own personal goals.

The really sad thing about all of this is that Dr. Duesberg had a very good point, and that was that we should not assume we know a cause just because we have a correlation. He was right to question the cause, and his theories on the cause of AIDS were good ones too, with great correlations just like HIV had, maybe even better ones for a while, but in the end, HIV is the cause of AIDS, and continuing to refuse to accept this has made the scientific public come to ignore the real point, which to me, is that we should always question a new hypothesis until it is either proven right or proven wrong, and not just accept it because it sounds good. I think that normally IS the basis of research, but when public interest and politics get involved, that fact is often lost for a quick way to blame someone or something and make the scared victims feel like something can be done to help them quickly.

jjoby, I agree completely. It's why I was careful to include dates when I quoted those sites.

There is no way humans can stop evolution entirely, but they do mess with it alot.

As an example, the western societies have evoluted to western style democracy. The Iraqi society has not. See what is going on there!