Homo superior

[AzurePhoenix]

Okay, i wasn't sure if this belonged in evolution, anatomy, or psuedo-science, and i don't expect a very thorough response, but here it goes; Say you were a geneticist in about a hundred years or so when we have a better foot-hold in recombinant engineering. How would you improve the heart? The lungs? They eyes? Digestive track? Maybe even the brain, bones, blood or musculature. Nothing major, but are there any simple fix-ups that natural evolution over-looked? Or even major ones that you might believe are feasible? I'd really appreciat3e a response.

[coquina]

If I could come up with a way for women to stop losing the calcium from their bones as they age, I'd say that would be a good start.

[Hellbender]

I would say improve parts of the brain that go wrong. For all its complexity and seeming effiiciency, people still have mental problems.

[AzurePhoenix]

yeah, great suggestions, but does anyone who intimately knows anatomy have any full suggestions (along with explanations.) For example, would red blod cells work better if they had a greater surface area for their size? Or is their another elemental base that could theortetically work better in blood than iron? Would a six-chambered heart be feasible, and how might that be an improvement, if it would be at all?

[AzurePhoenix]

I know that i might appear to be impatient; well, I AM!! Are there any anatomy-buffs out their who could lend me a helping hand?

[syntax252]

Teeth that replace themselves as often as needed, eyes that do not quit on us 50 years before we expire, hearing that does not dull with age, and a natural ability that makes Viagra obsolete?

[Mokele]

Cross the human reproductive system with that of reptiles. No more looking after kids. No more long pregnancies. And, best of all, the female can *chose* when to get pregnant, and store sperm for up to 7 years.

 

However, depending on what species is used for the source of genes, it might be a good idea not to get bitten by your kids...

 

Mokele

[[Tycho?]]

This isn't as easy as it may seem. Lots of the bodys systems work on systems of advantage vs disadvantage, if you change something, it may benifit in one way, but hurt you in another. If it was a simple thing like increasing the area of a blood cell, then evolution should have taken care of that long ago for the most part.

 

There are some things we could tinker with. For one thing, we are not built to live long lives. We are built to live, reproduce, and raise our young. There was no advantage to our ancestors in living longer. This may be something we can change. There are other things that are different now that we are intelligent, things that were useful then, but no longer are, or vise versa.

 

As for just making the heart stronger? I'm sure you could a bit since people are naturally differnt in these areas, a natural athlete may have a naturally stronger heart than others. I dont think there is a huge amount of room for improvment in this regard however.

[AzurePhoenix]

Sorry tycho, and whereas you are certainly on the right track, believing that evolution strives for perfection is a severe oversight. Most problems that arise in humans occur after peak breeding potential. The body doesn't require a better form of blood, so it won't waste time creating it. What's the point of developing better lungs that won't affect who recieves them, since the inferior-lunged progeny were already spawned by evolutionarily-succussful parents. Evolution is about being adequate enough to create adequate children, which is why our elderly must suffer. If evolution were about the success of the individual rather than the species, then (pretending that all life wouldn't be extinct) our blood and other systems would be as perfect as you think they are. True, nature has done things with life that no human could comprehend, and evolution is a sculpture of unparalled genius, but that doesn't mean that in the far future, man won't find ways to improve the base model.

[AzurePhoenix]

i just wish we had eyes that combined the intensity of a bird of prey's and amantis-shrimp's color-perception, lungs as efficient as a bird's, capable of keeping us clear-headed even at Everest-height altitudes, arteries that didn't clog, slimmer, denser musculatures, lighter, more flexible bone-structures, and maybe even a prehensile tail (hopefully with some fur on it.) The problem is, i'm good with the concepts of the final organism. I'm not well versed in the physics and chemistry of all of the various living tissues, and so cannot devise the answers that i seek.

 

i'm sorry if i seem overly persistant, desperate, stubborn and blunt, but i suffer from bone-headedness and acute-cynicism coupled with severe anxiety. ignore my rantings and please accept my apologies.

[Guest wat]

do you know anything about cells in the human body

[Krul]

The human body is in reality an enormous symbiosis of countless millions of cells. In theory every living oganism larger then 1 cell, exists as a symbiosis.

 

That is important because as Tycho indicated, changing 1 type of cell/structure can lead to a lot of different problems.

 

This is a "simple" example..................increasing man's strength by creating more actine and myosine fibers. To tell the body to create that is not that difficult, especially in 100 years.

 

Now here come the problems;

First the body needs to be able to consume more of the components of these fibers, to do so you might have to change the gastro-intestinal track, or you might have to adjust the muscle cells ( we are talking about the smooth muscle type, for this ) so that their membranes can get more components from the blood.

Secondly you might have to increase the amount of mitochondria ( cellular parts which are "energy plants" ) to provide the necessary extra energy.

Thirdly, the ATP that these mitochondria produce require oxygen to be made, so the amount of oxygen transported to the cell must be increased.

 

 

 

I can go on and on about secondary, tertiary problems etc etc etc.

To say it simply:

The human body is enormously complex, we don't know enough to mess around with it.

[Ophiolite]

i'm sorry if i seem overly persistant, desperate, stubborn and blunt, but i suffer from bone-headedness and acute-cynicism coupled with severe anxiety. ignore my rantings and please accept my apologies.

These are all excellent survival traits. Don't apologise for being human.

Regretably I don't know how we might nail them at the cellular level.

Your artery clogging resistance might be a good one to pursue: scavenger cells that keep the lines clear. Mokele, if you are reading this, two questions:

Do reptiles suffer hardening of the arteries. One suspects not. How do they avoid it?

Isn't some form of snake venom used in treating angina? Any solution that way?

[AzurePhoenix]

do you know anything about cells in the human body

I know quite a bit about basic cell structure and some of the more specific stuff, but my educational level is restricted to Highschool College-Level Bio, hardly adequate for reinventing a species.

 

Secondly you might have to increase the amount of mitochondria ( cellular parts which are "energy plants" ) to provide the necessary extra energy.

Thirdly' date=' the ATP that these mitochondria produce require oxygen to be made, so the amount of oxygen transported to the cell must be increased.

[/quote']

 

You seem to have a much better idea of the concepts than I. Would avian-type lungs and air-sacs be able to fit safely in a human torso, and work with it? I know the diaphram would have to be adapted, and the ribs, but I don't know what else. That would increase oxygen efficiency.

 

And does ATP have to be synthesized in the cell meant to use it? Or can it be carried between cells? You know, like a specialized mitochondrial glands or something produces and stores ATP, ready to be sent to the cells when needed.

 

These are all excellent survival traits. Don't apologise for being human.

True this is, but I could do without the anxiety

[Dak]

And does ATP have to be synthesized in the cell meant to use it? Or can it be carried between cells?

pretty much. i guess it could diffuse out of one cell into neighboring cells (maybe) but its not transported around the body.

 

if i could change stuff, id add a few more catabolic pathways. if we could some how chemically convert plastic to acetyl-coenzymeA, then we could derive energy from it. and are plastics not just hydrocarbons? i believe a way could be desighned, whereby a carbon of the plastic was oxidised and the whole molecule reduced to acetyl-coA, much like the [math]{beta}[/math]-oxidative pathway of fattt-acid metabolism. and add on a few other pathways to digest cellulose etc, and we could eat anything- grass, wood, plastic - the latter would probably solve world hunger and an appreciable fraction of the global pollution problem at the same time.

 

also, id tinker with the immune system. id give our cells restriction-modification systems (like in bacteria) to confer cellular-immunity to viruses, and then id dedicate the cell-mediated immune system (with the T-cells and B-cells) entirely to fighting bacteria, cancer, toxins and paracites; the whole 'should we respond to a bacteria or virus' aspect tends to confuse the immune system sometimes, so it would be worth it to take the pressure of having to deal with viruses off of the immune system.

 

thirdly, if i can become an american tenage girl for a second: it'd be, like, sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo cool if we had gills!

[AzurePhoenix]

if i can become an american tenage girl for a second: it'd be, like, sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo cool if we had gills!

Watch it bub You might hurt my feelings

[Dak]

Watch it bub You might hurt my feelings

 

i get the distinkt impression that, if this is the case, you might be hurting my limbs

 

ok, in fear of life and limb, i retract my previouse statment and replace it with this one:

 

if i can remain an english early-20s bloke for a second: it'd be gurt quality if we had gills like!

[AzurePhoenix]

That's what I thought ..... And gills would be nice, but where, the neck, the torso? Ouch, would we need a special gill-comb for cleanliness?

[Dak]

whats what you thought? that if i hurt your feelings your hurt my body, that im an early-20s english bloke, or that gills would be cool?

[Dak]

hmm, the annoying phenomena of simultaniouse editing and posting.

 

gills would go on the kneck, where they are during fetal development, and i dont see fish combing there gills. mind i dont see monkeys combing there hair, but, umm, i dunno. i suppose they might be like the nose, and require blowing once in a while.

[Dak]

furthermore:

 

women shouldnt menstrate. for everyones sake. they should be capable of getting pregnant once a year, same as other species, thus simultaniously:

#making womens lifes more plesant

#making mens lifes more plesant

#redusing the risk of overpopulating the world

 

another change id make: no more armpit hair or exsessive nose hair

[Krul]

You seem to have a much better idea of the concepts than I. Would avian-type lungs and air-sacs be able to fit safely in a human torso' date=' and work with it? I know the diaphram would have to be adapted, and the ribs, but I don't know what else. That would increase oxygen efficiency.

 

And does ATP have to be synthesized in the cell meant to use it? Or can it be carried between cells? You know, like a specialized mitochondrial glands or something produces and stores ATP, ready to be sent to the cells when needed.

 

[/quote']

 

I don't know much of the functional anatomy of avians, but I doubt that you could easily replace human lungs with avian lungs. In theory it will probably be possible if you really study it, but practically it would be easier to just enhance the human lungs. And if I'm correct the heart-lung ratio of a bird is different then the heart-lung ratio of a human, so the heart might have to be increased in size then etc.

 

Like Dak mentioned already ATP is normally created within the cell, in theory it should be possible to create a gland which releases large amounts of ATP in the bloodstream and to all organs ( including muscles ). That person would have to eat more of certain nutrients then though and their gastro-intestinal track might have to be modified to allow more of those nutrients to be absorbed.

 

 

 

Oh and Dak, the women menstrual cycle is vital in maintaining some of their feminine traits.........in my opinion it's better to get shouted at a few days a month then have "uglier" women on the planet

[Dak]

.in my opinion it's better to get shouted at a few days a month then have "uglier" women on the planet

:wincing smiley:

 

i think the females benifit of not having to menstrate would be greater than the males visual discumfort. anyway, if all women looked like it, wed just redefine our oppinion of beutiful and ugly.

 

plus im sure you could do something about the hormones that eliminates menstration without this side-effect

[AzurePhoenix]

That's what I thought .....

American term, regarding your "insult" . In this case, it would roughly translate as "very smart of you to rethink your words before you got yourself de-masculinated in a particularly bloody fashion"

 

I don't know, but I'd expect we'd have to deal with getting dust and airborn stuff outa our gills, unlike them fishies. But you're right, getting them wet and "sneezing" off the moisture and whatever sticks to it would probably work. But we'd need a way to keep them wet, or else we could just let them dry out while we're on land?

 

And Dak, I like my *cough* feminine anatomy the way it is. Besides, what if your hormone meddling accidently creates a breed of women in a permanent state of Super-PMS? And do you know how obsessively insecure we are about our looks (especially us pretty ones)? The man who took our sex appeal away from us would find his skin flayed, his flesh carved, and his family jewels lit on fire.

 

And if I'm correct the heart-lung ratio of a bird is different then the heart-lung ratio of a human, so the heart might have to be increased in size then etc.

In birds, the actual lungs are about half the size of a mammals relative to body size, though the heart is double the size. What makes bird lungs more space-consuming are a series of airsacs, which work in a way that ensures only fresh air is ever in the lungs, rather than "good in, bad out, good in, bad out"

[AzurePhoenix]

another change id make: no more armpit hair or exsessive nose hair

No hair anywhere below the neck. I'm sick of "furry" people.