If EPO is safe, why doesn't the human body naturally produce more?

[BotanyBay]

Long live Ben Stein:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obqWnzAcWWA

 

[Caruut]

Actually I would argue that evolution is the most intelligent design for survival and nearly perfect overtime.

In some senses, yes. In other senses, once you have a system that works as a set of parts, it is extremely unlikely that the whole system will change. If it does change to a theoretically better system, because that change is one random leap, it is likely to be a very unrefined system, which would probably be worse than the refined, but theoretically inferior, original.

For example - the nerves on human eyes are the wrong way round - the nerves are on the front of the retina, which blocks light. We'd have better eyesight if, like octopuses, the nerves were on the other side. It can also be argued that our knees are the wrong way round. I have heard that knees would be far more durable if they "pointed" backwards.

 

[BotanyBay]

How about we all meet in the middle:

An unknown, undefined, intelligent "something" MIGHT have set evolution into motion. Darwin MAY have chronicled the pathology rather than the origins. He gets to remain an atheist's deity while we all retain our proper human humilty. Good? Those who feel deeply that one side is better than another, then keep working on your hypothesis. But there is no reason we can't all break for lunch and share a table.

This is tolerance defined. I'm good, you're good. There's room for both at this table. Kumbaya. If Shermer wants to ride his sleep-deprivation demonstrations as a soloist, then he is free to choose that route (see, I related my reply to bike racing).

The big shame in life is that Scientists stopped taking philosophy in college, as their engineering degrees took 5 years to complete.

 

[MarkvW]

In some senses, yes. In other senses, once you have a system that works as a set of parts, it is extremely unlikely that the whole system will change. If it does change to a theoretically better system, because that change is one random leap, it is likely to be a very unrefined system, which would probably be worse than the refined, but theoretically inferior, original.

For example - the nerves on human eyes are the wrong way round - the nerves are on the front of the retina, which blocks light. We'd have better eyesight if, like octopuses, the nerves were on the other side. It can also be argued that our knees are the wrong way round. I have heard that knees would be far more durable if they "pointed" backwards.

Mutation makes it inevitable that the 'whole system' will change. Change is the only certainty. We can arbitrarily define a system by genus, species, etc., but every member of that system, and all its descendants will always be mutating and passing on some of those mutations.

You can say that a functioning system is extremely unlikely to change only if you restrict membership in that system to organisms that meet your systemic definition. Those systems won't change only because you have defined-out noncompliant descendants.

 

[BotanyBay]

You can say that a functioning system is extremely unlikely to change only if you restrict membership in that system to organisms that meet your systemic definition. Those systems won't change only because you have defined-out noncompliant descendants.

Ya!

 

[zigmeister]

Too much of a good thing can be very bad. The body is often smart enough not to kill itself.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Too much of a good thing can be very bad. The body is often smart enough not to kill itself.

Thanks for telling me now that I have done gone and drank 12 beers. Headache soon.

 

[MarkvW]

Thanks for telling me now that I have done gone and drank 12 beers. Headache soon.

Don't worry. In 20,000 years your descendants will be paying the price!

 

[Oldman]

You don't hear answers unless you ask questions. I hate it when someone asks an honest question and the answer is, "What a stupid question!"

I actually think it's a reasonable thing to ask, "Why do humans have to dope? Why aren't they endowed by nature with the extraordinary performance capacity some other animals have?" - which I think is a rough approximation of the OP's question.

FWIW, I thought most of the answers were really interesting. I learned something.

It's no coincidence that almost all medications designed to alleviate symptoms of a genetic defect like allergies, arthritis, etc; come with side effects that seem worse than the affliction. Your body can only get so strong until the weak link slows you down. That most PED use affects the stomach, liver, kidneys illustrates the fail point for healthy people reaching beyond their genetic gifts. How many former pro cyclists look youthful?

 

[momotaro]

In some senses, yes. In other senses, once you have a system that works as a set of parts, it is extremely unlikely that the whole system will change. If it does change to a theoretically better system, because that change is one random leap, it is likely to be a very unrefined system, which would probably be worse than the refined, but theoretically inferior, original.

For example - the nerves on human eyes are the wrong way round - the nerves are on the front of the retina, which blocks light. We'd have better eyesight if, like octopuses, the nerves were on the other side. It can also be argued that our knees are the wrong way round. I have heard that knees would be far more durable if they "pointed" backwards.

As MarkvW points out, mutation makes change inevitable provided that the environment changes. It just takes time.

I am certain there was a reason and survival benefit for our retinas (retinae?) having nerves exiting from the front. If it is true that eyesight improves with a change in retinal design and this improvement in eyesight improves the likely hood of survival, then overtime (a long time) humans will eventually have retinal nerve exiting from the back. It just takes time.

The only "flaw" with evolution is that it takes time. For example, the obesity epidemic's main cause is rapid social change. Evolution has not had a chance to "catch up". Time necessity is really only a flaw if you take a short term, human-centric, view. From a more broad systems perspective, it works out over time. It just takes time.

 

[Caruut]

As MarkvW points out, mutation makes change inevitable provided that the environment changes. It just takes time.

I am certain there was a reason and survival benefit for our retinas (retinae?) having nerves exiting from the front. If it is true that eyesight improves with a change in retinal design and this improvement in eyesight improves the likely hood of survival, then overtime (a long time) humans will eventually have retinal nerve exiting from the back. It just takes time.

The only "flaw" with evolution is that it takes time. For example, the obesity epidemic's main cause is rapid social change. Evolution has not had a chance to "catch up". Time necessity is really only a flaw if you take a short term, human-centric, view. From a more broad systems perspective, it works out over time. It just takes time.

With evolution, change is incremental, and the process is usually akin to what is called a "greedy algorithm" in computer science. It just achieves the best immediate result, there is no pre-meditation. So, while it's possible that the nerves on our retinas could switch over, it would likely take multiple simultaneous mutations at once. Without all of them happening at once, the present system would almost certainly be better, as it has been refined for so long, than the imperfect new one, which could be better. Yes, those mutations could all happen at once - but then you're looking at such a tiny tiny chance, it's getting to the point that you have have to think "how long are humans going to exist before they become extinct?" before you can think "will this change happen". Evolution doesn't produce perfect results, because "it" can't see into the future or plan. It produces good ones, not perfect ones.

 

[Caruut]

Mutation makes it inevitable that the 'whole system' will change. Change is the only certainty. We can arbitrarily define a system by genus, species, etc., but every member of that system, and all its descendants will always be mutating and passing on some of those mutations.

You can say that a functioning system is extremely unlikely to change only if you restrict membership in that system to organisms that meet your systemic definition. Those systems won't change only because you have defined-out noncompliant descendants.

My post above covers most of this, but change is incremental - one improvement happens at a time. We really don't mutate all that much, it is only over the super-long-term that changes can happen. The eye is an incredibly complex bit of biochemistry developed over billions of years, but what was an advantage a billion years ago can be something which could have a theoretically better-functioning replacement, yet the chance of you happening upon several (maybe even hundreds) of simultaneous mutations required to make a change that would actually make the new one better than the old, rather than being a kind of halfway point that did neither, is minute.

You then have odd situations like that of sickle-cell disease. If you have one "sickle-cell" allele, you are immune to malaria. Two, and your red blood cells are crescent-shaped, which is terrible for your health. The allele originates in tropical Africa, where an immunity to malaria is hugely beneficial, so the allele is propagated, but this has the knock-on effect of a large amount of sickle-cell disease. It could be possible to have the reverse situation - two would be good and one would cause death before mating age. It'd be incredibly unlikely to have both alleles mutate to the same things at the same time, and even then, you'd need a mate who had the exact same thing happen.

"if you restrict membership in that system to organisms that meet your systemic definition"

Can you clarify what this means? I can't make it out, sorry.

My overall point: evolution, via incremental change, tends to produce good (or even very good) solution, but it's highly unlikely to always produce the best result.

 

[9000ft]

How many former pro cyclists look youthful?

No doubt PEDs have many potential side effects. Depending on how they are used it seems those effects can range from very serious (death) to more subtle long range things. I'm sure others can have no long range effect at all.

As to how how healthy pro cyclists look IMO, that has as much to do with the stress these guys put themselves through as anything else. Pro cycling is brutal, it's hard on the body and living for years with 5% body fat isn't healthy. Look at people who have lived lives of hard labor and you'll see that one can look older than their years and it has nothing to do with drugs.