5 ms·

Almost certainly not; improved memory is absolutely something evolution would select for in primates, especially humans. Most mouse models don't replicate in o

Almost certainly not; improved memory is absolutely something evolution would select for in primates, especially humans. Most mouse models don't replicate in other animals either.

buboard 8y ago
HIV related dementia is a thing. This method might be able to alleviate it https://www.mdmag.com/medical-news/breakthrough-discovery-in-aids-related-dementia https://www.mdmag.com/medical-news/breakthrough-discovery-in... I agree, super memory is not necessarily a good thing
carlmr 8y ago
>improved memory is absolutely something evolution would select for in primates, especially humans. What if it makes people more scared, because they can remember past experiences better. This could lead to less procreation and thus inverse selection pressure. Only because a trait is superficially good it doesn't mean nature would select for it.
- Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
  Why would a memory enhancing drug only increase rememberance of negative memories and not the positive and loving ones? Such people could become more active, motivated and procreating more because life seemed more motivating for them because they remembered all the good from the past also?
  - buboard 8y ago
    it would increase both, but negative ones can have bad, debilitating consequences in life (cue PTSD, phobias)
  - carlmr 8y ago
    That's not the point, I was just giving an example. It could have millions of effects and whether evolutionary selection would favor these genes is not trivial.
  - ArchTypical 8y ago
    > Why would a memory enhancing drug only increase rememberance of negative memories and not the positive and loving ones? There's a psychological phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias
BurnGpuBurn 8y ago
That a trait is preferable and not developed can never be an indicator of what a gene is for. The fact that I didn't evolve to fly doesn't mean I don't have the potential genes for that. There's also far less natural selection in evolution than we think. Evolution overwhelmingly happens in relatively short time periods, after which stability seems to take over. This is at odds with the natural selection principle as the primary driver of evolution. Also, most DNA-sharing between organisms happens horizontally, not top down (think single cell organisms). There's really much more that we don't know than what we know here.
Ultimatt 8y ago
Sure but selection only works on events that have happened. Loss of function isn't that common especially if the benefit of the gene is resistance to flu, which is far more important than improved memory on an evolutionary scale. Purging selection trumps almost anything more rational.
Jtsummers 8y ago
You have to live to reproductive age for your genes to carry on. So a genetic difference that improves outcome for adults, but harms children won't be carried on as often (per other comments, this one may improve memory--in mice--but has negative effects related to resisting common diseases like the flu). On the other hand, genes related to cancer perpetuate because their impact often is felt after primary reproductive age (at least historical reproductive age, since we've started having children later in life over the last century). Additionally, nothing has to be selected (evolutionarily speaking). It's a stochastic process. We could be one base-pair swap away from perpetual youth, and never see it because it just doesn't happen (or when it did happen they died from other circumstances before reproducing sufficiently to spread the genes wide enough to be useful).
- dTal 8y ago
  Well, yes and no. We each have 3.2 billion bases and about roughly 100 mutations each, over 100 billion people who've ever lived. That's about 3000 mutations per base pair, so if the eternal-youth mutation was indeed a single base-pair swap away, thousands of people would already have been born with it. Of those, we could expect some decent fraction to have had children. Given that eternal youth confers a staggering reproductive advantage, and we don't have it, it's safe to say that if it exists at all, it's more than a base-pair swap away.

Almost certainly not; improved memory is absolutely something evolution would select for in primates, especially humans. Most mouse models don't replicate in other animals either.

buboard 8y ago

HIV related dementia is a thing. This method might be able to alleviate it https://www.mdmag.com/medical-news/breakthrough-discovery-in-aids-related-dementia https://www.mdmag.com/medical-news/breakthrough-discovery-in... I agree, super memory is not necessarily a good thing

carlmr 8y ago

>improved memory is absolutely something evolution would select for in primates, especially humans. What if it makes people more scared, because they can remember past experiences better. This could lead to less procreation and thus inverse selection pressure. Only because a trait is superficially good it doesn't mean nature would select for it.

Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
Why would a memory enhancing drug only increase rememberance of negative memories and not the positive and loving ones? Such people could become more active, motivated and procreating more because life seemed more motivating for them because they remembered all the good from the past also?
- buboard 8y ago
  it would increase both, but negative ones can have bad, debilitating consequences in life (cue PTSD, phobias)
- carlmr 8y ago
  That's not the point, I was just giving an example. It could have millions of effects and whether evolutionary selection would favor these genes is not trivial.
- ArchTypical 8y ago
  > Why would a memory enhancing drug only increase rememberance of negative memories and not the positive and loving ones? There's a psychological phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias

BurnGpuBurn 8y ago

That a trait is preferable and not developed can never be an indicator of what a gene is for. The fact that I didn't evolve to fly doesn't mean I don't have the potential genes for that. There's also far less natural selection in evolution than we think. Evolution overwhelmingly happens in relatively short time periods, after which stability seems to take over. This is at odds with the natural selection principle as the primary driver of evolution. Also, most DNA-sharing between organisms happens horizontally, not top down (think single cell organisms). There's really much more that we don't know than what we know here.

Ultimatt 8y ago

Sure but selection only works on events that have happened. Loss of function isn't that common especially if the benefit of the gene is resistance to flu, which is far more important than improved memory on an evolutionary scale. Purging selection trumps almost anything more rational.

Jtsummers 8y ago

You have to live to reproductive age for your genes to carry on. So a genetic difference that improves outcome for adults, but harms children won't be carried on as often (per other comments, this one may improve memory--in mice--but has negative effects related to resisting common diseases like the flu). On the other hand, genes related to cancer perpetuate because their impact often is felt after primary reproductive age (at least historical reproductive age, since we've started having children later in life over the last century). Additionally, nothing has to be selected (evolutionarily speaking). It's a stochastic process. We could be one base-pair swap away from perpetual youth, and never see it because it just doesn't happen (or when it did happen they died from other circumstances before reproducing sufficiently to spread the genes wide enough to be useful).

dTal 8y ago
Well, yes and no. We each have 3.2 billion bases and about roughly 100 mutations each, over 100 billion people who've ever lived. That's about 3000 mutations per base pair, so if the eternal-youth mutation was indeed a single base-pair swap away, thousands of people would already have been born with it. Of those, we could expect some decent fraction to have had children. Given that eternal youth confers a staggering reproductive advantage, and we don't have it, it's safe to say that if it exists at all, it's more than a base-pair swap away.