Will Ebola Reston evolve to affect humans?
372397
Ebola Reston IS fatal to humans, and it is not air-borne it is transmitted through bodily fluids (i.e. blood, saliva). When the out break occurred in 1989, it was eradicated shortly after wards, BUT, it is not the only type of the Ebola virus. Ebola belong to a family of viruses called the Filio-viruses, which are characterized by their long, thin shape; there are three virues that belong to this family they are: Marburg, Ebola Sudan, and Ebola Zaire (the deadliest among them with a less than 1% chance of survival). Ebola Sudan and Ebola Zaire are both very real and exist in Africa (each is named for the region it originated in) in damp caves for the most part. The good news, there hasn't been an outbreak since the incident in Reston, Virgina; the bad news: if there were ever to be another outbreak (which is HIGHLY plausible, especially with the long incubation period the viruses are known for) than it would most likely cause a global pandemic, and wipe out over 1/3 of the human race.
426825
I wasn't satisfied with any of the above answers, so I thought I'd write my own:\n  For evolution to take place, people would have to die because of a certain trait..... for example, if more short people died in a certain generation, then the next generation would be slightly taller because there were less short people.  That's why people won't ever have 6 fingers... because why would people be able to survive better with 6 fingers than 5?  To evolve, you need death of a certain population.  \n  Humans have been able to control their environment and have used medicines to cure many diseases.  An interesting case of a type of evolution would be people in Africa with Sickled Cell Anemia (where red blood cells change shape into a half moon instead of round).  People that have one Sickled Cell allele, and one normal cell allele will have some normal red blood cells and some sickled.  Malaria can only attack normal red blood cells and so these people with both survived through Malaria.  Therefore, there will be more sickled cell alleles in that community because the people without them died.  That is why there are more cases of sickled cell anemia in african people.
22321
This is an issue that I spend a lot of time thinking about. Being sort of closet theoretical evolutionist, I wonder just how poorly equipped our species is becoming with each medical/genetic advance we discover and then apply.\n\nYour question implies the direct application of genetic engineering and manipulation to the human race -- which is an area where there is a lot more potential for than has actually been applied, thus far. I propose that our plight has been cultivated by the application of much more mundane medicine -- to be honest, mundane might not be the best choice of words here because many of these advances are truly grandiose. However, for every modern advance that has come down the way, we surely have done nothing but weaken the genetics of our species.\n\nThink about every time an antibiotic is administered? Yes, we are helping that person overcome an infection that he/she was otherwise ill equipped to rid themselves of via their own immune system. But look where that’s got us. After only a few generations of using – and grossly misusing – antibiotics, these same organisms we were able to fight off have developed resistance to. Now, not only are these bacteria back weeding out the less genetically fit folks among us, there are literally orders of magnitude more of such people susceptible to infection because they have been able to propagate these deficiencies through procreation. In this instance, saving thousands of people of lives over the years may ultimately cost millions of other theirs. You have to ask yourself: Which situation is better.\n\nWhat you have to truly realize is that is it more correct to think and apply our medical abilities on the individual. We are able to heal many diseases and disorders that, even as recent as 50 years ago, would have never even been detected, let alone treatable. But there are a litany more that, even though they aren't curable, they are able to be treated and controlled to the point that become nothing more than chronic inconveniences -- whereas in prior times, these diseases and disorders would have been lethal. Every time we have been able to sustain a person's life beyond that which the technologies of prior years could have, we are allowing those people the opportunity to procreate. Because we don't treat these disorders and genetic susceptibilities to diseases at the genetic level, the offspring of these individuals still carry these "deficiencies.” And thus pass them along for future generations. This is great for the coffers of the medical establishment – acting as ready-made population in need of their services, but it is definitely polluting our gene pool with lesser-fit alleles that would have been eliminated by the process of natural selection. If medicine wanted to truly live up to its credo of: To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them; and to never deliberately do harm to anyone for anyone else's interest, maybe the medical field should take in consideration what they are doing to the species – something that Hippocrates could not have even contemplated let alone include in his oath.\n\nWhere we humans miss the boat at is thinking that we are always one step ahead of nature. What we are realizing is that’s probably a huge miscalculation. We need to take a step back and reconsider our objectives. Is medicine’s and science’s ultimate goal to help individuals within the species or to help the species?
1176831
i think human diseases r interesting. besides that, how bout healing properties of some tradisional herbs/plants? i'm currently working on pathogenic bacteria. maybe u can try to look into pathogens too? since pathogen like SARS, avian influenza and HIV are emerging problems for mankind... most importantly, which area r u interested?
102892
at this point, I am very concerned since only insects outnumber the birds in the world and they are airborn. The mutation could occur at any moment and infect humans. This is how the flu of 1917 or so occured and spread rapidly
141276
It has already infected humans.  Even though there have been a few fatal cases, after reading what the center for disease control has to say about it, I don't believe an epicemic is likely, considering the percentage of infections and deaths (like billions to one).  I think it's more of a scar tatic like Nile virus, Sars, and Mad Cow Desease are.  All disease are sad, wide spread or not.\n\nI think we should be more concerned with the quality of our drinking water.
618375
I thought this was an amazing article. It was just published a few days ago:\n\nWASHINGTON - Twenty-five years after the first AIDS cases emerged, scientists have confirmed that the HIV virus plaguing humans really did originate in wild chimpanzees, in a corner of Cameroon.\n\nSolving the mystery of HIV’s ancestry was dirty work. Scientists employed trackers to plunge through dense jungle and collect the fresh feces of wild apes — more than 1,300 samples in all.\n\nBefore that, it took seven years of research just to develop the testing methods to genetically trace the primate version of the virus in living wild chimps without hurting the endangered species.\n\nUntil now, “no one was able to look. No one had the tools,” said Dr. Beatrice Hahn of the University of Alabama at Birmingham. She led the team of international researchers that reported the success in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.\n\n“We’re 25 years into this pandemic,” Hahn said. “We don’t have a cure. We don’t have a vaccine. But we know where it came from. At least we can make a check mark on one of those.”\n\nScientists long have known that nonhuman primates carry their own version of the AIDS virus, called SIV or simian immunodeficiency virus. But with one exception, it had been found only in captive chimpanzees, particularly a subspecies that in the wild populates mostly West Africa.\n\nIt was not known how prevalent the virus was in chimps in the wild, or how genetically or geographically diverse it was, complicating efforts to pin down the jump from animal to man.\n\nHahn’s team tested chimp feces for SIV antibodies, finding them in a subspecies called Pan troglodytes troglodytes in southern Cameroon.\n\nChimps tend to form geographically distinct communities. By genetically analyzing the feces, researchers could trace individual infected chimps. The team found some chimp communities with infection rates as high as 35 percent, while others had no infection at all.\n\nEvery single infected chimp had a common base genetic pattern that indicated a common ancestor, Hahn said.\n\nThere are three types of HIV-1, the strain of the human virus responsible for most of the worldwide epidemic. Genetic analysis let Hahn identify chimp communities near Cameroon’s Sanaga River whose viral strains are most closely related to the most common of those HIV-1 subtypes.\n\n“The genetic similarity was striking,” Hahn said.\n\nThe first human known to be infected with HIV was a man from Kinshasa in the nearby country of Congo who had his blood stored in 1959 as part of a medical study, decades before scientists knew the AIDS virus existed.\n\nPresumably, someone in rural Cameroon was bitten by a chimp or was cut while butchering one and became infected with the ape virus. That person passed it to someone else.\n\nThe Sanaga River long has been a commercial waterway, for transporting hardwood, ivory and other items to more urban areas. Eventually, someone infected made it to Kinshasa.\n\n“How many different transmission events occurred between that initial hunter and this virus making it to Kinshasa, I don’t know. It could have been one, it could have been 10, it could have been 100,” Hahn said. “Eventually, it ended up in an urban area, and that’s where it really got going.”\n\nSomewhere in all that spread, the virus became more deadly to people than it is to chimps, who seldom are bothered much by SIV.\n\nThe research seems to settle any question of HIV’s origin, said Dr. Anthony Fauci, the National Institutes of Health’s AIDS chief.\n\nWhen tracing a virus’ evolution, “it’s important to get as close to the source as you can,” he said. “It’s of historic interest.”
1029944
Actually- just because we are at the top of the food chain doesn't mean that we aren't still subject to selection pressures.  It is true that predation is one selection pressure that we no longer have to worry about, but disease is a selection pressure that we cant fully avoid.  \n\nWhile science has made tremendous progress in terms of preventing/curing "old-world" epidemics like polio and smallpox, new viruses and pathogens are constantly emerging through an evolutionary process of their own.... some diseases are such that they're only fatal to certain groups of people (for example, those with compromised immune systems), as well.  So theoretically, if such a disease were to grow out of control, those groups of people would be selected against...   \n\nAlso, culturally we're seeing that certain groups of people are reproducing more frequently and in greater numbers than others, while some populations have a negative birth rate.  If these sort of culturally-based reproduction trends continue, it's logical to assume that humans will look significantly different in the future. \n\nIt is safe to argue that we as a species have broken free of most of the evolutionary constraints that were once upon us- but there are still some factors that limit our evolutionary fitness.
405209
Ebola is one of a number of filoviruses that can infect humans and cause profound levels of illness and mortality (often in excess of 50% of infected people).  Periodic outbreaks occur, predominantly in Africa, indicating that an as yet unknown small animal ("reservoir") is continously infected with this virus.  As is the case for many similar diseases, this carrier animal is unlikely to show dramatic signs of illness and eradication of the virus is therefore not possible until this animal species is identified and cured in the wild.\n\nThere is no evidence to indicate that Ebola outbreaks today are more severe or occur more regularly than in the past.  In fact, the rapidity by which humans progress to fatal (or near fatal) disease following infection, makes it very unlikely that a major epidemic will ever occur with Ebola or similar viruses.  People simply get too sick, too fast, for the virus to spread to many additional hosts.  Therefore, natural outbreaks tend to "burn out" very quickly.
336811
YES.  diseases are becoming bigger and badder as we get older.  even if you were imunized as a child, a different strand could be out there and you could get it.  sad but true.  same with chicken pox.
977871
The blood is affected by it. It causes the blood to not clot as it should and the sufferer bleeds to death through multiple sites, not a nice disease at all.\n\nEbola hemorrhagic fever (Ebola HF) is a severe, often-fatal disease in humans and nonhuman primates (monkeys, gorillas, and chimpanzees) that has appeared sporadically since its initial recognition in 1976.\n\nThe disease is caused by infection with Ebola virus, named after a river in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) in Africa, where it was first recognized. The virus is one of two members of a family of RNA viruses called the Filoviridae. There are four identified subtypes of Ebola virus. Three of the four have caused disease in humans: Ebola-Zaire, Ebola-Sudan, and Ebola-Ivory Coast. The fourth, Ebola-Reston, has caused disease in nonhuman primates, but not in humans....;
473069
emerging and reemerging infectious diseases
55120
Having a widespread epidemic is a very real possibility, and we've come close, especially with the ebola virus. \n\nBack when it was unknown, an infected man took a plane to Europe to be treated. He could have potentially spread Ebola all around the world, but he didn't.\n\nJust look through history as well - the bubonic plague wiped out a good portion of the population - its effects were devestating, far more than any war fought over the centures.\n\nVirus can spread quickly, can mutate and make them hard to cure, and can kill with speed and indescriminate ruthlessness.\n\nI suppose a nuclear holocaust ala Terminator could be worse, but short of that, a plague unleashed like Ebola would be devestating.
1103783
We have totally removed natural selection, a key requirement for a being to evolve.  If anything we will become less robust, less strong, less health, and less successful because there is no need for it.    \n\nGeography is also no longer a boundry, so there aren't any more isolated groups evolving independently.   With the spread of people across the word, the average person will look more and more like a mix of everyone else:  eg. most will have medium complexion, most will have brown hair.\n\nHowever, if your scenarion will allow for natural disasters or plagues, the end result is unforseeable.   Those who survive a period of plague will have better immune systems and generally more healthy.   Those who survive a disaster like a world-wide drought or flood will be those with the best survival instincts:  clever, resourceful, excellent social smarts, more fit and more efficient metabolism.
567691
hard to say. will probably be awhile. the virus is very difficult to treat because it constantly mutates, so as soon as we develop a vaccine the virus has already mutated so it is ineffective. i think there is probably quit a bit of research going into it. its becoming more of a chronic disease, its not that unusual for people to live more than 20 years after being infected anymore (in the US anyway, africa is a different story)
194712
I think we stand on the cusp of understanding a great deal more about the human body thanks to the recent break throughs in technics and technology supporting Genetics research. Where that future takes us or it will come is hard to say. Even harder to predict is the sociological impacts these develops could bring about. Whatever happens I am sure medicine will take a giant step forward and lots of the ailments that plague us now will be resolved. The result is people will live longer  and live better.
564749
I think so. At least at somepoint in their history anyway - they will have had predators, or illnesses that they could not fight, and so the fittest or more suited to survival will have survived, and the 'weaker' will have perished. It could be argued that if they are advanced then natural selection would apply less. For example humans don't really have any predators, and through medical intervention we can stop many ailments that would otherwise kill us: If a lion was born with an inherited disease which affected their mobility then they wouldn't survive for very long in the wild, and neither would a neandarthal human, but modern day humans could lead a full life with such an ailment.