The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

Vampire bats have evolved to live off of drinking blood to survive, could it be possible some humans have evloved similarly throughout evolution ?

The classic reason not all science is correct:

"The bumblebee cannot fly. According to the theory of aerodynamics, and as may be readily demonstrated through laboratory tests and windtunnel experiments, the bumblebee is unable to fly. This is because the size, weight, and shape of his body in relation to the total wingspead makes flying impossible. But the bumblebee, being ignorant of these scientific truths, goes ahead and flies anyway!"

I believe through evolution it is possible for humans to have developed the similar traits found in vampire bats.

According to an account at www.iop.org/Physics/News/0012i.1, the story was initially circulated in German technical universities in the 1930s. Supposedly during dinner a biologist asked an aerodynamics expert about insect flight. The aerodynamicist did a few calculations and found that, according to the accepted theory of the day, bumblebees didn't generate enough lift to fly. The biologist, delighted to have a chance to show up those arrogant SOBs in the hard sciences, promptly spread the story far and wide.

Once he sobered up, however, the aerodynamicist surely realized what the problem was--a faulty analogy between bees and conventional fixed-wing aircraft. Bees' wings are small relative to their bodies. If an airplane were built the same way, it'd never get off the ground. But bees aren't like airplanes, they're like helicopters. Their wings work on the same principle as helicopter blades--to be precise, "reverse-pitch semirotary helicopter blades," to quote one authority. A moving airfoil, whether it's a helicopter blade or a bee wing, generates a lot more lift than a stationary one.

Evolution is always changing like the weather. and humans are especially prone to the enviroment around them. Could humans adapt to feed of blood?

Possible, hat do not humans devour in this world, and given a certain food the body is sure to adpat to it. Like our skin has mutated through the years to becomer less pigmeneted. our eyes and hir more adapted to the surroundings.

Evolution is always working the next generation to come, so I do believe it would be plasible to say that humans, vampires, evelution is always changing.

damn la6muerte, are you a med student or what? you never cease to amaze me with your knowledge base or research ability.
i am curious tho why a humanoid or an isolated group of humans could not evolve into blood drinkers. blood is proteen, yes? wouldnt it just be like switching to a carniverous diet, and a number of tribal peoples do live almost exclusively on meat products.
just something to ponder, and hopefully we can explore some of it here.

yr obt svt
~W~

LOL
ok, so i think ill take my blood with some veggies....
if i drank blood exclusively ill have a buddah belly!

google is a good friend, but you seem to consistantly use it well.
frith yall
~W~

Evolution can and does create many variations of animals. The chance that "some" humans could have evolved to modify the plasminogen activator differently is more of a probablility than not.

Through evolutional changes the size, shape and weight of the evolution human vampire would be something we have not yet imagined, therefore, uncalculative to known standards. Nonetheless, even if the evolutional human vampire was of the standard weight, it could feed off of cattle or another large animal to have the larger blood supply or feed off of numerous smaller animals, as many carnivore's currently exhibit this activity.

It all comes down to genetics and as the following demonstrates, it is possible for the genetic changes through evolution in the PA genes:

"Genetic factors have been shown to influence plasma protein levels for several hemostatic factors. Common genetic variations (polymorphisms) at the fibrinogen, factor VII, and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 (PAI-1) loci have been associated with interindividual differences in the basal steady-state plasma level of the respective proteins. In addition, responses to environmental factors have been shown to differ by genotype.1

A polymorphism has been identified at the tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA) locus on chromosome 8, which consists of the presence or absence of a 311 bp Alu sequence in intron 8.5 The Alu insertion probably arose early in human evolution, and a number of populations have been found to be dimorphic for its presence or absence. A similar polymorphism in the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) gene has been shown to explain approximately 50% of the variability of plasma ACE levels between individuals.8 In contrast, it was recently reported that t-PA genotypes did not correlate with basal plasma levels of t-PA. However, in view of the complex regulation of the steady-state plasma level of t-PA, this observation does not exclude the possibility of an association between genotype and local t-PA release rates. The systemic concentration of t-PA not only is dependent both on secretion and clearance but also on its rate and degree of complex-formation with PAI-1.12 This is due to the fact that the t-PA/PAI-1 complex is cleared at a slower rate than free t-PA. It follows that an increased plasma concentration of PAI-1 will be paralleled by an increased plasma concentration of total t-PA.13 Consequently, the systemic plasma level of t-PA is unlikely to directly reflect its secretion rate.

Circulating t-PA is derived from vascular endothelial cells. It is the key enzyme in the initiation of an endogenous fibrinolytic/thrombolytic response.14 Recent data suggest that the local endothelial release rate, rather than the steady-state plasma concentration, of t-PA determines the thrombolytic potential. In 1994, our group has developed a modification of the perfused-forearm model to be able to directly measure rates of t-PA release in vivo.16 17 18 This method allows instantaneous determinations of local release rates of t-PA secreted from the endothelium without any interference of liver clearance or being confounded by shifts between complexed or free molecular forms. In addition, studying an intact vascular bed has the advantages of preserved innervation, circulation, blood flow pulsatility, and cell-to-cell interaction. In essence, the model is based on simultaneous arterial and venous sampling from the cubital region and a simultaneous plethysmographic measurement of forearm blood flow (FBF). In a series of studies, we have observed marked interindividual variations in net release rates of t-PA in healthy subjects. The aim of the current study was to test the hypothesis that part of this difference is related to genetic variations between the subjects."

http://atvb.ahajournals.org

and here comes the response of a blonde .. quite an interesting subject, although in my opinion it would be quite impossible for a human to live on blood. I think that only by .. let`s say, defeating death, as the legendary vampires did, one would be able to "live" on blood.

DieAnna quite profound statement, but we must understand the blood is deemed life in all actual accounts. it is our life force within. True fictional vampires are said to consume blood to substain their life and their youth.

Real humans could not, for the adverse affects on your own system would be immense. for the body could not digest the blood like food. so unless you turned blood would not be your totaly meal.

I believe it is possible; it is a general biology subject. Mutations can change an organism anatomy through dispersation that can produce different variations on a specie ways to adapt in a new environment may it be a macro(tropical to template) or micro( the upper part of a tree against the lower) environment it can evolve to produce same species with the new tools for survival, this is one of the scientific investigation Dalton studied in Central America just by watching the same species of bird with different peak sizes and form. Or how some snakes, frogs, butterflies and bees evolved a certain of coloration to confuse their predators of who uses it for protection against those who really inherited that characteristic that screams, "don’t get near me i am venomous". A species evolves for survival against that thing that push it to the limits, we humans will evolve surely when the darkest days come, if i had to say when vampires would emerge in this world it would be surely in the verge of a human catastrophe and not because one guy turned magically into one, rather by generations of passing distinctive traits that might change the DNA configuration of a once normal human being, someone was born like that in other words, or drank blood and then had his son and the son did the same and so on, that created a trait unlike normal feeding human behavior on that heritage bloodline and anatomy provided the tools to do it. If I had to guess the possible places for this to happen would be an crazy person or groups of people doing rituals where involved consuming blood or a mutation of the DNA configuration on someone during a plague or something. I’m just posting how could it happen in my opinion, not that might it be the way it happen but I think biologically talking that is an viable and possible explanation.

La6Muerte66,

Your lack of insight is apparent. I am not stating anything in absolute terms, just possiblities. For the vampire bat to have evolved, it is therefore possible for the evolution of mankind to evolve in a similar manner, given the same conditions over the same time frame of evolution, which may be millions of years or it may be less. No one can defintively state to the contrary with any certainty because the history of the vampire bat through evolution is not documented to back up your stories. *smiles*

ok well now I am going to put my two cents in so to speak. ok as far as living on blood, for those who are not vegetarians we already eat blood, though not on blood alone. It is still being consumed. Yes I understand its not human blood unless your considered among societies label of cannabalism. so for all intensive purposes it is possible for humans to evolve and they have. there are still human societies yet to be found in the jungles who have there own sets of rules. There is documented history of native tribes drinking blood and there shamans taking blood and demanding it on a consistant basis. so yes it is possible.

To “la Muerte66” or w.e
You can evolve from one generation to another depending on the specie DNA configuration, not every specie has to last millions of years or generations like you say to change a characteristics or inherit new traits, Some insects can evolve a trait within a generation, let’s say from fall to spring, a simple change of location of a single group can change the new generation tools for it survival, depending on the variant of their ecological niches the group thrives, that’s why you have for example the same species of butterflies that have a different monochromatic color let say a leaf greenish color and another butterflies of the same species that have a fall yellowish color, who do you think will survive when its fall, not the green obviously is going to be the best equipped species the one camouflaged to the space that will survive, and yes by natural selection subtends the example I gave of “the sons drinking blood and the sons sons doing the same”, because is something you are doing that will change your system 10 more generations of the same practice can have a baby mutant that can produce a blood drinking need for survival..
“ favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes.”
More common trait= drink blood
Less common trait= eat normal human being diet
With 10s or more generation doing the same ritual of having a high blood diet consumption and less ideal human being diet, to make it more certain the both parents do the same, to exaggerate it somewhere in 100’s or 1000’s of years to put less numbers can produce a mutated baby with the need to drink blood to live, as well as new tools to do so, depending of the human being DNA configuration to inherit those traits. It is my opinion not that is a true statement but nobody knows what takes a human being to evolve, we had many of class in our evolutionary chain, from homo habilis to homo sapiens and it didn’t took millions of years from one to another of the same species to evolve, just some flourished in areas where is favorable to survive and others had a hard time surviving.
“Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago. The dominant view among scientists is the recent African origin of modern humans (RAO) that H. sapiens evolved in Africa and spread across the globe, replacing populations of H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis. Scientists supporting the alternative hypothesis on the multiregional origin of modern humans (MTO) view modern humans as having evolved as a single, widespread population from existing Homo species, particularly H. erectus. The fossil evidence is insufficient to resolve this vigorous debate, while studies of human population genetics have largely supported a recent African Origin explanation.”

So again i think it could really happen some way or another and not in millions of years it can even happen in a lab, with all the new technological advancements and knowledge on the genetic engineering and cloning subjects it can be possible to do many weird things as well as marvelous.


Read page 119 of this article for more info about mutation and evolution of species:
http://books.google.com/books?id=su1PHT8tHNoC&pg=RA1-PA123&lpg=RA1-PA123&dq=mutation+by+dispersion&source=bl&ots=peGVmSk0bQ&sig=Bem8GGaY9tM3Q6XfiR1tP_BVHn4&hl=en&ei=beG5ScC1CI_GMpSMyaYI&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PRA1-PA119,M1

It was quit impressive post to sayon , And do we think for one instant that gov't scientist are not trying to dupolicate vampire tendencies in people or other strange mutations for better life or war?

La6muerte66 says:
"So again i think it could really happen some way or another and not in millions of years it can even happen in a lab, with all the new technological advancements and knowledge on the genetic engineering and cloning subjects it can be possible to do many weird things as well as marvelous."

True, but that wouldn't be evolution; it would be genetic engineering. lol.”
Hahaha so stupid haha learn how to read your books and others before placing a statement, didn’t I just said I think it could happen one way or another and not in “Few million of generation like you said”, and then it can even happen in a lab. Do you know how to reason what you read? Lol

La6Muerte66 says:
Changes in the genome do not necessarily take thousands of generations, as mutations occur with every successive generation. However, for such drastic changes (not simple ones such as color or the distribution thereof) to occur, mutations have to pile on top of one another, which requires either a great deal of luck or a great deal of generations to account for the chance of such mutations to occur."

I see some contradictions from in post to another, it seams your finally searching for your valid information for once hahaha, La6Muerte66:” A person isn't just born with 4 perfect arms, for example. The genes have to allow for such a change, first of all, and such drastic changes in the anatomy of an individual take anywhere from thousands to millions of generations. Given that humans in our recognizable form have only been around for a few million years, that drastically shortens the available time frame. Such a change would have to be unlike anything we've seen in biology. Ever. It's incredibly improbable, if not impossible.”
Didn’t you just said the opposite here “not necessarily take thousands to millions of generations” say millions of generations?, do you know the offset of errors your saying? you know what is millions of generation?, when one generation is aproximally 80 years of life span of a human being, multiply the product and you will have a number not even dinosaur need to evolve from one period to another with just one million generation imagine your plural scope of millions of generations, I don’t even think earth was created, you are “Stupid” in every sense of the word, and I can tolerate someone posting their ideas and opinions cause no one is right in the outcomes of this topic, because its everyone opinion, but people that just confuse others not knowing about the subject and talking like a smartass here irritates me, I posted the coloration in evolution because it is evolution from a bug/insect organism by random mutation, posting just an example of a group tendencies to evolve, not that humans will grow fangs from one generation to another, I know it takes time, but we surely didn’t evolve from a H. Nearthentalis to a H. Sapiens in less than 500,000 years, not even our first relative homo species have lasted more than the number of generation you posted in the last comment to evolve.

L6Muerte66 says:
I assume you mean Darwin, are referring to his finches that he studied in the Galapagos Islands. He noticed that animals change to adapt to the environment. What I think is being confused here is the cause of these changes. Animals don't mutate to suit a need. The mutations are entirely random. If the population ceases to adapt to a changing environment, then they will sadly die out. Butterflies and bees that evolved certain colorations did so entirely by accident. It just happened that the change was beneficial to the survival of the organism, and others who hadn't acquired the new trait eventually died out due to Natural Selection.

Dude you have a mix of things confused here, where the hell you took biology, “animals don’t mutate to suit a need, the mutations are entirely randomly” OMG is swear you are reading biology for retards, you just contradicted yourself animals DO evolve by mutation to suit a need for survival, that is the whole natural selection topic, they need to adapt to survive it does come randomly from one generation to another/s disposing of the last generation group, ‘cause the new generation have the tools to thrive in the environment. You are even saying it yourself: “If the population ceases to adapt to a changing environment, then they will sadly die out. Butterflies and bees that evolved certain colorations did so entirely by accident. It just happened that the change was beneficial to the survival of the organism” I know where you going with this but the truth of the fact is the example of the father drinking son drinking blood and so no is to put it this way the new way of life, like the new environment for bees they need to survive so next generation will evolve so the species thrive on, so if this line of family do the same every generation the possibilities that a newborn have a need to feed on blood could occur , because the configuration of its DNA will make this new baby evolve something for that certain topic of drinking blood habits, and dude your just writing your biology book here, I’m not saying we will have vampires in few thousands of years if we do that, this probability that it doesn’t even make vampires, probably make a new weird mutant disease of the blood or a offspring that can withstand some sort of diseases, it’s the opinion that it might be possible and the explanation with the natural example of evolutions we have that anything can happen.

La6Muerte66 says:
So again, it appears that you're confusing LaMarckian evolution with Darwinian evolution. Changes don't occur in an organism because they want or need them to. A population can drink blood for a thousand generations with no change whatsoever. Only if a random mutation happens to give one a better ability to survive and/or reproduce will there be an accommodation to the lifestyle. Changes are random, and the organism's survival depends on how beneficial or detrimental said change is.

To this I’m tired of explaining seriously go to first grade and learn how to READ, I’m tired of explaining this bullshit over and over again, I know what you mean with the giraffe extending the head to reach for high leafs bullshit, we are working with diets, something that can change an individual from one generation to another/s when you work with the systems and certain inner organs manipulation of consumption you can have a anomaly on the new generations to come not on humans in a slow pace but in generations can develop and randomly have a new mutation of some sort, why do you think some people can fight deadly diseases while other cant, that can come with your generations traits from reproduction of many races to the diet subject of the same group.
And for your information Lemarkian evolution theory was not completely erroneous was posted as another subject within the scientific community and some of the Darwin’s ideas;

“Darwin's Origin of Species proposed natural selection as the main mechanism for development of species, but did not rule out a variant of Lamarckism as a supplementary mechanism. Darwin called his Lamarckian hypothesis Pangenesis, and explained it in the final chapter of his book Variation in Plants and Animals under Domestication, after describing numerous examples to demonstrate what he considered to be the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Pangenesis, which he emphasized was a hypothesis, was based on the idea that somatic cells would, in response to environmental stimulation (use and disuse), throw off 'gemmules' which travelled around the body (though not necessarily in the bloodstream). These pangenes were microscopic particles that supposedly contained information about the characteristics of their parent cell, and Darwin believed that they eventually accumulated in the germ cells where they could pass on to the next generation the newly acquired characteristics of the parents.”

When you learn to read try to REASON, and when you learn how to reason try to IMAGINE and when you can imagine, come and post here, cause your way of the question asked.

Revenous says:
"Dalton studied in Central America just by watching the same species of bird with different peak sizes and form. Or how some snakes, frogs, butterflies and bees evolved a certain of coloration to confuse their predators of who uses it for protection against those who really inherited that characteristic that screams, "don’t get near me i am venomous". A species evolves for survival against that thing that push it to the limits,"

La6Muerte66 says:
I assume you mean Darwin, are referring to his finches that he studied in the Galapagos Islands. He noticed that animals change to adapt to the environment. What I think is being confused here is the cause of these changes. Animals don't mutate to suit a need. The mutations are entirely random. If the population ceases to adapt to a changing environment, then they will sadly die out. Butterflies and bees that evolved certain colorations did so entirely by accident. It just happened that the change was beneficial to the survival of the organism, and others who hadn't acquired the new trait eventually died out due to Natural Selection.

Yes I made a general name typo I’m human and confused the names, but you are missing the point of the matter and of the posting question. And the Galapagos are in between Central and South America of shore Ecuador.

“Galápagos Islands are an archipelago of volcanic islands distributed around the equator in the Pacific Ocean, 972 km west of continental Ecuador.
The islands are geologically young and famed for their vast number of endemic species which were studied by Charles Darwin during the voyage of the Beagle that contributed to the inception of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection”.

Firstly, I was only clarifying for others reading the posts as to what you were referring to, as well as confirming what you were talking about. I'll handle your other post in a bit.

You are impossible to comprehend I will leave this debate to this point, i cannot find any other ways to explain it to your incompetence of idealistic statements, pangenesis may be flawed I read that part too, but you just don’t understand that when this term is set to be erroneous its because another one comes with a similar characteristic and a new explanation behind that exposes the new theory. It is a further investigation of why is not correct that shows it was proven, It is wrong because new scientific improvement were made in base of the genetic science and microcellular biology in this past decades of its discovery, in other words when this new science came along prove many other ideas wrong in some topics but it also supports part of another theory that all we explained does occur genetically. I’m sure you read this from the same source where you get that idea:

“An atavism is an evolutionary throwback, such as traits reappearing which had disappeared generations ago. Atavisms occur because genes for previously existing phenotypical features are often preserved in DNA, even though the genes are not expressed in some or most of the organisms possessing them.”

“Darwin elaborated further on the model. In a section on the "Laws of inheritance," Darwin specified that two elements in particular were most important: the transmission and the development of inherited characteristics. Darwin's insights were that characteristics could be transmitted which were not at the time of transmission actually being manifest in the parent organism, and that certain traits would manifest themselves at the same point of development in both the parent and child organisms. In order to make sense of his theory of sexual selection, he also stipulated that certain traits could be passed through organisms but would only develop depending on the sex of the organism in question.”

Well i am tired of translating my ideas in my second language so let’s just leave it there and the others to decide the direction of our discussion. Either way we are leaving from the main purpose of the topic of this thread. Cheers

Even among those who claim such a mutation would "question authentiity to claim, an example is the Native Revenue From Consessions. Those who claim to be genericly altered to process blood substance, here is science, those who seek accredidation to assumed Generic Identity tend to limit such presumtions on fringe science, and Psuedo- ology. When quite frankly they
Would scrutinize anyone claiming Generic Rites over their "lesser genes".

Even those who say anything is possible, tend to project absolutes, absolutes that layer "complexity".

Surly something so intense would create buzz in the gnome projects, I hear people claim to have been tested, a bold claim, without documentation.

Journalist would be all over the story.

I'm actually rather easy to comprehend, barring the language barrier. Whether that was a carried-over insult or not is unimportant.

"I’m sure you read this from the same source where you get that idea:

“An atavism is an evolutionary throwback, such as traits reappearing which had disappeared generations ago. Atavisms occur because genes for previously existing phenotypical features are often preserved in DNA, even though the genes are not expressed in some or most of the organisms possessing them.”

“Darwin elaborated further on the model. In a section on the "Laws of inheritance," Darwin specified that two elements in particular were most important: the transmission and the development of inherited characteristics. Darwin's insights were that characteristics could be transmitted which were not at the time of transmission actually being manifest in the parent organism, and that certain traits would manifest themselves at the same point of development in both the parent and child organisms. In order to make sense of his theory of sexual selection, he also stipulated that certain traits could be passed through organisms but would only develop depending on the sex of the organism in question.”"

Yes, I did read it. The point it's making is that genes that are not active in the parent (though still existent in the genome) could be passed down to later generations and become active. This is why chickens are occasionally hatched with teeth, people born with tails, and snakes with rudimentary legs. This does not, however, mean that Darwin's explanation for why it happens was correct.

I disagree that this is getting off-topic. The thread is about evolution and its potential to allow people to survive off blood. It is important to have a comprehensive understanding of evolutionary theory and how it works in order to form an educated opinion on its capabilities and limits.

Regardless of the skeptics, the possibility exists.

"That leaves human gene targeting - a key step in genetic engineering - as the final hurdle to creating your very own Nosferatu."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15083-how-vampires-evolved-to-live-on-blood-alone.html

"As for humans drinking blood - African pasturalists have been living off their cattles' blood possible for thousands of years. The blood forms sticky clots when mixed with cow's milk, which are fished out of the mix and given to children as a special treat."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15083-how-vampires-evolved-to-live-on-blood-alone.html

That article still only deals with the PA gene in vampire bats, which again only helps them to prevent coagulation as they engorge themselves on blood. You're essentially beating a dead horse. This article, like the others, does nothing to address the issue of quantity that has been brought up. How is a person to get the essential nutrients required by only drinking blood, when they would have to consume about half of their body weight in a single sitting? More importantly, what evolutionary benefit would such an act provide? It must be more difficult to find food if your only source is enough blood to drain a cow every time you feed.

On a side note, that excerpted quote from the article doesn't match the tone of the rest of the article, and seems like an attempt at engaging the reader's interest in the subject matter more than a serious suggestion by the author.

Tell your conclusions to the "vampire bat" the survives on blood.

All this would take to clear the matter up is an actual examination of a person claiming such a genome difference, as I understand one person has and the findings showed no anomoly, or adaptation to the physiology of the test subject.

I don't think that a human can survive on blood just alone... I think a human would need much more than that to survive. It's plain fact that a mortal cannot survive on just blood.