[Mokele]

The problem is our lack of knowledge of what the future holds. Clearly we will have the *capacity* to consciously alter our own DNA (as a species if not as individuals), but will we use it at all, or if so, how? How will this affect evolution? Is it even fair to call it evolution? Since we got this by evolving big brains, it could be argued that even genetic engineering is a highly derived type of evolution. Alternatively, because it's so different and under conscious control, it could be claimed to be totally different. Half the battle is terminology.

I have little doubt that human form and genetics will change over time (just look at how many people are unsatified with theirs), but the question is *how* such changes will occur, and how this applies to evolution.

Mokele

[bascule]

Genetic engineering is memetic evolution turned genetic evolution

[-Demosthenes-]

Hmmm, now that you mention it, I was wondering... How far away are we genically from non-ape mammals? :D

[AzurePhoenix]

Well, we've only mapped chimps, humans, rats and mice right? Among the mammals? So besides them, it's really impossible to tell anything mroe than a percent for those two rodents, and even our relative relation to them can be questioned unless we can get a general idea of relation between a much wider sample of varied species. I'm just brain-storming here, but does that make any sense?

[RyanJ]

-Demosthenes- said:

Hmmm, now that you mention it, I was wondering... How far away are we genically from non-ape mammals? :D

From what I hear we have about 52% of the same DNA that a bannana(sp?) has!

Thats pretty nuts when you think about it - hey mom, I'm half bannana!

Cheers,

Ryan Jones

[EvoN1020v]

Quote

The problem is our lack of knowledge of what the future holds. Clearly we will have the *capacity* to consciously alter our own DNA (as a species if not as individuals), but will we use it at all, or if so, how? How will this affect evolution? Is it even fair to call it evolution? Since we got this by evolving big brains, it could be argued that even genetic engineering is a highly derived type of evolution. Alternatively, because it's so different and under conscious control, it could be claimed to be totally different. Half the battle is terminology.

I have little doubt that human form and genetics will change over time (just look at how many people are unsatified with theirs), but the question is *how* such changes will occur, and how this applies to evolution.

Mokele

Thank you Mokele. That's what I have been trying to tell them. I said, "Who knows what we will look like in the future?" in my previous post. But I agree slightly that our past is rather in the gray clouds, but doesn't Darwin's theory sounds more readily than Lawkin's theory? For those who don't know Lawkin's theory, it classified that physical will affect the offsprings. Using the example of girafee, Lawkin believe that girafee used to have short neck, and over time the girafees stretch their necks by reaching for leaves on the trees. Therefore Lawkin declare that the offsprings will have long neck too. (I apologize for spelling Lawkin wrong). Anyhow, I heard stories from both sides in university in the class of antropology. (A friend of mine from university told me).

Genetic Engineering is going off like a rocket. Who knows if humans would be smarter, faster, stronger, or ? But it's good thing I won't live THAT long to find out. I'm satisfy where I am now. :cool:

[bascule]

Lawkin? Perhaps you're thinking of Jean Baptiste Lamarck...

[EvoN1020v]

Yes Lamarck.

[RyanJ]

Quote

Genetic Engineering is going off like a rocket. Who knows if humans would be smarter, faster, stronger, or ? But it's good thing I won't live THAT long to find out. I'm satisfy where I am now. :cool:

HeHeHe, super-humans!

It has one huge advantage though - the ability to fix genetic problem at or before birth and this could save a lot of lives. Maybe even help prevent cancer and help to cure it too.

Loads of uses for genetic engineering as long as those annoying "do-gooders" and "mooral idiots" keep their annoying protests away from it... They have a habbit of ruining the good ideas that can save lives like stem cell research another interesting field today and let us not forger about GM modified foold... could solve world hunger but no its immoral because we'r acting like god...

Ah well they can't protest forever :D

I wonder when the first GM human will be born - anyone care to bet on a date?

Cheers,

Ryan Jones

[EvoN1020v]

It depends on how people look at it. My perspective is rather different than you Ryan Jones, because you are not thinking thoroughly. If we have the ability to cure gene even before birth, it can have its disadvantages. If everybody is born perfect then there will be too many people on the planet. We succinctly need thousands of people to be dead every day. I don't want to sound like a devil but it's a way to reduce our exponentially population boom. We are running out of resources and natural needies. UNLESS, we create morbid space station out in the space? Anyway right now it's not a good idea to converse sicken babies into perfects.

What do you guys think?

[RyanJ]

Quote

It depends on how people look at it. My perspective is rather different than you Ryan Jones, because you are not thinking thoroughly. If we have the ability to cure gene even before birth, it can have its disadvantages. If everybody is born perfect then there will be too many people on the planet. We succinctly need thousands of people to be dead every day. I don't want to sound like a devil but it's a way to reduce our exponentially population boom. We are running out of resources and natural needies. UNLESS, we create morbid space station out in the space? Anyway right now it's not a good idea to converse sicken babies into perfects.

What do you guys think?

Good point... I was only refering to genetic disseases you understand though - I don't theink there will ever be a 100% effective system against viruses, bacteria and the like for a very, very long time if ever so that will continue to keep the populations down. Nature has a way of doing that - like in places like Africa where they have droughts and desertification because there are too many people on the land, they over work the land, all the plants die. Next no rains come because the soil gets erroded and its nutrients leached. Next no nutrients no plants and so transpiration form plants - no rain (Or a hell of a lot less). Thus people die lowering the population too an acceptable level.

Only problem is now food aid is sent its keeping the populations up so the planet has no time to recover. I'm not here to discuss the moral issues here (Nor do I want to anyway) but either way the higher a population does the greater risk of something bad happening. Thats just the way things work in nature in the end no ammmount of food-aid will stop whats going to happen :S

Anyway yes I do agree with you - a world without dissease will lead to exactly the same problem as in places like Africa now so I agree with you 100% on that point. Nature has a way of adapting its self to stop us doing just that - you find a great drug and in a few years its useless...

Cheers,

Ryan Jones

[EvoN1020v]

Very good Ryan Jones.

[-Demosthenes-]

http://www.txtwriter...mpgenomes1.html

Quote

The human genome has about 400 million more nucleotides than the mouse. A comparison of the two genomes reveals that both have about 30,000 genes, and they share the bulk of them—the human genome shares 99% of its genes with mice. Humans and mice diverged about 75 million years ago, too little time for many evolutionary differences to accumulate. There are only 300 genes unique to either organism, about 1% of the genome.

What?
http://www.nih.gov/n...05/nhgri-31.htm

Quote

To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse and about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat. On the other hand, the number of genetic differences between a human and a chimp is about 10 times more than between any two humans.

I am finding this extremely confusing.

[sunspot]

Genes are important but so is the environment. Let me give an interesting example. If we look at the various cells in our body, each will have the same DNA. However, each cell differentiation will only use a fraction of all the genes; the genes needed to make that cell differentiation. Using this limited amount of active DNA, the differentiated cell builds up a protein capacitance within itself, that reflects the used genes. So when two daughter cells form, even though the DNA is initially totally packed in chromosomes, its differentiated protein capacitance helps the DNA limit itself so it can express the specfic needs of the cell's differentiation.

In other words, the DNA defines the proteins, while the protein, during cells cycle, postures the DNA, so the chromosomes can be differentiated to parallel the daughter cell proteins. The protein is the link to the environment and to the DNA. If the environment alters the protein grid, the new protein distribution will mold its DNA to reflect the change, during the next cell cycle.

If we look at the genetic differences between animals we are quite close. Where some of differences lie is based on how our cell differentiations make use or don't use some of the common genes.

[bascule]

sunspot said:

In other words, the DNA defines the proteins, while the protein, during cells cycle, postures the DNA, so the chromosomes can be differentiated to parallel the daughter cell proteins. The protein is the link to the environment and to the DNA. If the environment alters the protein grid, the new protein distribution will mold its DNA to reflect the change, during the next cell cycle.

Oh for the love of god...

READ:

http://en.wikipedia....DNA_replication

If you're going to bother posting on a science forum, could you actually take 5 minutes to research what you're about to post before instead posting your own completely warped view of reality?

I mean, this is why we have science, so we can understand the workings of the world empirically and not have to venture thoroughly unempirical, retarded guesses which will undoubtably be wrong.

[mimefan599]

People still believe in creation?

[Prime-Evil]

mimefan599 said:

People still believe in creation?

I think everyone has to believe in a creation myth on some level. It doesn't have to get mixed in with science, and science doesn't have to get mixed in with everything. When I watch the sunset I am comfortable believing that my fellow creature, Brother Sun, revolves around that other fellow creature, our sister Mother Earth, as it appears to always have since creation and appears that it always will, even though it does not, has not, and will not. As far as I am concerned in my every day life, even just 10,000 years is forever. Well maybe 100,000 years. Also, as much as I respect Albert Einstein, Newtonian physics is close enough for the girls I go out with, and the woods will alway contain many mysteries that can reveal themselves on their own.

In the lab I am a scientist, but when I go for a walk in the woods, I am a creature.

[ydoaPs]

Prime-Evil said:

I think everyone has to believe in a creation myth on some level.

and i think you are wrong

[CharonY]

Demosthenes, it is not that confusing if you read carefully. In the first quote they are refering to genes. That is, defined stretches of DNA that has been annotated to carry coding information. 99% are annotated to have the same function, but may vary slightly in the sequence.
In the second quote they compared whole DNA stretches (I admit, I got the issue lying around here somewhere but did not actually read it...). So in the second quote they basically say that we do not only have the same genes, but even the sequence of them is very similar (with exceptions).

[Prime-Evil]

yourdadonapogos said:

and i think you are wrong

What I mean is if you broaden your definition of myth, and consider it from a psychological and sociological perspective, you may find that you do believe in many myths, if only on a sub conscious or subverted level. Otherwise how do you get up in the morning, or sleep at night? I think science is the process of uncovering these myths and finding more useful understandings of nature. Some myths you can also learn to live with, because they can be comforting, and don't really interfere with your science any more than a warm cup of tea or a walk in the woods. In fact, they can even be helpful.

Getting married and having children is a great way to discover myths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth
"Mythology, mythography, or folkloristics. In these academic fields, a myth (mythos) is a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form. The active beings in myths are generally gods and heroes. Myths take place before time, before history begins. In saying that a myth is a sacred narrative, what is meant is that a myth is believed to be true by people who attach religious or spiritual significance to it. Use of the term by scholars does not imply that the narrative is either true or false. See also legend and tale."

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/myth
Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism -- Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths

p.s.
The notion that we can't both be right is something of a myth.
All generalizations ultimately fail, but are still useful.
.