The Flaming Goldfish

It's probably a question of protein structure. Different amino acid sequences confer different structural properties to proteins, so a change from leucine to isoleucine might result in a different 3D structure for the protein. The result would be a different protein, or one that's similar but with diminished biological activity. I don't know an article off the top of my head, but if I find one, I'll post it here. Could you explain what you mean a little further? I'm not quite grasping what you're saying.

I'll not refute your answer, but isn't that a bit short for a cognizant thought to anything? Perhaps, but I'll throw my point of view in there. Billy Graham's point of view is that his religion is the only right one, and that to be accepted into heaven, I must accept Jesus as my saviour and such. Where the argument falls down logically is why Christianity is any more "correct" than another religion. If there were evidence for such a thing, it might not be so illogical, but since religion is a matter of faith rather than evidence, it leads to the question of whether any religion is more correct than the others. So I guess in that sense, you could say that yes, his argument is totally wrong from many standpoints.

There are multiple genes that contribute to eye colour determination, but the dominant eye colour among humans is brown. Blue eyes follow a recessive inheritance pattern, but it's not considered a recessive trait because the determination for eye colour is polygenic. Other eye colours are due to a combination of optical effects, possible genetic contribution, and the distribution of melanin pigment in the iris of the individual person. There are ways to predict eye colour--using a few SNPs, scientists were able to predict eye colour with about 90-93% accuracy, depending on the SNPs. Here's the article if you're interested: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126992.100-dna-test-for-eye-colour-could-help-fight-crime.html

Not quite. Technically speaking, the sperm and the egg are still living cells independent of each other. All that happens at fertilization is the combination of two "half-genomes", as it were, to form a full genome not completely identical to either of its parents. I think the question is really about personhood rather than life, as y'all are talking about (I think). There are animals that reproduce asexually, or that do sexual reproduction with themselves (ie C. elegans, etc).

Hello, LEDlump. Welcome to SFN! It's a good question. As far as I know, I'm sure it theoretically can be changed with gene therapy were the proper targeting mechanisms to be found and such. They would have to target the bone marrow, since that's the part that's producing the blood cells. I'm not very well versed on nanogenetics, but I'm sure traditional gene therapy could do it with the proper advances. I do think there'd be factors to consider though, such as how to condition our immune system to accept the change. There's a good chance the immune cells would see the newly typed blood cells as hostile foreign cells. I think to get further into that you'd have to tinker around with things like the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex), which handles the foreign vs. host cell recognition. Interesting question though.

It sounds like an intriguing storyline. As far as I can see, there's only a few points you might want to change: That would work, but again keep in mind that speciation does not happen instantly. Evolution takes time, even for bacteria that divide in a time of minutes to hours. Whatever gene therapy was done, it would have to be drastic enough to plant the seeds for speciation but not make it happen then and there. Scientifically speaking, the changes would probably be more subtle, and so the initial children wouldn't be exactly like the alien girl. Most importantly, they would still be human, not this alien species. They would have to undergo extremely vigorous training, because keep in mind that Mars has a lower gravitational field than Earth, so what may seem superhuman strength on Mars might actually be around normal on Earth (maybe perhaps equal to a relatively strong human). The way the Superman films did it, Superman's people were actually from a world that had higher gravity than Earth, so he was born with naturally much denser muscles, making him superhuman. Sounds good, but make sure you make the timeline realistic...ie. terraforming would probably have to begin decades beforehand (possibly more) to ensure that there was enough O2 to sustain a population. A hundred years is a bit too soon for a population to become a new species altogether. This is where it gets a little blurry because there's not really an exact point in time when a population becomes a different species. However, keep in mind that 100 years is about 1-2 generations for humans and apparently <1 for your species. Consider for instance that E. coli, which has a generational turnover time of ~17-44 mins, takes ~30000 generations for mutations that confer evolutionary benefit to be observed. However, enough time had not passed for a speciation event (likely because the environment change wasn't significant). Now, in your scenario, the fact that there has been extensive genetic change done before birth will shorten some of that time, since a lot of that time is for a spontaneous mutation to occur and be passed on successfully. However, I still think that 1-2 generations isn't enough for your population to become a different species. You could make it so they're on the way to becoming a different species, or make your show set a lot later in time. All that said, I think it's an intriguing plot. I'm actually really happy that you're considering the science behind it, because it really irritates me when writers take creative license and the suspension of disbelief so far that it becomes ridiculous. Kudos to you!

It's a bit tough to answer specifically what genetic changes could cause that. To genetically change a person drastically enough to cause speciation would be a feat, because one major definition of a species requires that the two populations 1. either cannot reproduce (or do not do so in real situations), or 2. if they do, their offspring cannot contribute to the gene pool (is sterile). Examples of the first condition: dogs and wolves can and do reproduce in real life, and are classified as the same species (canus lupus); walruses and seals either cannot or do not reproduce in real life, and are different species. A great example of the second would be the mule (offpsring of a horse and a donkey), which is sterile. So your alien girl's species would be either mostly unable/unwilling to mate with humans, or the mating would not contribute much towards the gene pool. Either the alien-human couple could not have kids or those kids would be mostly sterile. The best answer I can give is that the genetic alteration to Patient A did not directly cause the two species to diverge. Rather, the genetic alteration was coupled with a drastic change in environment. Patient A and the next two or three generations of his/her family went to live in an environment totally different from Earth's. The genetic alteration done to Patient A caused changes to his/her offspring's gene pool that were widened and exploited due to natural selection throughout later generations. Basically, the biggest thing is that there must be an environmental change. By itself, gene therapy cannot cause speciation, especially if it was only done to one person, as that person will then be a different species and will have no one to breed with. Your patient and/or immediate descendants must go to an environment drastically different from Earth's, and it must be a place where the qualities you describe either confer some evolutionary advantage or are a side effect of it (the explanation for superhuman strength used in the Superman films is that Krypton's gravity was far higher than earth's and Kryptonians were by necessity far denser/stronger than humans). I'd also say that to make it more scientifically credible, perhaps have it so that your alien species is not just descended from one altered individual? Remember, if you have a drastic change of environment, there might be limited options for breeding. Instead, an initial group of several hundred or several thousand might make it easier for a population to grow quickly and a speciation event to occur. Hope this helps!

Possibly, yeah. It would need to have a genetic basis that could be easily corrected, obviously. For instance, type I diabetes has to do with an autoimmune disorder as well. The pancreatic cells that produce insulin are destroyed by the host's own immune system. Its genetic causes are polygenic, meaning it has multiple genes that contribute to the disorder, and it can be dominant, recessive, or somewhere in between. Obviously targeting and altering multiple genes effectively is more difficult than if it's a single gene. Basically, it goes down to the gene(s) affected and the kinds of cells affected.

Hehe...hadn't even thought of that

Possibly, though what you're referring to generally falls under the area of gene therapy rather than genetic engineering. Basically, you use targeted segments of DNA as KO pieces or replacements for a nonfunctioning/improperly functioning gene. Also, it depends on what the disorder actually was, what genes were affected, etc.

Not really...by that logic, a donut proves you right as well. I think what we're trying to get at is, do you have any empirical evidence from other sources that supports your claim? As far as I can see, what you've posted above is mostly a philosophical treatise (a somewhat incomprehensible one at that).

I think this thread is getting a tad sidetracked...everyone take a breath and calm down, please? I understand your point, iNow, and I've actually had a number of discussions with my friends and family on the level of scientific awareness in the country, and it is disappointing. That said, I don't think that being unaware necessarily makes them bad people or stupid. It's not necessarily a good thing, and it would be better if they were more knowledgeable, but it doesn't make them stupid. After all, the level of exposure after leaving the school system is remarkably low. I think Xittenn's point is correct in that we need more community outreach. I had a discussion with my cousin on this, who's currently working on a PhD in English. He pretty much said that it would be nice if people were more aware, but also pointed out that scientists are remarkably uncommunicative when presenting things, and the news media needs to find a better way of presenting this information as well. What I'm getting at it is that it needs to be an all-round effort, not just one-sided. Also keep in mind that the OP refers to one specific issue, which is heavily coloured by religion in this country; there are other issues in science beyond evolution. If we're going for scientific awareness of the public in general, the influence of religion in this particular issue makes it a poor gauge of scientific literacy (in my opinion, anyways). I'm sure that even though many churches might find the idea of evolution objectionable, they don't really have any problems with other scientific theories, like photosynthesis, gravity, etc. Point being, the fact that religion is involved makes it a heavily twisted issue. Even lifelong scientists sometimes have crises of faith when they try to reconcile their beliefs with their scientific knowledge; just because we spend our lives studying the natural world through the lens of the scientific method, doesn't mean that we aren't confused when we find two contradictory explanations for it. Also, going back to what Xittenn said in her first reply to the OP: I think a large part of the problem is that science isn't an ideology. Ideologies are usually static and very wide-ranging, and some lack observational support. Science is very dynamic and can change very quickly (when compared to religion, at least). It's very nature as a consensus on the best explanation for something means that new evidence provides new insight, and I think that if science were to be seen as a static ideology, it would be a distorted view of what science really is. I also have to agree with her, in that changing views isn't as easy for some people, especially if it's a view they've held on to for their entire lives. For some people, religion is a very deep-seated belief that provides hope and a foundation. It's not easy to just let go of all that in a flash. Even changing scientists' minds can take a long time with logic and experimental data. It took 20-some odd years for scientists to accept that DNA was the genetic material; even after it was shown so by an experiment, some still thought proteins carried genetic information. Also, I'd keep in mind that not all religions are incompatible with science. Obviously the big one here is Christianity, because the majority of Americans are Christian. However, there are thousands of different systems of belief, and to say that they are all incompatible with science is wrong, because you can't know exactly what they preach. I think the issue of scientific literacy of the public is overshadowed by the war of two dogmas: one supporting evolution and stating that any who disagree with it are ignorant and backwards; and the other supporting the Biblical interpretation and casting any who agree with evolutionary theory as evil godless sinners. This perception of an America split along lines of atheist evolutionist vs. Bible-thumping hillbilly is counterproductive and wrong. I actually think that if we start working on the problem of general scientific literacy first, and then move on to the "controversial" topics of science, we may have a chance. If you're trying to educate someone on something, telling them that everything they've believed for their whole life is wrong will only irritate them and cause them to ignore you. Instead, if you introduce new information, concepts, and ways of thinking to them you may hook their interest. It's dually beneficial: 1) before you start delving into the controversies, you could impart a lot of knowledge, and 2) when you start talking to them about the controversial stuff, they would be more willing to listen, because you didn't start right out by attacking their system of beliefs. I'm just throwing my opinion out there, feel free to add/correct/discuss/whatever, but please, let's keep it courteous, yeah? (I know I'm not a mod or anything, but this thread does need a little de-escalation)