Source: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1911 \nIn order to have any evolution of a species whatsoever, there must be some sort of mutation. Granted, the majority of mutations attempted by a species fail miserably and the individual plant/animal will not survive, but without mutation, the gene pool is limited – stagnant even, and when the gene pool is stagnant,, there is less chance for survival, and evolution essentially stops (Mayr, (1)). \nWith that in mind, and the entirety of evolutionary processes, what are we humans doing in the field of genetic modifying medicine? Gene therapy may help a lot of people live out healthier, happier lives (Anderson, (2)), but is this helping evolution? Hurting it? Will our supposed health happiness in the present bring suffering and death for the future of our species? It is a difficult idea even to wrap one's mind around. Of course we want to help our brethren to feel less pain – to use gene and small molecule therapy (see Anderson, 3rd paragraph for definitions) to take away 'genetic diseases' just as one would use Tylenol to take away a headache or a fever – it is the compassionate, humane thing to do. But where do we draw the line between that and the facts of life – death (even young death), diversity in the gene pool (including mutations – attractive or not), etc.? \nReproductive medicine has raised a lot of bio-ethical questions over the past forty or fifty years. From birth-control to Roe v. Wade to test-tube babies to choosing the sex and other genetic traits of one's child (Caplan & McGee, (3)), many wonder where we are going with all of these technological advances in medicine. Are we perhaps becoming too smart for our own good? Recently a 66-year-old woman gave birth to a child in Romania with much help from her doctor as she was too old to create her own eggs – an egg was fertilized and then placed into her uterus (Caplan, (4)). She will be eighty when her daughter enters high school. This may be pushing the question too far towards the bio-ethical standpoint, but nevertheless, where do we draw the line in reproductive medicine? Do we allow, a hundred years - or maybe even decades – from now parents to essentially create their own children by choosing eye color, hair color, intelligence and strength through the simple selection and rejection of genes? From an evolutionary standpoint, this process could alter – even stop completely – the process of human evolution, for it would disallow mutations in pursuit of the 'perfect' child. \nResiding in Germany is a four year old boy who was born with a genetic mutation that prohibits production of myostatin (a protein which limits muscle growth), and thereby can hold 7lb. weights in his hands with arms straight out (The AP, (5)). His mother, a former professional sprinter, had one copy of the gene mutated, while both of his are such. This mutation could be a very good addition to the human gene pool. It would allow the human species to; very slowly (as evolution always works very slowly) become a stronger species, which would aid our survival. But then, after chance and natural selection take their course, no one could ever predict whether it would be the gene to survive. Yet, without mutation, the gene pool is limited, and thus the species has a lesser chance of surviving. Many would argue that in our extensive and expanding research on the human genome, one could in effect allow for the strengthening of the species in locating and manually mutating the genes which controlled production of myostatin, and any other factors. However, I would dare to claim that the practice would still limit variation (the key to evolution, along with mutation) in that it would disallow any new mutations from occurring. If a doctor or scientist noticed an oddity in the development of an embryo, he or she would more than likely abort the process and start over again, for fear of the child developing with some horrid and unknown genetic disease. The problem is just that – if it's unknown, we can't be sure that it will end up quite so tragic as the victims of sickle-cell anemia, muscular dystrophy, or any of the other genetic diseases discovered thus far. We can't be sure that it won't have a profound and everlasting positive effect on the human species as a whole. \nWhat does all of this say to the future of our species? Or, for that matter, to the practice of genetic engineering? Should we change the genes of those suffering from genetic disease? Or should we call it an act of chance and evolution, and allow selection to take its course? I fear that if we find a cure for all diseases, our tiny planet will become overpopulated and though we may be healthy, we'll be cramped, claustrophobic, and quite unhappy. Yet I also don't like the idea of anybody suffering from disease. I almost want to make the claim that disease is the natural way of limiting a population, so that it doesn't get out of hand, and that those who can survive – those whose immune systems are tough enough to handle what gets thrown at them, are biologically and genetically superior (though I understand that a great deal of one's ability to deal with disease has to do with the environment in which he or she resides), and that is the way evolution, nature, and perhaps whatever deity is up there intended it (that is to say, if there was intention at all). Perhaps it is like the tsunami – the world's way of recycling and regenerating itself, and though up close it seems tragic and even catastrophic, in the long run it is the best course to take, and will eventually even itself out in order to produce a more adaptive, efficient species. \n
Maybe the natural End to biological evolution is meant to be genetic engineering. I think as a species grows and gains the technology we have and are currently improving, that "playing God" as it were, is the next step in evolution. All predestined by natural course of evolution. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
well i'm not understanding why any constructed genetic mutation will interfere with further evolutionary mutation. yeah it interferes but that is the nature of evolution no? i never heard of most of these things but maybe i'm just behind. it's astonishing to think they can choose what traits to strengthen and which to neglect. before birth or after?
Isn't it still evolution? Technology is a byproduct of our biologically created intelligence Like our immune system, our brains evolved to be able to evolve. Sound silly? Not really. Typically evolution occures generation by generation. We evolved the ability to continue evolving during a single lifetime. That's why it took billions of years for humans to.come about, but only a few thousand for those hilams to get into space. Even if humans were replaced by AI, I would still consider this evolution. All of us die eventually and our children inherit our world. AI are our children. They evolved from our own intelligence I wouldnt ssay terminators are going to take over, I'd say we are evolving into terminators -yuri
Genetically modified green glofish actually survive in the wild and become invasive species. Clearly humans can do it better then nature. Glofish are more "fit" apperently. Which is why they are illegal in many countries. -yuri
they use jelly fish genes from the deep ocean I believe, I'm not sure exactly but yyea they are gmo fish. The gene creates a pigment in their scales that shines under UV light. They don't really glow they are just blacklight fish. But look fucking amazing -yuri
Hi guys first post I'm a scientist (or something) and going into computational neuroscience. Just met a bunch of awesome people at MIT for a neuroscience workshop and several of the discussions I had were on this topic. A lot of people are comfortable with saying that this is part of the evolution process. My argument was: think a couple hundred years from now when we either live on machine or when we can edit our own genome to get desired properties. I think that has to classify as merely evolution, so what we're seeing now is simply part of it. As we've started to live in cities, the consequences of our behavior caused certain types of viruses to thrive and others to dwindle. This has effects on our genome, so surely that is classified as evolution.
What if our energy would trade our soft meat bodies for more hardy materials? I've envisioned metallic beings (not transformers lol), but maybe primitive insect like metallic structures on bizarre planets. I've even had a vision of a giant mosquito like entity that sucks molten liquid from planet cores... I get weird visions when really high.
I think genetic engineering of humans is just around the corner. If we can; we will. I don't necessarily believe we will end up living in a horrible world like Brave New World, but I think we will inevitably be altering our genome in one way or another in the years to come. We could genetically engineer people who are smarter, more resistant to disease, bigger, stronger, faster... etc. These things seem quite positive. But then we could genetically engineer people who don't think for themselves; people who naturally do what they are told. We could genetically engineer slaves. I can also picture big business getting their hands on this technology. How much would someone pay to choose the hair color of their baby? The possibilities are both interesting and worrying.
I'm no geneticist, but I thought genetic engineering was further down the road than most people think. First off, aren't most characteristics the result of interactions between several different genes making it hard to simply just replace genes. Also do we have an accurate enough database of genetics to know how to code for green eyes or certain skin color. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like there is still a lot about genetics we still need to understand before we could do this. Also why does no one think that there won't be repercussions for doing so. There's pretty much repercussions for all medical procedures, some of which have been studied more to date than genetics. I just feel like this whol genetic engineering, especially off people, is very overrated and won't have that major of an impact in our lifetime. Once again I'm no geneticist so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Evolution takes too damn long. Just biologically engineer the perfect baby and add advanced cybernetic enhancements. Boom, you accomplish in a couple years what would normally take millions.
Seems from my understanding of genetic evolution that natural selective breeding is the best possible way to create a plant with best possible end result. Gmo is not helping in anyway to evolutionize organism as we can see today. It's just helping the rich create gene from which should not be. Drastically changing the future of humanity as we know it. In the natural world. Weak genetics die off only strong survive. I know as we do today by taking albino crocodiles etc... out of the wild were they would die off quite fast placing them into zoo's to create/breed into future genes on the world that in nature would never be. I see sometimes recesive genes are just that for a reason. While on the other hand. Alot has been nearly lost by our hand in breeding the plants/animal's around us. We just need an realize the situation am change breeding techniques. Natural is usually best in the topic of genetics.
It's kinda scary to think just how powerful we are that we can now just make superbabies lol, but in a few decades, it'll probably be the norm and in the long-run would be better in terms of advancement, I guess...
I fully look forward to genetic engineering. Stronger, slimmer, smarter. This would enable the ones who did it to rule over the lesser beings. Order from the chaos, finally salvation. The thing is to do this in secret since a world of everyone the same is no fun.
biochemistry student here. Imo, genetic engineering brings the opportunity to open up a whole new can of worms that may not be able to be repaired. Honestly, even the most accomplished scientist only knows so much. Most scientists realize that genetic research is still in its infancy, compared to older sciences such as physics. I think the problem is that genetics is incredibly complex and what we know so far is very limited. The more I learn, the more I realize I truly know nothing. My professors are doing research and they all admit that they still have a long way to go. If we mutate certain genes, or change some amino acids in proteins that regulate gene expression, this gives opportunity to new proteins, new genes, and since that sequence hasn't existed before, the consequences of doing so may have an incredibly damaging outcome. Even so, genetic engineering today is pretty much limited to university settings, and there is an incredible amount of regulation that goes on from the university and department of biology. So researchers cannot just mess around with what they want. They have to state their experimental design, get funding, get staff, get supplies, get approved, etc. So as far as designer babies go, its simply not going to happen yet, at least in the US.
You're assuming that just because some scientists are able to do it, that the population as a whole would either 1) be forced to 2) choose to do it. I don't see either of those happening anytime soon. Genetics are slowly going to be used until further research can determine if it is safe, or better methods are necessary for it to be "largely" safe. Genetic diversity and random mutation, which occurs All the time, cannot be controlled in the way you think it can.
Doesn't it seem, when thinking about genetic manipulation and the general rapid advancements of science we have witnessed in only the last 30-50 years, like we are on a shore about to embark on an incredibly vast journey? I'm not trying to sound poetic, it's just the best metaphor I could scratch up on the quick. Whatever course we take in genetic manipulation, a.i. development, or space exploration for example, seems to instantly open infinite possibilities we are more and more aware of and talking about openly. Genetic manipulation can cure everything and anything and create physical and mental super humans with infinite potential. A.I. development can create the next level of existence on this planet and others, making humans either "gods" or extinct Space exploration is basically a black canvas of imagination. Who hasn't pondered 500 different things about space already? We don't know what the future holds, but one way or another, it won't be boring.