(An excellent article by Reason Mag's science correspondant on the great advantages that can come from using genetic engineering on humans. Of biological note, typically evolutionary advanatages come at severe costs, small portions of populations prosper while the rest starves to death or is eaten. Normally the cost of evolutionary advance is pain, suffering, and death... Nature is red in tooth and claw so the saying goes. As breeding population sizes increase evolution slows to a crawl, especially when no evolutionary pressures exist (as in humans right now). In these situations populations prosper, but deletrious mutations accumalate with no selection going on to weed them out (a good thing, as the weeding means 'death'). Imagine a pleistocene hunter who is nearsighted, he wouldnt last very long. Yet more and more genetic diseases are accumulating in humans, genetic engineers offers and ethical and safe alternative to the deadly weeding of deleterious mutations by natural selection. Instead of people dying from now common ailments, and leaving only those without those ailments to reproduce, we can simple remove those deletrious genes in simple procedures. It is entirely likely that genetic modification of humans will start with treating serious diseases and slowly spread to less serious diseases, then to annoyances (overbites and eyesight problems, etc.) to better and more beneficial and advantagous things. I welcome the day when this becomes common place. The author of the article sums it up . What horrors do such designer babies face? Longer, healthier, smarter, and perhaps even happier lives? It is hard to see any ethical problem with that".- Matus)
--------------------------------
From: John Shannnonhouse (JOHNSHANNONH) Mar-8 10:28 am
To: MATUS1976 (2 of 11)
822.2 in reply to 822.1
Your understanding of genetics leaves much to be desired, MATUS
<<As breeding population sizes increase evolution slows to a crawl>>
This is not true according to population genetics models. The rate of fixation of new traits (a single allele increasing to 100% of the population) is independent of population size. The reason for this is that although a given trait is less likely and takes longer to get fixed in a large population, more new traits arrive in a large population (10 times as many individuals gives opportunities 10 times as often).
<<especially when no evolutionary pressures exist (as in humans right now)>>
What population or evolutionary geneticist has said there are no evolutionary pressures on humans right now?
<<In these situations populations prosper, but deletrious mutations accumalate with no selection going on to weed them out (a good thing, as the weeding means 'death'.>>
Selection happens when one genetic trait outreproduces another. Death need not be involved.
<<Imagine a pleistocene hunter who is nearsighted, he wouldnt last very long>>
Even if what you are saying were true (more on this in a moment), you are misunderstanding how evolution works. Unless it is very severe, nearsightedness is no longer a disadvantage, just as a reduced ability to catch fish isn't a disadvantage for a species that colonizes an area without edible fish. Humans today don't need to be hunters.
Furthermore, humans have divided their labor for a long time. It is likely that they have done so since anatomically modern humans were around, at least, if not longer. People tend to do what they do well and let others do what they cannot do well. A nearsighted human could gather, trap, fish, make tools, watch the children or do any number of other tasks instead of hunting.
<<Yet more and more genetic diseases are accumulating in humans>>
Are you assuming this or do you know this? I suspect that you think you know something that you don't really know.
--------------------------------
From: WOLFGIRL6 Mar-8 11:21 am
To: John Shannnonhouse (JOHNSHANNONH) (3 of 11)
822.3 in reply to 822.2
John said: Selection happens when one genetic trait outreproduces another.
Death need not be involved.
I'm no expert, but I think I have a fair grasp of genetics, natural selection and evolution. And from my viewpoint, death is indeed involved. The reason that one trait outproduces another is usually because the individuals possessing that trait survive to reproduce and thus pass on that trait, while those not possessing it don't survive (ie. die) long enough to reproduce, which leads to the trait being reproduced more often than not. (Or in the case of a negative trait, the opposite occurs; the individual possessing it may not survive to pass on the bad trait....)
In the case of nearsightedness, yes, you're correct that division of labor would negate the effect to some extent, but still, in a primitive and often dangerous world, any physical disadvantage will play itself out quite often with negative consequences. Even if the nearsighted guy isn't a hunter, he has to go out sometimes, and may be more likely to be killed by a wild animal or falling off a cliff, for example.
I think the idea is that negative genetic traits are more likely to be weeded out in a primitive society than in a modern one, which leads to the weakening of the species as a whole when those negative traits are no longer weeded out by the process of natural selection. I'm not suggesting that I have an answer to that problem, because I don't, but I do think that it is a problem that it would be wise for us to address at some point.
---------------------------------
From: MATUS1976 Mar-8 11:45 am
To: John Shannnonhouse (JOHNSHANNONH) unread
"Your understanding of genetics leaves much to be desired, MATUS"
Thanks for you comments John, but may I suggest you take a less abrasive and hostile tone, it is much more conducive to an open intellectual environment. Something like 'I would have to disagree with some (or much) of what you said, heres why' If I am ignorant of some of these issues, I would be more then willing to correct my ignorance and learn, but not from someone who comes off as arrogant and condescending. If that is not the tone you intended please accept my apologies. In retrospect I have found myself to be condescending and hostile at times as well (its hard not to be with Scott Cowie) but I do make an attempt not to be, as I find it unbecoming.
<<As breeding population sizes increase evolution slows to a crawl>>
"This is not true according to population genetics models. The rate of fixation of new traits (a single allele increasing to 100% of the population) is independent of population size."
I certainly wouldnt say that is true, if selective pressures corresponding to a particular allele make an organism, say, 1% more likely to procreate, it would take much longer to promulgate through a population of 1,000 then it would 1,000,000 given a definite gestation period. Perhaps my understanding is wrong.
As another example, say one breeding adult has a particular mutation on a particular
allele, it reproduces asexually so will pass this onto its offspring. Its offspring
are 100% more likely to reproduce again when in competition with an adult that
does not have this particular mutation. In a finite population size of 1,000
(say the resources can not support any more than that) in the first generation
one breeding adult has it, it splits to
form two adults and continues to live (granted these are a lot of unrealistic
assumptions but they make the calculation easier) In this way, the breeding
population with the allele as a percentage of the total population per generation
takes about 10 generations to disseminate throughout the entire population (a
simple exponential curve) If the breeding population is 1,000,000 and all other
variables are identical, it takes 20 generations, twice as long.
When comparing exponential curves, x^2 and y^2 increase in the same manner, but if x = 2 and y = 2,000, y will take less times to reach 100,000,000 than x will.
Perhaps you can explain the flaw in this line of reasoning.
"The reason for this is that although a given trait is less likely and takes longer to get fixed in a large population, more new traits arrive in a large population (10 times as many individuals gives opportunities 10 times as often). "
I would argue that merely because there are more individuals in the population it would necessarily take more generations to promulgate throughout the population through either random genetic drift or direct selective pressures.
<<especially when no evolutionary pressures exist (as in humans right now)>>
"What population or evolutionary geneticist has said there are no evolutionary pressures on humans right now? "
To be fair, this is an article I sent out on a mailing list I run which is full of science interested people but not scientifically experienced, or professional individuals. They are coworkers, associates, and friends. The level of accumulated knowledge that individuals have on the skeptic forum (such as you) exceeds the median of my mailing list Im sure, and I expected no objections from that comment from the mailing, and forgot that I left that in when posting it here (possibly for other interested people to read) I dont think I have read any evolutionary geneticist say that, and I would not ever argue that there are none, but whatever they are, since humans are not being subjected to natural selection at anywhere near the pace they used to be, the pressures are not very prevalent, wide spread, or notable. Their are the obvious things, AIDS, pollutants, etc (I have read that 10% of the European descendant population is not affected by AIDS, as their immunity was partially built up from a previous massively deadly infection in the middle ages) In any case, I would not say there are *no pressures* but for the purposes of that mailing list it was not worth delving into, and the main point, which was that genetic engineering circumvents that negative effects of selective pressure, remains valid.
<<In these situations populations prosper, but deletrious mutations accumalate with no selection going on to weed them out (a good thing, as the weeding means 'death'.>>
"Selection happens when one genetic trait out reproduces another. Death need not be involved. "
See above. Yes, selection can occur without death, but generally an advantageous mutation makes something more likely to procreate, escape a predator, find food, hide, last longer, etc. etc. etc... The converse of many of these things leads to death.
<<Imagine a pleistocene hunter who is nearsighted, he wouldnt last very long>>
"Even if what you are saying were true (more on this in a moment), you
are misunderstanding how evolution works. Unless it is very severe, nearsightedness
is no longer a disadvantage, just as a reduced ability to catch fish isn't a
disadvantage for a species that colonizes an area without
edible fish. Humans today don't need to be hunters."
Of course it isn't in today's society, and that's my point. I think you misunderstand
what I was trying to say. Near sightedness is indeed no longer a disadvantage,
but it certainly was back then. It is more prevalent now *because* it is no
longer a disadvantage. Instead of starving to death because you can't find prey,
as you would have back then, you just get glasses and go to work today. This
just emphasizes the point that a much
greater *percentage* of the human population requires glasses then the percentage
that were nearsighted / farsighted etc. back when being either of those could
lead to your death (adjusting for age of course, as eyesight deteriorates with
age and humans back then didn't live anywhere near as long life spans as we
do today)
"Furthermore, humans have divided their labor for a long time. It is likely that they have done so since anatomically modern humans were around, at least, if not longer. People tend to do what they do well and let others do what they cannot do well. A nearsighted human could gather, trap, fish, make tools, watch the children or do any number of other tasks instead of hunting. "
Agreed, it was just a quick example, and there can be obvious objections to it in particular instances. But there is no doubt that a human who is nearsighted is at a disadvantage when compared to a non-nearsighted human in a hunter-gatherer society. A disadvantage which increases in proportion to the severity of the affliction (how useful would a blind human be to a hunter gatherer society?) You are focusing on the details, and not the over all message.
<<Yet more and more genetic diseases are accumulating in humans>>
"Are you assuming this or do you know this? I suspect that you think you know something that you don't really know."
I think it's pretty obvious given the reasons above (hand waving, I know, but I really don't think this is an extraordinary claim). If there is no selective pressure restricting the growth of a genetic variation in a population (as there are few today) then that genetic variation is free to propagate throughout the population. Are their more nearsighted / farsighted people as a percentage of the population today then there were 100 years ago? (adjusting for age and other variables) 1,000 years ago? 10,000 years ago? Are there more instances of painful and debilitating genetic diseases in the population today, such as MS, ALS, Anemia, etc. etc. etc. many of which would have meant certain death even 100 years ago?
The point is that there are, and that people don't have to live long painfull lives coping with these things when we can just use genetic engineering to take the place of natural selection which wades with increasing population sizes and mixes and our control over nature, and make all humans healthier and happier, and maybe even quicker and smarter as well.
Regards,
Matus
-----------------------------------
From: MATUS1976 Mar-8 11:47 am
To: WOLFGIRL6 (5 of 11)
822.5 in reply to 822.3
"I'm not suggesting that I have an answer to that problem, because I don't"
I do, its called 'Genetic Engineering' which is exactly what mutations + natural selection was doing. Now its not doing it, so we need to...
Thank you for helping to clarify my other points as well.
Matus
------------------------------------
From: John Shannnonhouse (JOHNSHANNONH) Mar-9 10:43 am
To: WOLFGIRL6 (6 of 11)
822.6 in reply to 822.3
<<The reason that one trait outproduces another is usually because the individuals possessing that trait survive to reproduce and thus pass on that trait, while those not possessing it don't survive (ie. die) long enough to reproduce, which leads to the trait being reproduced more often than not. (Or in the case of a negative trait, the opposite occurs; the individual possessing it may not survive to pass on the bad trait....)>>
While death before reproductive age certainly would be a negative selection, that need not be the only way.
Here are some ways to increase reproductive fitness over your peers without
involving death:
Reproduce at a youger age in a growing population (the longer you wait, the
smaller the proportions of your genes you pass on) Reproduce at an older age
in a shrinking population (similar reasoning) For males, have sex with other
males' mates For females, find the mate with the best terrirtory, most money,
largest family or whatever else to create helpful circumstances, then have sex
with other partners who are more attractive from a genetic standpoint (you may
be surprised to learn how high nonpaternity rates are for married couples) For
males, collect a harem of females Be more physically attractive to increase
your pick of mates Colonize an area with a rapidly growing population to have
children Collect more food, have more money, have a larger family or whatever
to give your children an advantage over others Don't use contraceptives Donate
to sperm banks
<<I think the idea is that negative genetic traits are more likely to be weeded out in a primitive society than in a modern one, which leads to the weakening of the species as a whole when those negative traits are no longer weeded out by the process of natural selection.>>
If it isn't being "weeded out," it is not a negative trait from an evolutionary standpoint. Nearsightedness is not a negative trait in modern society any more than the inability to catch fish is a negative trait where there are no fish to catch. The traits that are advantageous or disadvantageous are different in primitive and modern societies.
------------------------------------
From: John Shannnonhouse (JOHNSHANNONH) Mar-9 11:10 am
To: MATUS1976 (8 of 11)
822.8 in reply to 822.4
It was not intended to be abrasive. I am sorry to give that impression.
<<I certainly wouldnt say that is true, if selective pressures corresponding
to a particular allele make an organism, say, 1% more likely to procreate, it
would take much longer to promulgate through a population of 1,000 then it would
1,000,000 given a definite gestation period. Perhaps my understanding is wrong.
...
Perhaps you can explain the flaw in this line of reasoning.>>
This is what is wrong with your line of reasoning: traits that increases fitness by 1% will arise 1000x more often in a population of 1 million compared to a population of 1000. To put it another way, if this trait has, say, a 1 in 100,000 chance to arise in a given individual, it will be, on average, 100 generations before it arises in a population of one thousand. It will arise, on average, 10 times in the next generation with a population of one million.
The rate of evolution is independent of population size according to population genetics models.
<<I dont think I have read any evolutionary geneticist say that, and I would not ever argue that there are none, but whatever they are, since humans are not being subjected to natural selection at anywhere near the pace they used to be, the pressures are not very prevalent, wide spread, or notable.>>
A plausible hypothesis, but it is entirely untested. I can assure you studies of human populations using molecular genetics have yielded some considerable suprises. For instance, nonpaternity within married couples is almost 10%, and seems to be largely independent of socioeconomic status.
Given current trends, how much higher or lower frequency to you expect to find red hair in two generations in the human population of the United States (not counting immigrants)? Make a rough guess, then figure out what the fitness difference is.
Now I know what some people will think: come on, John, what does red hair have to do with reproductive fitness? (Actually, more than you might think, as the rate of red hair is much higher in every population where it appears with any frequency based on the frequency of alleles. That, however, is another matter.) The answer is that it does not matter why a trait is becomming more or less common. All that matters, from an evolutionary standpoint, is that it is becomming more or less common. So what if it can change in a generation? Selective pressure has no foresight. This is evolutionary and population biology 101.
<paste>
<<Yet more and more genetic diseases are accumulating in humans>>
"Are you assuming this or do you know this? I suspect that you think you know something that you don't really know."
I think it's pretty obvious given the reasons above (hand waving, I know, but
I really don't think this is an extraordinary claim). If there is no selective
pressure restricting the growth of a genetic variation in a population (as there
are few today) then that genetic variation is free to propagate throughout the
population. Are their more nearsighted / farsighted people as a percentage of
the population today then there were 100 years ago? (adjusting for age and other
variables) 1,000 years ago? 10,000 years ago? Are there more instances of painful
and debilitating genetic diseases in the population today, such as MS, ALS,
Anemia, etc. etc. etc. many of which would have meant certain death even 100
years ago?
<end paste>
Interesting questions... How would you try to answer them? Is nearsightedness higher frequency today than in the paleolithic?
One thing that my science background has taught me is that you cannot assume such things. I, personally, would not be suprised if genetic nearsightedness is more common that in preagrarian times, and I would not be suprised if it were just as common today as in prehistoric times.
Here is a bit of food for thought:
If, say, someone were to develop a genetic aversion to using contraceptives,
it would not have been an advantage in the paleolithic. Today, that person's
descendents would be poised to rule the future.
----------------------------------------
From: WOLFGIRL6 Mar-11 3:46 pm
To: MATUS1976 (10 of 11)
822.10 in reply to 822.5
Matus said: I do, it called 'Genetic Engineering' which is exactly what
mutations + natural selection was doing. Now its not doing it, so we need
to...
Well, that's the part I find scary. While I agree that we've removed natural selection from the evolutionary process to a great extent for humans, I don't agree that genetic engineering is the answer. Or perhaps what I mean is that I don't trust us to do genetic engineering. While natural selection is impartial and only selects for those traits which are truly beneficial, I fear that we would try to create some sort of "master race" of "beautiful people," rather than only concerning ourselves with genetically positive or negative traits. I guess my position is that I understand the possible necessity of genetic engineering, but I truly fear the long-term consequences of such a thing. It may start out on the right track, trying to get rid of diseases and such, but would almost inevitably end up trying to get rid of anything that "somebody" (and who says who that should be?) finds distasteful or unpleasant.
--------------------------------------
From: MATUS1976 Mar-12 10:17 am
To: WOLFGIRL6 (11 of 11)
822.11 in reply to 822.10
Matus said: I do, it called 'Genetic Engineering' which is exactly what mutations + natural selection was doing. Now its not doing it, so we need to...
"Well, that's the part I find scary. While I agree that we've removed natural selection from the evolutionary process to a great extent for humans, I don't agree that genetic engineering is the answer. Or perhaps what I mean is that I don't trust us to do genetic engineering. While natural selection is impartial and only selects for those traits which are truly beneficial, I fear that we would try to create some sort of "master race" of "beautiful people," rather than only concerning ourselves with genetically positive or negative traits."
Natural selection does not limit itself to only things that are usefull, indeed, a part of natural selection, sexual selection, is responsible for most every rediculous thing seen in the animal kingdom, the peacock's tail being a prime example. Does it serve a usefull function (beyond winning the affection of a pea-hen?) No, not really. I disagree strongly with the 'master race' analogy you make, especially since that was a state sanctioned activity on the part of the government of germany. That is, ALL children MUST look like this.
What we are talking about is significantly different, it is not a corrupt despotic government dictating how your children should look, it is the free choice and will of the parent to create a child as they see fit. Indeed, outlawing genetic engineering does the OPPOSITE, _that_ is state santioned enforcement of a 'master race' (that is, one that is not 'tampered with' or 'played god by' pesky arrogant humans)
We give our children braces, contact lenses, and minor surgery to seperate web toes, deformed backbones, and thousands of other such things. It would be far more beneficial, that is, safer and less painfull, to simply remove the gene for an overbite / crooked teeth, nearsightedness, or scoleosis.
I cant see any one 'race' ever being considered the 'one' correct race by all humans (who will eventually all have access to genetic engineering) Why would an Asian couple choose to have a non-asian baby? Why would a euro-caucasian couple decide to have a non-euro caucasian baby? Indeed, these superficial differences will probably be ignored as parents will focus on important things (especially when the repercussions of these things is known, why pay for a baby to have a particular skin tone when instead you could pay for it be more intelligent?)
They will indeed be 'designer' babies and a 'master race' but each baby will be designed by their own parents (who is more fit to make that choice) that that 'master race' will be the choosing of that particular couple, and given the variety of couples freely making that choice, the 'master race' from genetic engineering will be as diverse as the current sampling of the human population, expect it will be healthier, happier, more intelligent and live longer lives.
You have to be carefull when drawing analogies to past circumstances, merely because the Nazis practiced artificial selection and behaved in an immoral and unethical manner does not mean that *all* instances of natural selection need turn out in that way.
We can choose the 'traits' of our cars, our houses, and our clothing, yet there is no 'master' car, house, or article of clothing, and these are as varied throughout the human populace as genetic variation is. Indeed, the opposite, government control, is where you have an 'official' car, house, or article of clothing that everyone must where and abide by. Similiarly, taking the choice of genetics away from parents and into the hands of the government (especially backwards old guys ignorant of basic science) will have far more devastating consequencies than the uniqueness and diversity that comes from individual choice and freedoms.
"It may start out on the right track, trying to get rid of diseases and such, but would almost inevitably end up trying to get rid of anything that "somebody" (and who says who that should be?) finds distasteful or unpleasant. "
I am saying that the 'somebody' who decides what traits stay and what traits go should be the parents! Who best to make that decision than the parents? (besides the individual themselves, but that is still many more years off) It is that decision in the hands of the government that we should be concerned and worried about...
Also, I would like to point out that humans value things that are scarce or rare. Supermodel bodies are valued because there are only seven or so of them in the world. Lamborghini's are valued because only the rich can have them. There is a principle in economics, called the diminishing margin of utility, in which the more prevelant something is (especially arbitrary material things) the less valuable it is. When genetic engineering is widespread and inexpensive (which it someday will be) being a supermodel wont be valuable, as anyone can be one. And instead, (I think) people will begin focussing on things less arbitrary and that can not be so readily replicated by genes, things that take time and determination to accomplish. That is, the things that make life worth living like art, music, culture, science... All the while humans will all be healhty, fit, and intelligent. What is so scary about this world?
Regards,
Matus
------------------------------------------