in article [email hidden], Michael Ragland at
[email hidden] wrote on 9/30/03 10:51 AM:
Quoted message said:You're a relic of the past Mr. Smith. Granted the majority > think
like you but the science of genetic engineering is > here to stay. Compared to what it will
accomplish > (assuming we don't destroy ourselves) is infinitely more > than what has thus far been
accomplished in this young > science.
SMITH: Engineering is not science. Science is a bout trying to understand the natural world.
Engineering is about creating artifacts that will perform hopefully in a predictable way
RAGLAND: Disingenous reply. Science leads to genetic engineering.
Quoted message said:Genetic engineering doesn't need to create a 'whole > organism' to
create a new organism. Any mutation results > in a 'new organism'. You can't see the forest for the
Quoted message said:trees. Certainly a few mutations resulting from genetic > engineering aren't going to outdo the
complexity of Darwinian evolution. But a growing and > increasing
series of various genetically engineered > mutations will profoundly change the human organism and >
make it much more complex.
SMITH: Or simpler even, how can we tell the diffenence RAGLAND: Our DNA only contains so many bits
of information. By increasing that we increase the complexity of the organism. How can we tell? I'm
sure there will be research and tests which determine superior intelligence in specific areas, etc.
Quoted message said:Many talk about how complex our biology is as a result of Darwinian evolution. > I think
one of the things modern genetics has taught us is > that we aren't as 'complex' as we thing we are.
We share > genes with many other organisms, including flies. How's > that for complexity.
SMITH:
determination is extremely complicated . They can grow from one fertilized cell to an organism that
can fly around avoiding things in real time with a brain not a lot bigger that a pin head. What
makes you think we are any more or less complex that we are. All we can say about either humans o
flies is that they are probably more complex than they need to be
RAGLAND: Is a turd more complex than it needs to be? Seriously, yes flies are enormously complex as
are ants, viruses, etc. Are we any more or less complex than they are? That's a tough one to call
but I don't think flies have much knowledge of the complexity of human beings. We on the other hand
do have an understanding of the enormous complexity of the fly. If you use that as a measuring stick
for complexity we are more complex. I must admit, however, I've come across many humans who don't
seem much more complex than a fly. Our tremendous lack of knowledge about creatures and the universe
shouldn't be mistaken as a sign things are necessarily more complex than they need to be.
Quoted message said:The process of genetic canalization retains features across species > despite natural
selection. Arguably one of the big tasks > in the future will be to break this canalization through
Quoted message said:different specific genetically engineered mutations. The > jelly fish glow gene has been
enormously helpful in > research because it flourescence has identifying > qualities. It has been
inserted into many organisms, > including cats and a primate.
SMITH: Do the jelly fish find this gene useful or the cats or the primates. Yes it is a very useful
tool for studying gene expression.
RAGLAND: I doubt cats and primates find it useful. Since its naturally occurring in Jellyfish it
must be a feature of evolution.
Quoted message said:Natural selection is no longer viable. In our evolutionary past war, famine, disease and the
strongest male winning > mating
rights was necessary due to predators. Today, the > only real predators are man preying on man. Our
science > and technology has advanced to the point where Darwinian > evolution poses a direct threat
to the continued existence > of the human species. I don't know about where you live > but in my
location people have not stopped dying. As long > as people die and as long as their is some
heritable > component to their mortality then selection is still > operating. Not to mention mate
selection and differential > reproduction Genetically engineered viruses
Quoted message said:(intentional or accidental) and nuclear weapons have the > potential
to cause the extinction of us. Natural selection > is not complex compared to what would replace it
with > genetic engineering. Of course, such
Quoted message said:genetic engineering is at least 100 years or more away > from
occurring. In the interval we will hear plenty of > people like you.
SMITH: Old relics like myself can remember the same arguments about the genetic engineering of
plasmids and phages in the late 70's and early eighties of the last century. Since then vast amounts
of DNA from many species have been inserted into a many different vectors like ecoli plasmids phages
and yeast artificial chromosomes. And not a single plague as happened in that time.
RAGLAND: You should read the article Robert Karl Stonjek posted about scientists purposefully
genetic engineering mousepox to make it lethal.
SMITH: It has been a huge disappointment really. In that time natural selection in its clumsy
way has had such recent successes as SARS ( OK it was a bit of a fizzer). Ebola, Aids and Tb is
now becoming more of a problem due to drug resistance. Genetic engineerings best hope for fame
will be the transfer of "Round up" resistance to weeds. And even then it is like to be the
result of selction
RAGLAND: You seem very narrowminded in your perspective regarding the tremendous possibilities of
genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is hear to stay. Natural selection MUST be done away with.
I grant you this won't happen for hundreds of years and in the meantime I can assure you many
horrors will happen. Thank Darwinian evolution.