Article: How good is our genome?

Robert Karl Stonjek said:

How good is our genome?

Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences
fobike://rsl/rtb January 29, 2004, vol. 359, no. 1441,
pp. 95-98(4)
l/rtb/2004/00000359/00001441 Weill J-C.[1]; Radman M.[1]

[1] Faculte de Medecine Necker Enfants-Malades, Université
de Paris-V, Paris, France

Abstract: Our genome has evolved to perpetuate itself
through the maintenance of the species via an
uninterrupted chain of reproductive somas.

The genome is an entity capable of looking to the future?

Quoted message said:

Accordingly, evolution is not concerned with diseases
occurring after the soma's reproductive stage.

There is no such person as "evolution". Attributing agency
to a completely natural process causes no end of confusion,
especially among the scientifically uninformed, eg
journalists.

Quoted message said:

Following Richard Dawkins, we would like to reassert that
we indeed live as disposable somas, slaves of our germline
genome, but could soon start rebelling against such
slavery.

If the authors are infatuated with metaphors, they should
become poets in their spare time, and restrict themselves to
technical language when writing about biology.

Quoted message said:

Cancer and its relation to the TP53 gene may offer a
paradigmatic example. The observation that the latency
period in cancer can be prolonged in mice by increasing
the number of TP53 genes in their genome, suggests that
sooner or later we will have to address the question of
heritable disease avoidance via the manipulation of the
human germline.

True; but new?

Quoted message said:

Keywords: evolution; germline modification; cancer;
latency; p53

Document Type: Research article ISSN: 0962-8436

DOI (article): 10.1098/rstb.2003.1369 SICI (online): 0962-8436(20040129)359:1441L.95;1-
Publisher: Royal Society

Well I'd like to think as a 38 year old male my genome is
better than just shooting out a wad during my reproductive
years. In fact, men (I've read) can shoot out viable
reproductive wads quite late into their years although there
is a greater risk of mutation of sperm as age advances. With
women the situation is a little different (I've read) and
past the age of 40 there dramatically increased risks
regarding viable pregnancy and childbirth. (I hope the
moderator posts this because I'm tired of such statements,
"Following Richard Dawkins, we would like to reassert that
we indeed live as disposable somas, slaves of our germline
genome."😉 That's it the human race has little brains. Like a
maggot it lives to reproduce itself. This is true in
Darwinian terms but let us hope this remains not so.

I'd point out here that at least in medically advanced
Western nations longevity has increased. Yes, there are more
diseases after reproductive age but many are treatable and
this person can live to be 70, 80, etc. Are 70 and 80 year
old men disposable somas, slaves of the germline process?

I see possible validity, however, with the abstract's
statement, "Cancer and its relation to the TP53 gene may
offer a paradigmatic example. The observation that the
latency period in cancer can be prolonged in mice by
increasing the number of TP53 genes in their genome,
suggests that sooner or later we will have to address the
question of heritable disease avoidance via the manipulation
of the human germline."

Possibly with such gene therapy there is the possibility of
eliminating genetic diseases. Will we then live totally as
disposable somas, slaves of our germline genome? I'm
interested in the possible relationship between heritable
disease avoidance and genetic engineering. It would seem to
me this is a form of gene therapy by increasing the number
of TP53 genes in mice genomes. But there is the potential
maybe such heritable disease avoidance gene therapy may lead
to genetic engineering applications.

Michael Ragland

How good is our genome?

Group: sci.bio.evolution Date: Tue, Jun 29, 2004, 4:10pm
(EDT+4) From: [email hidden] (Robert Karl Stonjek)
How good is our genome?   Philosophical Transactions:
Biological Sciences fobike://rsl/rtb January 29, 2004, vol.
359, no. 1441,   pp. 95-98(4)
l/rtb/2004/00000359/00001441 Weill J-C.[1]; Radman M.[1]
[1] Faculte de Medecine Necker Enfants-Malades, Université
de Paris-V, Paris, France

Abstract: Our genome has evolved to perpetuate itself
through the maintenance of the species via an uninterrupted
chain of reproductive somas. Accordingly, evolution is not
concerned with diseases occurring after the soma's
reproductive stage. Following Richard Dawkins, we would like
to reassert that we indeed live as disposable somas, slaves
of our germline genome, but could soon start rebelling
against such slavery. Cancer and its relation to the TP53
gene may offer a paradigmatic example. The observation that
the latency period in cancer can be prolonged in mice by
increasing the number of TP53 genes in their genome,
suggests that sooner or later we will have to address the
question of heritable disease avoidance via the manipulation
of the human germline. Keywords: evolution; germline
modification; cancer; latency; p53 Document Type: Research
article ISSN: 0962-8436 DOI (article):
10.1098/rstb.2003.1369 SICI (online): 0962-8436(20040129)359:1441L.95;1-
Publisher:     Royal Society
--
Posted by Robert Karl Stonjek.

"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term
survival value." Stephen Hawking

in article [email hidden], [email hidden] at
[email hidden] wrote on 6/30/04 8:35 AM:

Quoted message said:

Robert Karl Stonjek said:

How good is our genome?

Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences
fobike://rsl/rtb January 29, 2004, vol. 359, no. 1441,
pp. 95-98(4)
l/rtb/2004/00000359/00001441 Weill J-C.[1]; Radman M.[1]

[1] Faculte de Medecine Necker Enfants-Malades,
Université de Paris-V, Paris, France

Abstract: Our genome has evolved to perpetuate itself
through the maintenance of the species via an
uninterrupted chain of reproductive somas.

The genome is an entity capable of looking to the future?

Interestingly, the answer is yes. That is why natural
selection is able to cause adaptive genomic evolution.
The mechanisms of genetics result in the encoding of the
past into the genome, which effectively allows it to
predict the future. If the past, or memories thereof, was
too poor at predicting the future, then heritable changes
within populations in response to natural selection would
not result in adaptive evolution. It would just amplify
the noise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Accordingly, evolution is not concerned with diseases
occurring after the soma's reproductive stage.

There is no such person as "evolution". Attributing agency
to a completely natural process causes no end of
confusion, especially among the scientifically uninformed,
eg journalists.

I don't disagree with your plea for careful wording, but it
does seem a bit like quibbling here. You could, for example,
think of evolution as a process, rather than merely a
pattern (outcome of processes). Dissipative processes, like
convection (and I argue evolution), are generally
indistinguishable from their entified dynamical structures
(e.g., a convection cell). Such process/structures can have
agency, and one might argue that evolution/bioshpere is such
a process structure.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Following Richard Dawkins, we would like to reassert that
we indeed live as disposable somas, slaves of our
germline genome, but could soon start rebelling against
such slavery.

If the authors are infatuated with metaphors, they should
become poets in their spare time, and restrict themselves
to technical language when writing about biology.

Quoted message said:

Cancer and its relation to the TP53 gene may offer a
paradigmatic example. The observation that the latency
period in cancer can be prolonged in mice by increasing
the number of TP53 genes in their genome, suggests that
sooner or later we will have to address the question of
heritable disease avoidance via the manipulation of the
human germline.

True; but new?

Regards,

Guy

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Following Richard Dawkins, we would like to reassert
that we indeed live as disposable somas, slaves of our
germline genome, but could soon start rebelling against
such slavery.

If the authors are infatuated with metaphors, they should
become poets in their spare time, and restrict themselves
to technical language when writing about biology.

This raises some quite deep issues. The problem is that it
is exceedingly difficult to avoid metaphors even in
technical speech. For instance you say the authors should
"restrict" themselves to technical language, but "restrict"
is from the Latin "to bind back tight". What makes your dead
metaphor less of a metaphor than "slaves of our germline
genome?". When we talk about abstract things we usually use
words derived ultimately from the world of concrete things.

The most ridiculous word in this passage, "soma", is in fact
a technical term. Inappropriate use of technical language is
often done to make a social point, in this case that the
authors are scientists and thus that their opinions are
privileged.

(More of a linguistics post than an evolution one. I don't
think I've told anyone on this ng that I have a degree in
English as well as one in biology.)

[email hidden] wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How good is our genome?

Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Abstract: Our genome has evolved to perpetuate itself
through the maintenance of the species via an
uninterrupted chain of reproductive somas.

The genome is an entity capable of looking to the future?

That does not seem like a very fair summary of that
sentence.

Past events have increased the ability of the genome to
perpetuate itself. That can happen because the current state
often resembles the one that ancestors experienced.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Accordingly, evolution is not concerned with diseases
occurring after the soma's reproductive stage.

There is no such person as "evolution". Attributing agency
to a completely natural process causes no end of
confusion, especially among the scientifically uninformed,
eg journalists.

It's commonplace. When an entity acts in an apparently
purposeful manner (as biological entities and evolution do)
it often helps humans understand the agency if they can
identify with it. I would argue that this causes more
understanding than misunderstanding - since it takes
advantage of a slew of psychological equipment originally
"designed" for understanding other people. I.e. putting
yourself in the position of the agent very often helps
people to understand it better.

In this example there's no possibilty of misunderstanding -
since if you *really* do take the notion that evolution is a
person literally, it is obviously totally idiotic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Following Richard Dawkins, we would like to reassert
that we indeed live as disposable somas, slaves of our
germline genome, but could soon start rebelling against
such slavery.

If the authors are infatuated with metaphors, they should
become poets in their spare time, and restrict themselves
to technical language when writing about biology.

IMO, such language helps more than it hinders. If you
confine your language to non-anthropomorphic terms, it takes
twice as long to say anything - and by the time you have
finished, the result is not as clear.

If you can't stand hearing about selfish strategies, the
wisdom of the genes, outlaw genes - and the like - it's
probably time to get out of biology - that's the only
realistic way of escaping such terminology.
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove
lock to reply.

Guy Hoelzer said:

in article [email hidden],
[email hidden] at [email hidden]
wrote on 6/30/04 8:35 AM:

Quoted message said:

Robert Karl Stonjek said:

How good is our genome?

Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences
fobike://rsl/rtb January 29, 2004, vol. 359, no. 1441,
pp. 95-98(4)
l/rtb/2004/00000359/00001441 Weill J-C.[1]; Radman M.[1]

[1] Faculte de Medecine Necker Enfants-Malades,
Université de Paris-V, Paris, France

Abstract: Our genome has evolved to perpetuate itself
through the maintenance of the species via an
uninterrupted chain of reproductive somas.

The genome is an entity capable of looking to the future?

Interestingly, the answer is yes. That is why natural
selection is able to cause adaptive genomic evolution.
The mechanisms of genetics result in the encoding of the
past into the genome, which effectively allows it to
predict the future. If the past, or memories thereof, was
too poor at predicting the future, then heritable changes
within populations in response to natural selection would
not result in adaptive evolution. It would just amplify
the noise.

You mean some mutations, some recombinations, some
translocations and some chromosomal rearrangements are more
probable than others as a result of a genomic memory of what
worked in the past?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Accordingly, evolution is not concerned with diseases
occurring after the soma's reproductive stage.

There is no such person as "evolution". Attributing agency
to a completely natural process causes no end of
confusion, especially among the scientifically uninformed,
eg journalists.

I don't disagree with your plea for careful wording, but
it does seem a bit like quibbling here. You could, for
example, think of evolution as a process, rather than
merely a pattern (outcome of processes). Dissipative
processes, like convection (and I argue evolution), are
generally indistinguishable from their entified dynamical
structures (e.g., a convection cell). Such
process/structures can have agency, and one might argue
that evolution/bioshpere is such a process structure.

Anything that has agency can decide to do or not to do a
certain thing. That is what agency means. Can "convection"
decide whether or not it wants to get warmer air into the
upper bedrooms of your house?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Following Richard Dawkins, we would like to reassert that
we indeed live as disposable somas, slaves of our
germline genome, but could soon start rebelling against
such slavery.

If the authors are infatuated with metaphors, they should
become poets in their spare time, and restrict themselves
to technical language when writing about biology.

Quoted message said:

Cancer and its relation to the TP53 gene may offer a
paradigmatic example. The observation that the latency
period in cancer can be prolonged in mice by increasing
the number of TP53 genes in their genome, suggests that
sooner or later we will have to address the question of
heritable disease avoidance via the manipulation of the
human germline.

True; but new?

Regards,

Guy

Malcolm said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Following Richard Dawkins, we would like to reassert that
we indeed live as disposable somas, slaves of our
germline genome, but could soon start rebelling against
such slavery.

If the authors are infatuated with metaphors, they should
become poets in their spare time, and restrict themselves
to technical language when writing about biology.

This raises some quite deep issues. The problem is that it
is exceedingly difficult to avoid metaphors even in
technical speech.

..or any other kind; see Philosophy in the Flesh : The
Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought by George
Lakoff, Mark Johnson (warning: the book somehow manages to
be both interesting and crushingly dull at the same time)

For instance you say

Quoted message said:

the authors should "restrict" themselves to technical
language, but "restrict" is from the Latin "to bind back
tight". What makes your dead metaphor less of a metaphor
than "slaves of our germline genome?".

The slave metaphor appears to be used in this case for the
purpose of creating a sensation, spicing up an otherwise
dull abstract, catching the attention of the editors; it is
hopelessly inappropriate, because it does not in any way
capture the nature of our relationship to our genome. In
fact, as became clear during the media blitz surrounding the
HGP, there is no correct metaphor for the relationship - the
genome has to be understood in its own terms.

When we

Quoted message said:

talk about abstract things we usually use words derived
ultimately from the world of concrete things.

The most ridiculous word in this passage, "soma", is in
fact a technical term. Inappropriate use of technical
language is often done to make a social point, in this
case that the authors are scientists and thus that their
opinions are privileged.

(More of a linguistics post than an evolution one. I don't
think I've told anyone on this ng that I have a degree in
English as well as one in biology.)

Don't you find passages like the above hopelessly jejune and
infelicitous? Would you write that way?

[email hidden] wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

Malcolm wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Following Richard Dawkins, we would like to reassert
>that we indeed live as disposable somas, slaves of our
>germline genome, but could soon start rebelling against
>such slavery.

[...]

Quoted message said:

The slave metaphor appears to be used in this case for the
purpose of creating a sensation, spicing up an otherwise
dull abstract, catching the attention of the editors;

?

Quoted message said:

it is hopelessly inappropriate, because it does not in any
way capture the nature of our relationship to our genome.

Slaves do the bidding of their masters. So bodies are
observed to behave in a manner that furthers the interests
of the genes that constructed them (assuming those interests
may be considered to be making copies of themselves).

If there something wrong with this metaphor it is not
obvious to me - I regard it as appropriate and perfectly
conventional.

Rebellion against slavery is also clear enough - it would
represent bodies acting *against* the best interests of the
genes that built them.

Dawkins usually gives the example of contraception at this
point as something obviously maladaptive. A terrible example
- IMO - since it ignores things like AIDS - and that getting
pregnant (or getting your girlfriend pregnant) is not always
the best plan in the face of marriage customs and cheap
abortions - but the nontheless the idea being conveyed is
simple and clear enough.
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove
lock to reply.

Michael Ragland said:

Ekurtz The genome is an entity capable of looking to
the future?

Quoted message said:

Guy: Interestingly, the answer is yes. That is why
natural selection is able to cause adaptive genomic
evolution. The mechanisms of genetics result in the
encoding of the past into the genome, which effectively
allows it to predict the future. If the past, or memories
thereof, was too poor at predicting the future, then
heritable changes within populations in response to
natural selection would not result in adaptive evolution.
It would just amplify the noise.

Quoted message said:

Ragland: I agree with you but this process of the genome
being an entity capable of looking into the future is in
some ways at least quite evolutionarily slow. Second,
although the genome is an entity capable of looking into
its future its not like a crystal ball to us where we
can exactly determine its future. "It's uncertain
whether intelligence has any long term survival value."
Stephen Hawking

JE:- The units of time that Darwinism can attempt to predict
within is the time required for one selectee to reproduce a
completed total of fertile offspring into one population.
This Darwinian time frame varies between species and
individuals within any species but is does remain an
objective (finite) amount of time per Darwinian selectee
(fertile form).

Please note that if anybody suggests that "survival value"
is somehow a measure of Darwinian fitness then they do not
understand evolutionary theory. "Survival value" was derived
from Herbert Spencer's "survival of the fittest" jingle
which remains almost the only thing non specialists remember
about Darwinism. Unfortunately it entirely misrepresents
Darwinism. Spencer was responsible for bending Darwinism to
the service of the dictatorial political right and has the
dubious honour of being the first (of many) to distort
Darwinism for political purposes.

Regards,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email hidden]