The Engineered Future and The New Organisms

<< The Engineered Future
=====================

In this essay I express my conviction that eventually organisms will come to have
engineered genomes.

As the references of this essay indicate, there are quite a few others with similar views out there
- this essay publicly adds my name to the list.

--> alife.co.ukengineered futureOpen ↗ <--

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Very nice essay here. Well done. I would add one comment. If, as I suggest, the bulk of excessive
male violence is caused by repressed inner conflicts between desires of self and group - then there
is a way to resolve this anger and end excessive violence - including unreasonable war. Now IF we
are learning this now, and life is similar everywhere, and this is a basic dichotomy of male/female
which in turn is a basic dichotomy of temp - THEN our alien visitors will have known this too. And
they will not be plagued by repressed male inner conflicts. Tom Hendricks, ed. of Musea (now
celebrating our 10th year) musea.digitalchainsaw.commusea.digitalchainsaw.comOpen ↗

For a list of the Corp. Art Weasels cjr.orgownersOpen ↗

in article [email hidden], Tim Tyler at [email hidden] wrote
on 9/16/03 2:11 AM:

Quoted message said:

I've authored a couple of new essays on evolution-related topics.

Both essays are fairly short and straight-forwards.

The Engineered Future
=====================

In this essay I express my conviction that eventually organisms will come to have engineered
genomes.

As the references of this essay indicate, there are quite a few others with similar views out
there - this essay publicly adds my name to the list.

--> alife.co.ukengineered futureOpen ↗ <--

I have quickly read this article an would like to find the following comments

Engineering versus evolution

You seem to suggest that engineering is in some way "better" than evolution and that genomes will be
engineered. I would like to take issue with this. Engineering is pretty young and has achieved quite
a lot. It has in now way produced artifacts of its process of a complexity that has in anyway
approached the complexity of the biological artifacts of the evolutionary process. While selection
is an incredibly wasteful process it is extremely resourceful.

"Now that human beings have arrived on the scene, new possibilities have opened up for making new
organisms.

In particular, design and engineering can now be employed."

Is this true. What new organisms have we made or could we make. As far as I know we have not got any
closer to the de novo synthesis of organism. All we have been able to do is introduce specific
mutations into the genomes of some organisms.

" Similarly recombination will no longer be a process of finding a mate and mixing their genes with
your own. Instead, the entire biosphere will be a potential reserve of useful genes which might
prospectively be employed. Nor need one creature be picked as a mate - instead genes from any number
of creatures could be used. "

This is suggests we have some understanding of what genes we want to incorporate. Considering
introducing genes from one population to another often has unexpected effects what make you think
that we would no how to create the phenotypes we want by picking and mixing lengths of nucleic acid
from different species. These genes may have a completely different meaning out side the context of
there genomes.

Genetic engineering is just another source of mutation and has been a spectacular failure when
compared to simple selection. It has and will continue to make us aware of how complex powerful
selection is.

--

Phillip Smith phills@(buggger).co.nz replace bugger with ihug applied-evolution.co.nzapplied-evolution.co.nzOpen ↗

"he who is smeared with blubber has the kindest heart" -- a Greenland Eskimo adage

"phillip smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in article [email hidden], Tim Tyler at

[email hidden] wrote

Quoted message said:

on 9/16/03 2:11 AM:

Quoted message said:

I've authored a couple of new essays on

evolution-related topics.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Both essays are fairly short and straight-forwards.

The Engineered Future
=====================

In this essay I express my conviction that eventually organisms will come to have engineered
genomes.

As the references of this essay indicate, there are quite a few others with similar views out
there - this essay publicly adds my name to the list.

--> alife.co.ukengineered futureOpen ↗ <--

I have quickly read this article an would like to find the

following

Quoted message said:

comments

Engineering versus evolution

You seem to suggest that engineering is in some way

"better" than evolution

Quoted message said:

and that genomes will be engineered. I would like to take issue with this. Engineering is

pretty young and has

Quoted message said:

achieved quite a lot. It has in now way produced artifacts

of its process of

Quoted message said:

a complexity that has in anyway approached the complexity

of the biological

Quoted message said:

artifacts of the evolutionary process. While selection is

an incredibly

Quoted message said:

wasteful process it is extremely resourceful.

As you indicate yourself, genomic science is essentially brand new. Give us another millennium or
two and then say that.

Quoted message said:

"Now that human beings have arrived on the scene, new

possibilities have

Quoted message said:

opened up for making new organisms.

In particular, design and engineering can now be

employed."

Quoted message said:

Is this true. What new organisms have we made or could we

make. As far as I

Quoted message said:

know we have not got any closer to the de novo synthesis

of organism. All we

Quoted message said:

have been able to do is introduce specific mutations into

the genomes of

Quoted message said:

some organisms.

Aw, c'mon, synthesis of new organisms totally from scratch isn't necessary--extreme gene-modified
existing organisms will eventually be radical enough to be classified as "new" organisms.
Eventually, we'll be able to create human-dolphin hybrids with hands, able to live in the sea--what
would you classify them as?

Quoted message said:

" Similarly recombination will no longer be a process of

finding a mate and

Quoted message said:

mixing their genes with your own. Instead, the entire

biosphere will be a

Quoted message said:

potential reserve of useful genes which might

prospectively be employed. Nor

Quoted message said:

need one creature be picked as a mate - instead genes from

any number of

Quoted message said:

creatures could be used. "

This is suggests we have some understanding of what genes

we want to

Quoted message said:

incorporate. Considering introducing genes from one

population to another

Quoted message said:

often has unexpected effects what make you think that we

would no how to

Quoted message said:

create the phenotypes we want by picking and mixing

lengths of nucleic acid

Quoted message said:

from different species. These genes may have a completely

different meaning

Quoted message said:

out side the context of there genomes.

Genetic engineering is just another source of mutation and

has been a

Quoted message said:

spectacular failure when compared to simple selection. It

has and will

Quoted message said:

continue to make us aware of how complex powerful

selection is.

Quoted message said:

--

Phillip Smith phills@(buggger).co.nz replace bugger with ihug applied-evolution.co.nzapplied-evolution.co.nzOpen ↗

"he who is smeared with blubber has the kindest heart" --

a Greenland Eskimo

Quoted message said:

adage

"Michael Ragland" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

phillip smith <[email hidden]> wrote in

message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in article [email hidden], Tim Tyler

at [email hidden] wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

on 9/16/03 2:11 AM:

Quoted message said:

I've authored a couple of new essays on

evolution-related topics.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Both essays are fairly short and straight-forwards.

The Engineered Future
=====================

In this essay I express my conviction that eventually organisms will come to have engineered
genomes.

As the references of this essay indicate, there are quite a few others with similar views out
there - this essay publicly adds my name to the list.

--> alife.co.ukengineered futureOpen ↗ <--

I have quickly read this article an would like to find

the following

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

comments

Engineering versus evolution

You seem to suggest that engineering is in some way

"better" than evolution

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and that genomes will be engineered. I would like to take issue with this. Engineering is

pretty young and has

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

achieved quite a lot. It has in now way produced

artifacts of its process of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a complexity that has in anyway approached the

complexity of the biological

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

artifacts of the evolutionary process. While selection

is an incredibly

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wasteful process it is extremely resourceful.

"Now that human beings have arrived on the scene, new

possibilities have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

opened up for making new organisms.

In particular, design and engineering can now be

employed."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is this true. What new organisms have we made or could

we make. As far as I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

know we have not got any closer to the de novo synthesis

of organism. All we

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have been able to do is introduce specific mutations

into the genomes of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

some organisms.

" Similarly recombination will no longer be a process of

finding a mate and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mixing their genes with your own. Instead, the entire

biosphere will be a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

potential reserve of useful genes which might

prospectively be employed. Nor

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

need one creature be picked as a mate - instead genes

from any number of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

creatures could be used. "

This is suggests we have some understanding of what

genes we want to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

incorporate. Considering introducing genes from one

population to another

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

often has unexpected effects what make you think that we

would no how to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

create the phenotypes we want by picking and mixing

lengths of nucleic acid

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

from different species. These genes may have a

completely different meaning

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

out side the context of there genomes.

Genetic engineering is just another source of mutation

and has been a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

spectacular failure when compared to simple selection.

It has and will

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

continue to make us aware of how complex powerful

selection is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

--

Phillip Smith phills@(buggger).co.nz replace bugger with ihug applied-evolution.co.nzapplied-evolution.co.nzOpen ↗

"he who is smeared with blubber has the kindest

heart" -- a Greenland Eskimo

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

adage

You're a relic of the past Mr. Smith. Granted the majority

think like

Quoted message said:

you but the science of genetic engineering is here to

stay. Compared

Quoted message said:

to what it will accomplish (assuming we don't destroy

ourselves) is

Quoted message said:

infinitely more than what has thus far been accomplished

in this young

Quoted message said:

science. Genetic engineering doesn't need to create a

'whole organism'

Quoted message said:

to create a new organism. Any mutation results in a 'new

organism'.

Quoted message said:

You can't see the forest for the trees. Certainly a few

mutations

Quoted message said:

resulting from genetic engineering aren't going to outdo

the

Quoted message said:

complexity of Darwinian evolution. But a growing and

increasing series

Quoted message said:

of various genetically engineered mutations will

profoundly change the

Quoted message said:

human organism and make it much more complex. Many talk

about how

Quoted message said:

complex our biology is as a result of Darwinian evolution.

I think one

Quoted message said:

of the things modern genetics has taught us is that we

aren't as

Quoted message said:

'complex' as we thing we are. We share genes with many

other

Quoted message said:

organisms, including flies. How's that for complexity. The

process of

Quoted message said:

genetic canalization retains features across species

despite natural

Quoted message said:

selection. Arguably one of the big tasks in the future

will be to

Quoted message said:

break this canalization through different specific

genetically

Quoted message said:

engineered mutations. The jelly fish glow gene has been

enormously

Quoted message said:

helpful in research because it flourescence has

identifying qualities.

Quoted message said:

It has been inserted into many organisms, including cats

and a

Quoted message said:

primate. Natural selection is no longer viable. In our

evolutionary

Quoted message said:

past war, famine, disease and the strongest male winning

mating rights

Quoted message said:

was necessary due to predators. Today, the only real

predators are man

Quoted message said:

preying on man. Our science and technology has advanced to

the point

Quoted message said:

where Darwinian evolution poses a direct threat to the

continued

Quoted message said:

existence of the human species. Genetically engineered

viruses

Quoted message said:

(intentional or accidental) and nuclear weapons have the

potential to

Quoted message said:

cause the extinction of us. Natural selection is not

complex compared

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

In the interval we will hear plenty of people like you.

Michael Ragland

Indeed! Our great^n grandchildren on Arcturus 4 may well exhibit that jellyfish glow to make them
safer when playing and flying in aero-traffic using their newly _grown_ butterfly wings made of diamond-
boron nitride composites reinforced with organo-nanotubules. 🙂) ...tonyC

phillip smith <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

in article [email hidden], Tim Tyler at [email hidden] wrote on 9/16/03 2:11 AM:

Quoted message said:

I've authored a couple of new essays on evolution-related topics.

Both essays are fairly short and straight-forwards.

The Engineered Future
=====================

In this essay I express my conviction that eventually organisms will come to have engineered
genomes.

As the references of this essay indicate, there are quite a few others with similar views out
there - this essay publicly adds my name to the list.

--> alife.co.ukengineered futureOpen ↗ <--

I have quickly read this article an would like to find the following comments

Engineering versus evolution

You seem to suggest that engineering is in some way "better" than evolution and that genomes will
be engineered. I would like to take issue with this. Engineering is pretty young and has achieved
quite a lot. It has in now way produced artifacts of its process of a complexity that has in
anyway approached the complexity of the biological artifacts of the evolutionary process. While
selection is an incredibly wasteful process it is extremely resourceful.

"Now that human beings have arrived on the scene, new possibilities have opened up for making new
organisms.

In particular, design and engineering can now be employed."

Is this true. What new organisms have we made or could we make. As far as I know we have not got
any closer to the de novo synthesis of organism. All we have been able to do is introduce specific
mutations into the genomes of some organisms.

" Similarly recombination will no longer be a process of finding a mate and mixing their genes
with your own. Instead, the entire biosphere will be a potential reserve of useful genes which
might prospectively be employed. Nor need one creature be picked as a mate - instead genes from
any number of creatures could be used. "

This is suggests we have some understanding of what genes we want to incorporate. Considering
introducing genes from one population to another often has unexpected effects what make you think
that we would no how to create the phenotypes we want by picking and mixing lengths of nucleic
acid from different species. These genes may have a completely different meaning out side the
context of there genomes.

Genetic engineering is just another source of mutation and has been a spectacular failure when
compared to simple selection. It has and will continue to make us aware of how complex powerful
selection is.

--

Phillip Smith phills@(buggger).co.nz replace bugger with ihug applied-evolution.co.nzapplied-evolution.co.nzOpen ↗

"he who is smeared with blubber has the kindest heart" -- a Greenland Eskimo adage

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.
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 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. 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. 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 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. 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. Genetically engineered viruses (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 genetic
engineering is at least 100 years or more away from occurring. In the interval we will hear plenty
of people like you.

Michael Ragland

phillip smith <[email hidden]> wrote:
: Tim Tyler at [email hidden] wrote on 9/16/03 2:11 AM:

:> The Engineered Future
:> =====================
:>
:> In this essay I express my conviction that eventually organisms will come to have engineered
:> genomes.
:>
:> As the references of this essay indicate, there are quite a few others with similar views out
:> there - this essay publicly adds my name to the list.
:>
:> --> alife.co.ukengineered futureOpen ↗ <--
:
: I have quickly read this article an would like to find the following comments

: Engineering versus evolution

: You seem to suggest that engineering is in some way "better" than evolution and that genomes will
: be engineered.

Yes - evolution /without/ engineering (what we have mostly seen so far) is missing a critically
important tool - and will proceed much more slowly as a consequence.

recombination - both engineering and recombination facilitate the more rapid formation of new
organisms - and the effects of both are dramatic and far-reaching.

: I would like to take issue with this. Engineering is pretty young and has achieved quite a lot. It
: has in now way produced artifacts of its process of a complexity that has in anyway approached the
: complexity of the biological artifacts of the evolutionary process.

Debatable. Probably have a case for genetic engineering - but for other sorts of engineering, the
notion seems rather questionable.

You can buy the human genome on a single CD ROM these days. That makes modern organisms complex -
but not *that* complex compared with other man-made objects.

The engineering approach is not shy of producing complex or sophisticated objects.

: "Now that human beings have arrived on the scene, new possibilities have opened up for making new
: organisms.

: In particular, design and engineering can now be employed."

: Is this true. What new organisms have we made or could we make. As far as I know we have not got
: any closer to the de novo synthesis of organism. All we have been able to do is introduce specific
: mutations into the genomes of some organisms.

That's all I was intending to refer to there. "New organisms" was intended to refer to new sorts of
creatures - e.g. new species or strains
- not the synthesis of a totally new sort of living organism from scratch.

: "Similarly recombination will no longer be a process of finding a mate and mixing their genes with
: your own. Instead, the entire biosphere will be a potential reserve of useful genes which might
: prospectively be employed. Nor need one creature be picked as a mate - instead genes from any
: number of creatures could be used."

: This is suggests we have some understanding of what genes we want to incorporate.

Or will gain such understanding, yes.

I *suppose* you would still get somewhere if you picked genes at random from the organism with the
protein you are looking for, and mixed them into your target genome - so knowledge of the genetic
structure is not logically necessary - but it certainly does help.

: Considering introducing genes from one population to another often has unexpected effects what
: make you think that we would no how to create the phenotypes we want by picking and mixing lengths
: of nucleic acid from different species. These genes may have a completely different meaning out
: side the context of there genomes.

Sometimes - but it would be foolish to argue that human understanding of genetics is so bad, and
will stay so bad that we will never be able to do any better than making random changes. We
regularly do much better than that today - and our abilities in the area are improving rapidly as
our understanding increases.

: Genetic engineering is just another source of mutation and has been a spectacular failure when
: compared to simple selection. It has and will continue to make us aware of how complex powerful
: selection is.

Genetic engineering is not "just another source of mutation".

It is systematically different from the sources of mutation that have existed in nature until now -
since the mutations are directed by intelligent agents.

Intelligent agents can perform a range of operations which are beyond the reach of the conventional
breeder using selection. For example, they can easily do things such as transfer entire genes across
species barriers - even if the species are not closely related.

I don't really think the tremendous power of the technique can be seriously questioned. Genetic
engineering offers the possibility of transforming life on the planet - probably out of all
recognition.

The main questions surrounding genetic engineering are over what we should do with this power - not
about whether it exists or not.
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

in article [email hidden], Tim Tyler at [email hidden]
wrote on 9/30/03 10:51 AM:

Quoted message said:

: Genetic engineering is just another source of mutation and has been a spectacular failure when
: compared to simple selection. It has and will continue to make us aware of how complex powerful
: selection is.

Genetic engineering is not "just another source of mutation".

It is systematically different from the sources of mutation that have existed in nature until now
- since the mutations are directed by intelligent agents.

Intelligent agents can perform a range of operations which are beyond the reach of the
conventional breeder using selection. For example, they can easily do things such as transfer
entire genes across species barriers - even if the species are not closely related.

Tim you of all the posters of this group should see the splendid irony of this proposal. In an era
where engineers are considering moving from using the "intelligent design" approach, to dumb methods
such as genetic algorithms, genetic programming, cellular automata etc. as method to attack non
linear complex problems. You are suggesting that the very approach that they are abandoning should
now be applied to probably the most complex non linear system we have.

"he who is smeared with blubber has the kindest heart" -- a Greenland Eskimo adage Which has an
extremely good track record of success of with selection. Selection is in my humble opinion the only
method that can deal with the enormous complexities of real organisms. We are no where near the
ability to make any thing but random changes to the phenotype of organisms with respect to organisms
probability of survival. Yes you can make rats that glow in the dark but in the absence of selection
will that gene persist in the rat population. We may be able to introduce round up resistance into
weed by accident but in the absence of spraying round up in the will the gene persist in the
population.

Quoted message said:

You can buy the human genome on a single CD ROM these days. That makes modern organisms complex -
but not *that* complex compared with other man-made objects.

There is a huge difference in the complexity of a genome and that of an organism. It is organisms we
are trying to engineer not genomes

The difference between engineering and selection IMHO.

Engineering is almost a science. Engineers examine the materials they wish to use to construct the
artifact. They develop theories about how the materials will behave. They then create a design using
the theories that they have developed. Apply some code of practice that is the result of hard won
experience gained through the failure of such theories previously mentioned. They then add some
redundancy incase both the theories and code of practice are wrong or the artifact is used out side
the spec. If it fails they modify the theory and/ or the code of practice. Now start again

It is sequential trial and error with a theory that is modified through trial and error.

Selection in contrast works in parallel. It does not care about theories or codes of practice. It is
only concerned with results. It tries everything it can with the variation available , a function of
population size and mutation rate, and rewards success. It is extremely powerful. Now you can try
and take short cuts through the horizontal transmission of dna sequence from genome to another. But
all this is doing is providing another source of selection

I would suggest that in the future we will be breeding toasters, TV's, and computer operating
systems etc rather than engineering cats and dogs etc

I would suggest that for the above reasons the genetic engineering paradigm is
fundementally floored.

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.

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

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 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.

Or simpler even, how can we tell the diffenence

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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

Quoted message said:

Genetically engineered viruses (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 genetic engineering is at least 100 years or more away
from occurring. In the interval we will hear plenty of people like you.

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. 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

Quoted message said:

Michael Ragland

in article [email hidden], phillip smith at
[email hidden] wrote on 10/2/03 3:09 PM:

This should be on my signature not in the message>

Quoted message said:

"he who is smeared with blubber has the kindest heart" -- a Greenland Eskimo adage

Quoted message said:

But all this is doing is providing another source of selection

Should read mutation instead of selection

Quoted message said:

I would suggest that for the above reasons the genetic engineering paradigm is fundementally
floored.

I new this looked wrong it should be flawed. Unless you consider genetic engineering to be a theory
with multiple levels

--

Phillip Smith phills@(buggger).co.nz replace bugger with ihug applied-evolution.co.nzapplied-evolution.co.nzOpen ↗

"he who is smeared with blubber has the kindest heart" -- a Greenland Eskimo adage

phillip smith <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

Tim Tyler at [email hidden] wrote on 9/30/03 10:51 AM:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

: Genetic engineering is just another source of mutation and has been a spectacular failure when
: compared to simple selection. It has and will continue to make us aware of how complex powerful
: selection is.

Genetic engineering is not "just another source of mutation".

It is systematically different from the sources of mutation that have existed in nature until now
- since the mutations are directed by intelligent agents.

Intelligent agents can perform a range of operations which are beyond the reach of the
conventional breeder using selection. For example, they can easily do things such as transfer
entire genes across species barriers - even if the species are not closely related.

Tim you of all the posters of this group should see the splendid irony of this proposal. In an era
where engineers are considering moving from using the "intelligent design" approach, to dumb
methods such as genetic algorithms, genetic programming, cellular automata etc. as method to
attack non linear complex problems. You are suggesting that the very approach that they are
abandoning should now be applied to probably the most complex non linear system we have.

I don't really see much sign of movement from traditional computer programming approaches towards
using genetic algorithms.

I certainly would not say very many were "abandoning" engineering approaches in favour of using GAs.

More like a few are adding a "GA" spanner to their existing toolboxes.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Selection is in my humble opinion the only method that can deal with the enormous complexities of
real organisms. We are no where near the ability to make any thing but random changes to the
phenotype of organisms with respect to organisms probability of survival. Yes you can make rats
that glow in the dark but in the absence of selection will that gene persist in the rat
population. We may be able to introduce round up resistance into weed by accident but in the
absence of spraying round up in the will the gene persist in the population.

Selection is important. I don't see widespread use of engineering reducing its significance.

I would characterise genetic engineering as being a form of directed mutation - and not anything
to do with selection. Selection still gets to look at the results - just as it did when mutations
were random.

If things don't work, selection will still reject them - as usual.

Regarding things like glow-in-the-dark rats - it doesn't seem relevant to me whether they would
survive without humans. The humans are here and - show no sign of departing. If we can make
organisms that are more useful to us, that's what matters.

Can we make spider silk quickly using bacteria? Slow ripening fruit? Cotton that needs no
insecticides? Lawns that don't need mowing? Trees that clean the air of pollutants?

These are the sorts of thing that are likely to find markets.

Genetic engineering is more likely to produce such things than conventional breeding - just as it is
the best way to make a rat that glows in the dark.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You can buy the human genome on a single CD ROM these days. That makes modern organisms complex -
but not *that* complex compared with other man-made objects.

There is a huge difference in the complexity of a genome and that of an organism.

True...

Quoted message said:

It is organisms we are trying to engineer not genomes

"Genetic engineering" conventionally refers to engineering of the genome, though.

Quoted message said:

I would suggest that in the future we will be breeding toasters, TV's, and computer operating
systems etc rather than engineering cats and dogs etc

Probably both. I don't see biology escaping the attention of our tinkerers for very long. There are
too many goodies to be found there.
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.