What now for human evolution?

[geokker]

Our DNA is the hand in the glove. Random mutation in DNA has evinced physiological attributes in the humanoid branch of life determining the steady probability of surviving morphologies over time and through natural catastrophies. Soon, change through random mutation will be heavily supplemented with genetic engineering practise.

 

If the probability of having children is artificially increased through genetic modification in humans, does that mark the end for evolution? By the process of genetic engineering, have we become part of the machinery of evolution? Does our existence only serve as a blip in evolution? Can we strike for independence from our genes?

 

I'm inspired by the idea that the Earth herself developed evolution as a defensive mechanism - the eventual intelligence diverting a cataclysmic event e.g. killer asteroid.

[Jay-qu]

well if you want someone to tell you we will all develop super powers like on x-men, you aint gonna here it from me, i think its safe to say that it wont happen that way.

i favor what some ppl have hypothesised - humans will become smaller because we no longer need such big muscles, but i dont favour the big head - hell we dont even use all of ours at the size it is, why make it bigger?

[Biochemist]

I'm inspired by the idea that the Earth herself developed evolution as a defensive mechanism - the eventual intelligence diverting a cataclysmic event e.g. killer asteroid.

Quite a faith statement.

[Fishteacher73]

Modern science has already put a pretty big pause button on a lot of evolution's driving forces. Modern science has allowed "unfit" individuals to continue and even pass on genes. With the looming aspect of designer genes, there will be artificial selection and the evolutionary process will be driven by human whim(to some degree), and not natural selection.

[bumab]

Artificial selection will replace natural selection, true- evolution (change over time) will continue. Possibley, humans will act as stabalizing selectors, but I doubt it. Over a long enough time frame, things always change.

[Skippy]

Our DNA is the hand in the glove. Random mutation in DNA has evinced physiological attributes in the humanoid branch of life determining the steady probability of surviving morphologies over time and through natural catastrophies. Soon, change through random mutation will be heavily supplemented with genetic engineering practise.

 

If the probability of having children is artificially increased through genetic modification in humans, does that mark the end for evolution? By the process of genetic engineering, have we become part of the machinery of evolution? Does our existence only serve as a blip in evolution? Can we strike for independence from our genes?

 

I'm inspired by the idea that the Earth herself developed evolution as a defensive mechanism - the eventual intelligence diverting a cataclysmic event e.g. killer asteroid.

EXHALE!! Whew, sorry I didn't catch you earlier to keep you from passing out.

 

If you mean that within the species homo sapiens there are variations and geneticists might be able to affect some changes to our progeny, then you may be correct. But those geneticists will never tweak something in the human genome to produce a viable chimpanzee or other animal (which would be an evolutionary step).

[Harzburgite]

Our DNA is the hand in the glove.

Sorry.. I found this a very obscure metaphor. Could you clarify it?

Random mutation in DNA has evinced physiological attributes in the humanoid branch of life determining the steady probability of surviving morphologies over time and through natural catastrophies.

Huh? Using erudite phraseology inappropriately ain't cute - it's confusing. What are you saying? "The mechanisms of evolution have prepared Man to survive catastrophe."

If the probability of having children is artificially increased through genetic modification in humans, does that mark the end for evolution?

Garbled message alert! What are you saying? Genetic engineering will increase the probability of having children? Why? Are you talking about new forms of infertility treatment. These are applicable to a relatively small percentage of humanity.

By the process of genetic engineering, have we become part of the machinery of evolution? Does our existence only serve as a blip in evolution? Can we strike for independence from our genes?

Each animal and every population is part of the machinery of evolution. All genetic engineering has done is add some apparent precision to the process. The motivation for the application of the mechanism remains much the same in the human as in the wallaby or the speckled sea bass.

We are certainly a blip, but so was the big bang. Only time will tell.

Independence from our genes? Only by becoming incorporeal - transfer our personalities into a computer and we could begin to think about becoming independent. But those thoughts would be governed by our genetic (and environmental) legacy.

I'm inspired by the idea that the Earth herself developed evolution as a defensive mechanism - the eventual intelligence diverting a cataclysmic event e.g. killer asteroid.

Do you mean Earth Life? The Earth itself couldn't care less about a minor nudge from a miniscule asteroid. She already survived collision with a Mars sized body. Are you taking a Gaian perspective on this?

[geokker]

Our DNA is the hand in the glove.

Sorry.. I found this a very obscure metaphor. Could you clarify it?

 

I believe DNA calls the shots. You can change the glove, but the baby gloves will be the same. Change the DNA and the baby gloves are different.

 

Huh? Using erudite phraseology inappropriately ain't cute - it's confusing. What are you saying?

 

An admittedly rambling way of saying mutation is responsible for humans surviving changing environmental factors through generations.

 

Garbled message alert! What are you saying? Genetic engineering will increase the probability of having children? Why?

 

For example, If someone has extensive plastic surgery to change their physical appearance from repulsive to beautiful, is science loading the dice of natural selection?

 

Or

 

If science stretches the necks of a herd of giraffes allowing them to reach the fatter leaves etc. etc.

 

Each animal and every population is part of the machinery of evolution.

 

So, the product of human endeavour - perhaps also part of the machinery of evolution? Advances in machine sophistication - evolution?

 

Only by becoming incorporeal - transfer our personalities into a computer and we could begin to think about becoming independent.

 

Indeed. I Think this will happen. Perhaps one day machines powerful enough to simulate the interaction of every molecule in the human body will be developed, replicating life to an indistinguishable resolution. Will we escape the selection process of natural evolution?

[Biochemist]

...An admittedly rambling way of saying mutation is responsible for humans surviving changing environmental factors through generations...

Do keep in mind that the objective evidence for mutation playing a material role in speciation is remarkably thin.

[niviene]

Here is an article that made me think about our interfering with genetics:

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/business/20050223-103037-4510r.htm

[infamous]

Here is an article that made me think about our interfering with genetics:

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/business/20050223-103037-4510r.htm

Very thought provoking article niviene. As the article states in it's conclusion, we will be creating our replacements, not to comporting a thought I must say. It would also be well to understand that intelligence is not the samething as wisdom. When speaking of wisdom, I fear that meddling with this technology is unwise, unfortunately I fear that it may be inevitable.

[geokker]

Do keep in mind that the objective evidence for mutation playing a material role in speciation is remarkably thin.

 

I'm not thinking in terms of speciation.

 

My knee-jerk view however is mutation augmented selection + geographic separation results in speciation. Giraffes on an island versus a herd on the mainland in my knee-jerky-haven't-really-thought-it-through opinion, would over an evolutionary period lead to different species.

 

Thinking about this now, it seems obvious but then - I've yet to have a decent cup of tea this morning.

[GAHD]

Why does everyone want to screw with the brain when we understand the rest so much better?

 

If we're designing babies, why not engineer transgenic humans with a crippled Myostatin gene(MSTN/GDF8, chromosome 2, band 2q32.1, your DNA, your body)? Goodbye obesity, everyone's a Mr/s Universe. Or we could play with mitochondrial DNA to make them replicate faster(give each cell the full ten or even more), giving endurance a real shot in the arm.

 

Even better if these mutations could be made retro viral(Myostatin has already...) so that the moral question of playing with somebody else's life doesn't come into play; turn 18, buy some genes.

 

Maby gene doping will be the new rage, surpassing piercing/implant/tattoo use in young adults. "Heay mom, like, check out what I got. Copper-green roots and glowing Iris' soooo suit me, don't ya think?"

 

Perhaps even larger scale mutations could occur: telling the tail-bone it's time to grow out and get prehensile, adding a second thumb to the hand, or even a first thumb to the foot(yes, yes, nerves need to grow but it's already been shown the motor cortex itself can adapt and learn to use a new limb). Webbed fingers anyone? How about flying-squirrel type arm webs? Lithoderms in damage-prone areas?

 

Then again, I'd settle for just the first two.

[damocles]

1, Human meddling in natural selection has begun with dogs, cows ,pigs, chickens , turkeys, rice ,wheat, corn, soybeans, pumpkins etc.

 

2. Human meddling is natural selection. Consider that predator animals select victims based on their ability to catch and kill the food.(I know in the case of agriculture it is ridiculous to think of humans preying on rice;but the natural selection of rice suited to us over rice that is not;is our contribution to natural selection concerning rice specifically.).

 

3. Human meddling in our own evolution is evidenced by our conscious immigration and intermix patterns over the last century.

 

4. Humans are animals and will become extinct at some point.

 

5. Our successors(and we should plan for this) may be creatures of our own design, or machines, but the successor will not be human, once the successor demonstrates replication independent of us.

 

6. Physiologically our successor may be shaped like us, but I wouldn't count absolutely on it.

 

7. In the meantime we should use the principles of natural selection wer know(crude gene manipulation and selective breeding) VERY conservatively as we don't begin to understand the consequences of even a minor mistake in introducing a faulty survival trait.

 

8. I champion smaller physically stronger human beings(as previously posted) able to interact more aggressively with their machines. I particularly wish to emphasize better reflexes and eyesight/hand co-ordinatiion in this choice as this is vital as we steer and/or guide machines that require us to be far more alert and quicker reacting(Dumb car as opposed to smart horse?) to avoid the usual collisions and mistakes that kill us.

 

Just some thoughts.

 

Damocles