Re: Article: How good is our genome?
ekurtz99_at_WhoKnowsWhere.com
Date: 06/30/04
- Next message: William L Hunt: "Re: Hardy-Weinberg lawt"
- Previous message: Michael Ragland: "Re: Darwinian evolution=Armageddon?"
- Next in thread: Michael Ragland: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Maybe reply: Michael Ragland: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Reply: Guy Hoelzer: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Reply: Malcolm: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Maybe reply: John Edser: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Reply: Tim Tyler: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Maybe reply: John Edser: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Maybe reply: Jim Menegay: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Maybe reply: Malcolm: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Maybe reply: Guy Hoelzer: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:35:41 +0000 (UTC)
Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
> 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?
> 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.
> 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.
> 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?
>
> 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
>
- Next message: William L Hunt: "Re: Hardy-Weinberg lawt"
- Previous message: Michael Ragland: "Re: Darwinian evolution=Armageddon?"
- Next in thread: Michael Ragland: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Maybe reply: Michael Ragland: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Reply: Guy Hoelzer: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Reply: Malcolm: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Maybe reply: John Edser: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Reply: Tim Tyler: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Maybe reply: John Edser: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Maybe reply: Jim Menegay: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Maybe reply: Malcolm: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Maybe reply: Guy Hoelzer: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|