Re: A fully developed creature can evolve?


"Anon." <bob.ohara@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dg84u0$2grd$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>g wrote:
>> "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:dfv7s3$2g9d$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>>"Artificer" <eliezerfigueroa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:dftqi4$20bh$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> The resulting DNA change went to all his offspring and has been passed
>> from
>> them to all their offspring,
>
> All? Only half (give or take) of his offspring, so probably slightly
> more than a quarter of theirs.

Corrective (and counter-balancing) information welcome, as always. I am not
persuaded that either of our estimates is precise, but the nature of the
issue is not dependent upon such precision here. Thank you for the input.
>
>> etc., every generation since. The altered allele (an allele is a code
>> sequence in the DNA that influences certain protein foldings in such a
>> way
>> as to result in observable traits) was in a zone which impacts
>> pulmonary auto-immune function. It was recessive (meaning that unless a
>> descendant got it from both parents, it did not get expressed).
>>
>> Despite the fact there was not the sophistication we have today about
>> DNA,
>> researchers were able to trace back to find a common relative, and to
>> work
>> out mathematically where the gene came from. (Just hitting the high
>> points
>> here.)
>>
>> It is important to understand that, in a population there can be
>> thousands
>> of people who share a common relative. This is not speculative. It is
>> established fact. Lots and lots of Finns are third, fourth, fifth,
>> sixth...
>> cousins, due to the fact the country was relatively stable for many, many
>> generations.
>>
> And also that Kusta Vaasa wanted to keep the Russians out of Finland, so
> he persuaded the Finns to move into central and eastern Finland. That
> created a bottleneck, through which several genetic diseases squeezed.
> I would have thought that any inbreeding after that was more a result of
> the economics: the Finns were mainly farmers and woodsmen, and the
> country isn't heavily industrialised (Nokia used to be based around
> supplying the timber industry: indeed, they still make rubber boots).

Helpful. Thank you. The main thrust, however, is that a valuable gene pool
for study has resulted from a combination of factors geographical,
political, economic, social... and the world benefits from these people's
gene pool, much to the credit of their pride and openness concerning it.
Much gratitude is owed to them for their wonderful cooperation with
researchers.

>
> THe stability meant that there are some good historical records, which
> are being used by several groups in Finland to look at evolution of
> pre-industrial human populations.
>
>> Because of this, genetic counseling is given to most young couples before
>> they marry. The likelihood is very much higher there, that one or more
>> genetic abnormalities will occur there, because the statistical
>> likelihood
>> of a couple's BOTH having the recessive gene for the particular trait
>> traced
>> back to the individual mentioned above, passed on by the one individual
>> mentioned above, or both having some OTHER pairing of a set of some of
>> the
>> more than fifty known "bad" recessive genes common in the population of
>> Finland, is extraordinarily high there.
>>
> I thought 50 was too high: it's actually about 35:
> <http://www.hus.fi/default.asp?path=59;404;4024;4582&print=1>

Correction is welcome and appreciated. Elsewhere I read an estimation that
there are only something like
80-something well-documeneted ones in the world, so even 35 within so small
a geographical area is of much importance to research. Would welcome any
further input as to the global estimate from you, as well. Thank you.
>
> The Finns seem quite proud of their genetic heritage. And one of the
> great things about working here is that they are very good scientists,
> so they can utilise their heritage.
>
>> More attention is given by medical and anthropological genetic
>> researchers
>> to "bad" genes than to "advantageous" genes.
>>
>> Hopefully that will not always be true, but so far, where there is money
>> for
>> devoting to research, it has seemed more important to find out why people
>> with certain alleles tend to die young of cardio-vascular problems, or
>> have
>> type one, or type two, diabetes, or be born with kidneys that will fail
>> early in life, or are mentally retarded... than to seek to identify
>> alleles
>> that result in, say, genius-level IQ, or who are superstar athletes, or
>> who
>> go through adolescence with no zits.
>>
>> I don't know if this answers your question. It is aimed only at giving
>> you
>> a glimpse of what goes on with
>> mutations.
>>
>> In the case of three hundred years or so in Finland, the "beneficial"
>> mutations may not seem to explain much about how populations can
>> accumulate
>> changes -- good, bad or indifferent. Multiply that by a million years,
>> and
>> you begin to get a feel for how changes can add to changes which add to
>> changes... giving advantages to some and disadvantages to others and
>> how...
>> over millions of years... these take on increasing significance.
>>
> But the Finns are exceptional (in many ways), and over time the genetic
> diseases should work themselves out of the population. And any
> beneficial mutations will have changed in frequency to roughly the same
> extent.
>
> With a population that is extensively sub-structured, natural selection
> may not have enough of an effect to be able to purge bad alleles. I
> mention this partly because a couple of the good empirical work showing
> this was done in Finland: on butterflies and Daphnia.
>
> Bob

Bob,

Let us hope that the work you reference, on butterflies and Daphnia,
together with future work, perhaps, on gene-modified laboratory animals
(chimeras), might obviate the necessity of experimenting on human subjects.
And let us hope that governmental policy-makers will be wise and
scientifically literate and open-minded in putting restraints on research.
And, too -- given sufficient latitude to progress toward solutions -- let us
hope that researchers will be totally alert to risks, and very wise and very
cautious in their work, and will conform to highest standards of morality,
and will minimize suffering of non-human species (and chimeras derived from
them).

The genetic modification of mouse DNA by insertion of genes that 'mimic' the
human immune system has enabled research on immune and auto-immune disorders
that could not have been so productively performed, in good conscience, on
human subjects.

In my reading, I have sensed a preponderant focus on efforts to try to learn
about DNA and RNA, by means of "reverse engineering," where possible, and
something akin to "Monday morning quarterbacking," wherever reverse
ingineering leads to a chasm. My gut feeling is that there are limits to
reverse engineering, brought about by the "loss" of some data. For all that
has been conserved in cross-species axons, I believe it is accurate to say
that some links in a chain going back to the origin of the first 'living'
thing, have been snipped.
As with the history of anything, loss or destruction of evidence is a
factor. In some instances historians (in cooperation with members of other
scientific disciplines) are even now discovering physical artifacts that
fill in some gaps; but never... never... are there enough artifacts to fill
all the gaps. Also, there has been some deliberate tampering with history,
as Napoleon intimated in saying, "History is a collection of lies agreed
to."
(Some of those lies have been discovered to be lies, and have been
corrected, I suspect, but not all.)

But it seems only reasonable that there would be... must be... missing
artifacts in our chromosomal connections to the past, where we are forced to
guess where to go from there. A friend of mine has spent literally
thousands of hours trying to trace back his own geneology. A mere three
generations back, however, he is confronted with two prospective ancestors,
both having the exact same name and living in the exact same town, but
ascertained to have been different men (mention was made of their having
been personally acquainted, and not kin to each other, to their knowledge).
My friend has spent many futile hours in trying to
ascertain which was his ancestor (or 'closer' ancestor).

But let me get back to the main thrust here: IF governmental controls do
not, in the future, inhibit the development of laboratory chimeras
containing certain genes in the global human gene pool that we would be
better off without ... and IF researchers can produce chimeras to carry,
one-by-one, some of the 'undesirable' genes we have alluded to here... and
IF efficient vectors can, by trial and error, be screened for finding those
posing least risk(*), hopefully... hopefully... ways can be found that have
not yet been found, for altering the pathogenic genes in humans.

If it is true that there always will be individuals ignornant of, and
uncooperative with, such things as immunizations against epidemic diseases,
it does not seem likely there EVER would be ubiquitous cooperation among
humans with any program (however painless, however economically feasible, no
matter how conscionable, and no matter how available to any and all) if one
were designed that could genetically modify individuals to block,
neutralize, remove ... undesirable genes.

Assuming all the filters (including animal rights objectors) which would
tend to prevent or delay the furtherance of scientific 'knowledge' of
gene-purging issues and solutions (including ignorance of political policy
makers) risk minimalist thinking, ...or other, the work would face both
predictable and unforseen risks. We dare not, for example, have
human-related chimeras _EVER_ escape and breed outside laboratory control.
We dare not have a self-replicable viral, or viral-type, vector be
introduced outside the laboratory. Much care must be taken to assure that
any vector, successful or unsuccessful toward achieving any gene
modification in a chimera, be incapable of reproducing itself, and be
totally disposed of after it has done its targeted job, lest it become
modified in the chimera. Or, let me say in all humility, that this is my
perception, based upon random reading and much concerned thought on some of
the issues involved.

Programmed post-utility apoptosis of vectors might prove feasible as a risk
deterrant. Also, of great interest is the prospect that nano-robotic
vectors could be designed in such a way as to self-destruct, or to be
eliminated after snipping a 'bad' gene.

In any event, my personal convictions on the efficacy of any reliance upon
abortion is beyond my ability to view as a therapy for treating a gene
pool -- almost as objectionable as eugenics. (No, I am not taking any
stance on abortion here, please. I am very conflicted over it and have not
firm stance to offer.) But never have I been willing to condone any
'solution' involving either of these two as a 'curative' procedure. I have
much confidence that science, in the right hands, and given sufficient
latitude to do the necessary research, can and -- at some future time --
SHALL find far less objectionable alternatives.

The confidence I feel, in this regard, derives in part from my viewing of
history as having consisted of change, along with reluctance to change.
But -- no matter how long or efficiently new knowledge is resisted -- it
seems to 'out,' eventually.

No researcher, and not governmental policy maker, should be ignorant, we
should hope, of the Hobbesian concept of power, and "knowledge" a
manifestation of power. All knowledge has the potential to be used
destructively, as well as constructively. But the optomistic side of that
as (I think it was John Stuart Mill) put it, "Those capable of the greatest
evil are also capable of the greatest good." The one does not come without
the other.

In the past few centuries, as science has begun to evolve knowledge (hence
control over) enormous power potentials (including nuclear fission and,
also, including how to use toxic agents and biological agents as weapons of
mass bio-destruction, there have been those who have said, "We must not go
there," and have opposed research, and those who have argued with them that,
"If we do not, then our enemy will." There is, in an impirical sense, I
submit (with no intent to present it as original) impirical validity in an
assertion that the knowledge of good IS the knowledge of evil (and this,
with NO metaphysical overtone attaching, whatsoever.)

One risk that arises out of any progress in our knowledge of genes, gene
modification and, especially perhaps, the engineering of self-replicable
viral vectors, is that some psychotic or terrorist individual or group might
get hold of them. However, it does not seem to me that any solutions to
burgeoning problems of humanity should be constrained to prevent its misuse,
less all learning come to a halt, as a result.

I do hope further experimentation with human-gene-carrying chimeras and
gene-modifying vectors will be permitted, and do yearn for them to proffer
gentle and kind solutions to the current presence of pathological genes in
the human gene pool. And I do hope it is within the capacity of the
controlling leaders of us (or the majority of us, if they be one and the
same) to use the knowledge to be gained from that pursuit wisely.

All the above is offered with much respect for all, and out of a desire for
correction and value-adding information from any who might insert further
poignant information, or offer constructive correction in a courteous and
productive way.


g





>
> --
> Bob O'Hara
> Department of Mathematics and Statistics
> P.O. Box 68 (Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2b)
> FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
> Finland
>
> Telephone: +358-9-191 51479
> Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
> Fax: +358-9-191 51400
> WWW: http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
> Journal of Negative Results - EEB: www.jnr-eeb.org
>


.