Evolutionary Science and Genetics - where are they headed?

[Copperknickers II]

Lamarckism, ie the heritability of acquired characteristics, was for a long time regarded as a fallacy. However in recent years, epigenetics has proven that certain 'Lamarckian' phenomena can indeed occur, that is, something that happens to an organism pre-pregnancy can lead to their offspring being mutated due to that phenomenon.

Here is one of the latest studies that would seem to point to this.

My point is, the term 'Darwinism' is bandied about a lot, but in reality, modern evolutionary theory is in fact a synthesis of a whole range of different things. We are at the very tip of the iceberg imo as to knowledge of the biological systems through which living organisms work, it is one of the relatively few areas of science where literally every day something happens which requires textbooks to be rewritten. In fact it changes so much you would be lucky to find an entirely accurate genetics textbook in the world.

The 'creation of life' that has taken place recently is a testament to the fact that we are always pushing the boundaries. There was a time when we were doing it for sheer curiosity, the Enlightenment and Vicorian eras saw many scientists ridiculed and even persecuted for the pursuit of knowledge. But at the same time, science was proving its value, with huge improvements in agriculture and industry.

But now we have capitalised on the possibilities of biotechnology, a science that has already achieved great things (alcoholic beverages being one of the first, and still according to some unsurpassed, instances of this ) and is set to revolutionise the way human society operates, claims varying from a solution to world hunger to global apocalypse through biological warfare. Biological knowledge these days is a powerful tool.

A tool, however, which is getting more and more complex. Natural selection was a relatively simple theory, that took a mere 502 pages to describe. Nowadays, genetics alone is enough to fill a decent cized city library, not to mention offshoots such as evolutionary psychology.

Where is biology headed? When will we stop? When, if ever, will the limits of ethics and morals be lifted? Do we value knowledge and money higher than the fear of playing God? And can we really make the world better through minimising risks and sacrificing freedom for a Brave New World style Utopia of science?

[chamaeleo]

I'll bite:
Ethics change. Greed doesn't. Neither does the desire for recognition.

Here's one possibility:
GM babies, wherein negative hereditary traits are snipped out of your progeny's genetic makeup.

I wouldn't attribute autistic tendencies within Carribean migrant populations to pseudo-Lamarkian evolution just yet. Of 428 kids, how many were Carribean? Say, 10%, an effective sample size = 42 (they just discovered The Meaning, who cares 'bout genetics!)? How many more autistic kids would be needed to skew such a small group 5 times away from the average? Maybe just one? Inconclusive.

Methinks there's something else going on there. Maybe stress, combined w lack of parental attention...what is the parent/child ratio for each group?

Asides from that, you're mostly right, as evolution is way more complex than Darwin might have ever dreamt. The thought of mitochondria acting as symbiotes in primordial protozoans makes my head hurt.

[Phier]

Don't underestimate Darwin, even when his theory became accepted he was still far ahead of the scientific masses in its understanding and complexity.

I would hardly call any developmental stress larmarkism, thats still good old fashioned genetics and selection. Stress has long been thought to affect fetal development and some might be more susceptible to it than others.

As for where we are headed, its blade runner and any number of other science fictions. The possibilities are as obvious as they are endless. I wish I was born 300 years in the future (provided we are not all dead or in another dark age) as thats when I think we will have aging beat completely.

[Jaketh]

let me know when i can become Immortal with the look of a 21 year old

[Golden Hawk]

I believe that atleast of of the main aims of biology is to reduce, or even destroy the human genetic malfunctions(for the lack of better word). For instance, when testing gets more and more reliable, and when one finally is able to alter the genetical charts of an unborn, what parents would not wish to enhance their children's capablities. Say, for instance, that it would be perfectly safe to alter your childs genetic charts so that his intelligence would be increased, or that his looks and physical condition would be enhanced. Or both. What parent wouldn't do that, given the choice?

[Copperknickers II]

Exactly Golden Hawk. There is debate about the ethics of interfering with nature, but if we had never interfered with nature we'd still be cavemen getting eaten by mammoths. There will come a time in the future where we more or less destroy genetic diseases and turn off old age. The main risk is that our technology outruns our understanding, and we gain the ability to mess with nature before we learn how to control it. For example, we may learn how to turn off the aging process, but imagine the overpopulation and food shortages that would cause.

Seriously though? What i am waiting for is improvements in neuroscience. I reckon that it will be within my lifetime when we manage to unlock the 'code' of the brain. What i hope is that if you die, you will get something to read your brain, and install it into a computer, with all sensory organs replicated plus your memory and intellect. You would be dead, but your mind would live on beyond death. I'm slightly worried that would cause some kind of quantum fluctuation or a wormhole mind you ;P.

[Phier]

Exactly Golden Hawk. There is debate about the ethics of interfering with nature, but if we had never interfered with nature we'd still be cavemen getting eaten by mammoths. There will come a time in the future where we more or less destroy genetic diseases and turn off old age. The main risk is that our technology outruns our understanding, and we gain the ability to mess with nature before we learn how to control it. For example, we may learn how to turn off the aging process, but imagine the overpopulation and food shortages that would cause.

Seriously though? What i am waiting for is improvements in neuroscience. I reckon that it will be within my lifetime when we manage to unlock the 'code' of the brain. What i hope is that if you die, you will get something to read your brain, and install it into a computer, with all sensory organs replicated plus your memory and intellect. You would be dead, but your mind would live on beyond death. I'm slightly worried that would cause some kind of quantum fluctuation or a wormhole mind you ;P.

Frederik Pohl wrote a series with that, and I thought the concept ghastly.

[Mr. Crow]

that is not lmarkism, that is epigenetics, cortisol turns off and on some geenes, which then are turn back on or off again in a generation or 2, when cortisol levels get back to normal.

that is why post traumatic efect is hereditary in humans and mice at least. in pre industrial agricultural towns we see for example that cortisol levels stay on the high side, several generations after a severe famine.

[Copperknickers II]

Frederik Pohl wrote a series with that, and I thought the concept ghastly.

I'm curious, why?

[hellheaven1987]

Currently the main focus is to understand what each gene actually represents, which would take another good 50 years before we actually have some idea what those genes mean. Another focus is bioware, which artificial organs, in whatever form and whatever materials, are able to perform whatever functions we want them to be without negative effects. Lastly, the research of how living organisms work is another focusing field, as although we can somehow understand how our body works, there are still a lot of stuff we don't really know how it is working or unable to find alternation to change the way it is functioning. Overall, there are still a lot of fields for biology to continue, and probably would never meet an end at all.

[Phier]

I'm curious, why?

Multiple copies of yourself, the 'flesh' you erasing extra digital yous, and the fact that it wouldn't really be you.

[mp0295]

Multiple copies of yourself, the 'flesh' you erasing extra digital yous, and the fact that it wouldn't really be you.

You must have a different versions of what self is. In my opinion, you are your brain, more specifically your mind. All the others things are just there to serve you mind (well to help reproduce but w/e). In that sense, why wouldn't it be you? Yea sure it would be a diferent form of 'you' but it would still be you.

[Torment]

Seriously though? What i am waiting for is improvements in neuroscience. I reckon that it will be within my lifetime when we manage to unlock the 'code' of the brain. What i hope is that if you die, you will get something to read your brain, and install it into a computer, with all sensory organs replicated plus your memory and intellect. You would be dead, but your mind would live on beyond death. I'm slightly worried that would cause some kind of quantum fluctuation or a wormhole mind you ;P.

That's just implausible. Having your consciousness installed into a computerchip? Sounds a little iffy to me.

But yeah, I do think aging will be a problem of the past in the second half of this century. After all, aging is basically just the imperfect replication of DNA strings. At the moment we don't have the technology to fully understand and reverse this phenomenon yet, but with the exponential growth science is undergoing today, I think it's only a matter of time untill we do.

[Trey]

If Adrian Brody has a say in it:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Hounf of Culan]

I don't think we will see any sort of sci-fi in utero gene modification to create perfectly smart, sexy, and athletic humans in the near future. However, I think it might be plausible that some sort of neo-eguenics movement springs up sometime soon as our knowledge and understanding of human dna and genetics advances. I mean for thousands of years humans have already bred livestock towards or aways from certain physical and behavioral traits, to some degree it must be possible for similar results to be achieved with humans. Hopefully this would never be forced upon anyone but it is kind of exciting to imagine the possibilities if human athletes were "bred" in a manner similar to champion horses, prize bulls etc.

[KingDave]

Uhh... Yes. Darwinism isn't everything that modern evolutionary theory says.

BUT how is autism being linked with population movements a Lamarckian theory? That simply makes no sense.

You seem to believe that modern evolutionary theory is evolutionary determinism (ie genes determine everything about you). The simple answer to that is that you're wrong. No one (since the 1970s at least) said that genes are the one and only word on the subject. They play a role, as does the environment.

Try this thought experiment. You're making bread. You have the ingredients and the oven (heat). Asking how big a role each played on creating the final product is dumb because without the ingredients or the heat, you wouldn't have the bread.

Over all, you're on the right track but please read up on modern evolutionary theory before posting silly comments like this.

[Copperknickers II]

You seem to believe that modern evolutionary theory is evolutionary determinism (ie genes determine everything about you). The simple answer to that is that you're wrong. No one (since the 1970s at least) said that genes are the one and only word on the subject. They play a role, as does the environment.

Try this thought experiment. You're making bread. You have the ingredients and the oven (heat). Asking how big a role each played on creating the final product is dumb because without the ingredients or the heat, you wouldn't have the bread.

Over all, you're on the right track but please read up on modern evolutionary theory before posting silly comments like this.

I said no such thing. You are speaking to a university lecturer of genetics, my friend. Or at least, their son, who posted this thread after a conversation on this subject with him.

[Portuguese Rebel]

I believe that atleast of of the main aims of biology is to reduce, or even destroy the human genetic malfunctions(for the lack of better word).

Today's malfunctions are tomorrows "damn... how did this evolve?". Or at least they have a potential to be. That one hopeful monstrosity can carry our genes to eternity.