"phillip smith"  wrote in
message news:bl7383$2rb5$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> in article bk4hau$1f1q$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, Tim Tyler at
tim{at}tt1.org wrote
> on 9/16/03 2:11 AM:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > -->  http://alife.co.uk/misc/engineered_future/  <--
> >
> 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.

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

> "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.

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?

> "
> 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{at}(buggger).co.nz replace bugger with ihug
> http://www.applied-evolution.co.nz
>
>
> "he who is smeared with blubber has the kindest heart" -- 
a Greenland Eskimo
> adage
>
>
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 9/29/03 8:30:41 PM