"Michael Ragland"  wrote in message
news:blad16$l10$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> phillip smith  wrote in
message news:...
> > 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.
> >
> > "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.
> >
> >
> > "
> > 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
>
>
>
> You're a relic of the past Mr. Smith. Granted the majority
think like
> you but the science of genetic engineering is here to
stay. Compared
> to what it will accomplish (assuming we don't destroy
ourselves) is
> infinitely more than what has thus far been accomplished
in this young
> science. Genetic engineering doesn't need to create a
'whole organism'
> to create a new organism. Any mutation results in a 'new
organism'.
> You can't see the forest for the trees. Certainly a few
mutations
> resulting from genetic engineering aren't going to outdo
the
> complexity of Darwinian evolution. But a growing and
increasing series
> of various genetically engineered mutations will
profoundly change the
> human organism and make it much more complex. Many talk
about how
> complex our biology is as a result of Darwinian evolution.
I think one
> of the things modern genetics has taught us is that we
aren't as
> 'complex' as we thing we are. We share genes with many
other
> organisms, including flies. How's that for complexity. The
process of
> genetic canalization retains features across species
despite natural
> selection. Arguably one of the big tasks in the future
will be to
> break this canalization through different specific
genetically
> engineered mutations. The jelly fish glow gene has been
enormously
> helpful in research because it flourescence has
identifying qualities.
> It has been inserted into many organisms, including cats
and a
> primate. Natural selection is no longer viable. In our
evolutionary
> past war, famine, disease and the strongest male winning
mating rights
> was necessary due to predators. Today, the only real
predators are man
> preying on man. Our science and technology has advanced to
the point
> where Darwinian evolution poses a direct threat to the
continued
> existence of the human species. Genetically engineered
viruses
> (intentional or accidental) and nuclear weapons have the
potential to
> cause the extinction of us. Natural selection is not
complex compared
> to what would replace it with genetic engineering. Of
course, such
> genetic engineering is at least 100 years or more away
from occurring.
> In the interval we will hear plenty of people like you.
>
> Michael Ragland

Indeed! Our great^n grandchildren on Arcturus 4 may well
exhibit that jellyfish glow to make them safer when playing
and flying in aero-traffic using their newly _grown_
butterfly wings made of diamond-boron nitride composites
reinforced with organo-nanotubules. :))             ...tonyC
---
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 10/1/03 3:22:08 PM