On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 17:03:13 +0000 (UTC), ragland37{at}webtv.net (Michael
Ragland) wrote:

>
>
>In response to Mr. Moran's scenario of mutations occurring in a
>population whose aggression had been modified/ameliorated through
>genetic engineering I stated the following:
>
>"I don't think so. If such proto-humans were genetically engineered to
>be non-aggressive it would depend on the form of genetic engineering.
>Arguably, if aggression is related to the universal genetic code and
>this was altered I would'nt forsee such mutations occurring. Afterall,
>the "universality" of the code seems pretty much impervious to
>mutations. If it was altered in humans I still think that may be the
>case unless there was further genetic engineering of it."
>
>Mr. Norman is very right the only way to really learn about biology is
>to study it for years. There is alot of misleading information on the
>internet, some of it coming from the scientific community itself. The
>website below states, "However, we now know for sure codon assignments
>can and do vary: the code is evolvable and it is therefore legitimate to
>ask why one 'standard' code predominates across life." I think this is
>accurate. It is scientifically valid to refer to the genetic code as the
>"standard genetic code" not a universal genetic code. 
>
>http://userpages.umbc.edu/~hongxia1/php_file/homepage/uni_code.php3 


I don't understand really what you are getting at, Michael. On one
hand, you say "There is alot of misleading information on the
internet, some of it coming from the scientific community itself."
This is certainly an enormous understatement.  But then you go on to
cite some correct material without being too clear as to whether this
is, in fact, part of the misleading or the clarifying information on
the internet.

The simple fact is that the genetic code is NOT universal though it is
very close.  There are differences especially in mitochondrial DNA and
in a variety of cilate protists.  It is certainly theoretically
possibly  to modify the code and I have even heard serious scientific
talk of ways to genetically engineer small modifications as
experimental tools to help elucidate some details of molecular
biology. For example, a novel amino acid could be introduced into the
system by modifying one (or a very few) transfer RNAs. However, any
overall tampering with the code, swapping one codon for another for
example, would immediately break the entire system.  

Unfortunately, the notion that "aggression is related to the universal
genetic code" is really quite uninformative.  If there are, indeed
genes for "aggression", then it is because these genes produce protein
products that are involved in specific signaling systems in specific
nervous pathways in the brain, or that are involved in controlling
specific patterns of neuronal development and connectivity in specific
nervous patheways in the brain.  The nature of the genetic code is
irrelevant.  How proteins function is everything. That is why, now
that we "know" the human genome, we really know very little and
attention is changing from genomics to proteomics.
---
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 6/14/03 8:19:47 PM