Tread carefully

Tom Brosz — 4/21/2004 5:11:37 PM (archived)

I am not an expert on genetics, but from I have read in recent literature, the human genetic code is turning out to be less of a brilliant mandala of encoded design and more of a dog's breakfast of parts and components, scattered bits of information, genes doing more than one job, genes doing nothing at all--a stupendous kludge that exists by the only law evolution cares about: it works.

I know of computer programs like this that have been patched again and again by different programmers for years. Pull out one seemingly useless loop and the thing falls apart.

Poking at this marvelous genetic trashpile is going to be what they call in the engineering business a "non-trivial problem." I hope we don't rush headlong into genetic modification until a lot of groundwork is done.

The whole thread (34 posts)

A good read. - Lee - 4/19/2004 3:52:51 AM
- So's this - Fox - 4/23/2004 2:43:15 PM
  - Sorry Charlie, such scare tactics aren't going to work. - Lee - 4/24/2004 2:47:18 AM
    - re: "scare tactics" - Fox - 4/25/2004 2:09:57 AM
      - And it's still being carried out. - Lee - 4/25/2004 5:43:38 AM
        
        re: "This idea may bother some people, but I'm not one of them." - Fox - 4/25/2004 6:32:27 PM
        
        You're misreading what I said. - Lee - 4/26/2004 3:56:09 AM
- Tread carefully - Tom Brosz - 4/21/2004 5:11:37 PM
  - All the more reason to try. - Lee - 4/22/2004 6:03:55 AM
  - *very* nicely put (n/t) - Fox - 4/22/2004 2:21:47 AM
  - Nicely Put - Nick Hoffman - 4/22/2004 12:47:27 AM
- re: My two cents - Success_Machine - 4/20/2004 8:40:34 PM
  - re: More Canadians born by C-Section than ever before - Success_Machine - 4/21/2004 6:03:41 PM
- Too spooky for me - FrankC - 4/20/2004 2:51:54 AM
  - If we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we? - Lee - 4/20/2004 5:57:50 AM
    - Nothing brave about it - FrankC - 4/20/2004 4:00:26 PM
    - "Brave New World": excellent choice of phrase! - Mary Anne - 4/20/2004 12:51:50 PM
      - Yes I have, I just wanted to get your attention. ;) - Lee - 4/21/2004 5:54:54 AM
        
        PS: Mary Shelley - Mary Anne - 4/21/2004 1:04:43 PM
        
        Yes I do. - Lee - 4/22/2004 6:40:21 AM
        
        re: PS: Mary Shelley - McFly - 4/21/2004 9:43:14 PM
        
        I take it you are volunteering for selective breeding experiments? - Mary Anne - 4/21/2004 12:47:15 PM
        
        re: One other question - Fox - 4/23/2004 3:15:45 PM
- Finally men discover a way to make themselves redundant. - Mary Anne - 4/19/2004 8:03:39 PM
  - You wrote: "I've heard tell that the Y chromosome is gradually self-destructing anyway." I read the same nonsense. - David F Mayer - 4/19/2004 10:44:57 PM
    - yeah, but the invention of the vibrator is an accelerator of that trend.......... (n/t) - Publius - 4/20/2004 7:02:29 PM
    - Mammals have only been "dominant" for 65 Ma - Nick Hoffman - 4/20/2004 5:35:21 PM
      - "Lack of females may have done in dinosaurs" - RobVG - 4/21/2004 4:28:15 PM
        
        The REAL reason dinosaurs became extinct. - Nick Hoffman - 4/22/2004 12:43:07 AM
    - Think about it: for 200 million years, there has been one delivery system for sexual reproduction among mammals. - Mary Anne - 4/20/2004 12:41:47 PM
      - It certainly doesn't produce a hardier organism. - Nick Hoffman - 4/20/2004 5:30:07 PM
        
        Have you noticed that fewer boys live to adulthood, relatively speaking, than their sisters? - Mary Anne - 4/20/2004 9:53:27 PM
        
        540 million years can't be wrong.... - Fox - 4/22/2004 3:26:16 AM
        
        link correction - Fox - 4/22/2004 4:29:42 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Off Topic

The whole thread (34 posts)