Behavioral Mimicry in the Golden Garden Spider

I witnessed a pretty awesome display today by my friendly neighborhood Golden Garden Spider (Argiope aurantia), that I had never before seen. In fact, I had no idea that spiders would make such defensive displays.

As I approached her web, I noticed the web start to vibrate back and forth in quite an exaggerated fashion. So I ran and grabbed my camera. When I got back out she had stopped, but she started back up immediately as I got close.

Note - my hand is actually about 6 inches from the web. Also, my hand produced no wind (you can see this clearly toward the end of the video - the last ten seconds are by far the best).

Considering the bright yellow and black markings, my nearest guess is that she was mimicking the movement of a carpenter bee or some other poisonous hymenopteran (we have lots of carpenter bees). It seems clear that it was her way of saying "get the fuck away from me! I'm dangerous". Of course, it may be that it's not mimicry at all, but to me it looks very similar to the movement of the carpenter bees against that very same wood as they bob forward and backward.

For another cool picture of an Argiope, see my previous post (which also has some cool black widows from my house).

Call for submissions - Carnival of Evolution #2

Jason Rosenhouse, the eloquent ScienceBlogs writer over at EvolutionBlog has graciously offered to host the 2nd edition of Carnival of Evolution.

So get those intelligent fingers a tappin' and send your posts to him (deadline for this edition is September 14th). There's a world of evolutionary change out there to discover, and I for one want to know about it.

While you're at it, if you feel so inclined, offer yourselves up in Darwin's name and volunteer to host a future edition.

Another Step in the Evolution of Humans and Apes from Ancestral Mammals

One of the most fascinating lines of research within the field of evolutionary biology is the search to find the genes that changed at the split between ancestral mammals and our own closer ancestors, the great apes.

In a fascinating new study in the August 8th edition of PLoS Genetics, Lia Rosso and colleagues have detailed specific changes in a single duplicated gene in apes and humans. Their data reveals what may be a common path for evolution: duplication of a gene with a specific function, a change in the duplicate that allows it to change its location within the cell, and further changes in the specific function of that gene.

There are several interesting things that I took from this study. First, the genes they study are GLUD1 and GLUD2, enzymes involved in glutamate metabolism, which in itself is less interesting to me (just a personal disinterest in metabolism - no offense to you metabolism folks). What's simply astounding to me is the method through which the second gene came about - a method of duplication I sometimes forget.

GLUD1 is present in all mammals, while previous research has shown that GLUD2 arose through an amazing process of duplication that departs from the simple genomic duplication methods we often think of.

Here's a quick primer for you non-biologists that will help you understand. Most vertebrate genes are actually broken up along a strand of DNA. That is, there are sequences (called introns) within the gene that are not involved in coding for the gene's protein.

Imagine that this sentence is a gene: BIOkzkfkjLOGYskrzsISkzskjzsCOgkttkzjOL.
In this case, imagine that the product of the gene is "BIOLOGY IS COOL".
The gobbledegook between and within the words are the introns that are cut out before the product is made. The question of why the nonsense sequences are even there is a whole other story that we won't consider here.

OK...so now we have our gene - let's call is BioCool1.

One other point you must know - DNA genes are read and "transcribed" to RNA, which serves as a "message". The RNA message is then read to make the protein. Okay?

When the BioCool1 gene is transcribed to RNA (which is then used to make the protein), those nonsense gobbledegook introns are removed so that there are now RNAs floating around the cell that read "BIOLOGY IS COOL", without the nonsense introns.

Now, you may have heard of some viruses called "retroviruses", such as HIV. That means that they have enzymes that can take their viral RNA genome, "reverse transcribe" their genome into DNA, and then insert the DNA version of their genome into our own genome. Thus these viruses make themselves a part of the host organism, and the host genome now produces tons of viral RNA and proteins.There are more levels of complexity in this, but to keep it simple we'll just consider retroviruses.

Imagine if those viral enzymes take that BioCool1 RNA with the introns cut out, turn it into DNA, and then insert it back into our own DNA genome. What we have now are TWO versions of the BioCool gene DNA in our genome: the original BioCool1 (which has all the nonsense sequence within it, and a new version, BioCool2 (which only has the "BIOLOGY IS COOL" sequence).

Well, this is how GLUD2 was originally made in ape and human ancestors from the GLUD1 gene. Pretty amazing, no?

What the above researchers further showed is that while GLUD1 protein can be found in multiple places in a single cell (in the mitochondria and cytoplasm), GLUD2 underwent a single amino acid change that made the protein stick only to the mitochondria. Using sophisticated analyses, they showed that this change occurred soon after the gene was duplicated 18-25 million years ago, and that the change was then positively selected for (meaning that animals with the change were somehow "more fit" than other individuals). The gene concurrently underwent further changes that altered the specific function of the protein, and it is suggested that the changes were involved in brain function (specifically in metabolism of the neurotransmitter glutamate).

So...in summary, this study reminds us of a pretty cool mechanism for duplicating a gene and positively selecting it for function in specific subcellular locations, and it gave us one more glimpse into the changes that have resulted in the evolution of the amazing complexity of the human brain.

---

image from psychology.wikia.com

Carnival of Evolution #1

Well, I've done it. I've created a new Blog Carnival.

It's called "Carnival of Evolution" and you can find the first edition HERE.

Despite the presence of several really good blog carnivals dealing with science, skepticism, or atheism, which all touch on evolution now and again, there is a dearth of carnivals devoted to evolution (at least I couldn't find any). Thus I think this could fill a much-needed niche.

Now, mine is not a particularly well-read blog, though my traffic has been increasing by the week. My hope is that the purpose and content of this blog carnival will be enough for it to take a life of its own. As such, I now beg any of you with an interest in evolution to host future editions or contribute posts. Spread the word to anyone you know who blogs on evolution, whether from the perspective of the (nonexistent) debate on evolution or on recent science in the field. Hopefully we can get a schedule for it up and running.

I have never hosted or run a blog carnival before, so if anyone has advice I'd be glad to here it.

Building a Better Human

Transhumanism, to quote Wikipedia is

“a term often used as a synonym for "human enhancement", is an international, intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of science and technology to enhance human mental and physical abilities and aptitudes, and overcome what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as disability, suffering, disease, aging, and involuntary death.”

I often think about the eugenic possibilities of applied science (technology) that may arise in the coming years, decades, and longer. I have long considered myself a transhumanist. That is, I see no general philosophical or moral issues with human enhancement or even directed human evolution, in theory. In practice, however, I think there are several issues that may well prevent our race from ever even attempting such a project. (Don't even think about mentioning the Nazis to me. Though using a warped eugenics, they were NOT transhumanistic.)

Let me first state that I think that external technological enhancement is already in early bloom and will continue to be used to ever increasing degrees. By “external” I mean the use of robotics, artificial limbs and organs, cognitive enhancement, or extension of the senses. However, there is a fundamental difference between this type of enhancement verses the actual altering of the human genetic code and inherent function of human biology.This article will focus almost exclusively on biological modifications.

The moral, social, cultural, and philosophical implications of biological transhumanism have been discussed ad nauseum by many thinkers much greater than I. Books have been written (e.g. Brave New World). Movies have been made (e.g. GATTACA). However, it is only now that we are truly entering an era in which it can be discussed and contemplated from a practical standpoint, and in which we may even begin to realize the transhumanist goals. Not only have we now sequenced the entire human genome, but we are developing tools for altering the genetic code in living human beings. (see question 10 from my previous post: 23 Things Science Can Tell Us about Life, the Universe, and Everything)

However, one thing that I find sorely lacking in most discussions of how we might enhance the human condition is a discussion of Developmental Biology. Before we tackle the main question at hand, I feel I must first take a short diversion into describing development.

Most of the public have heard our genomes described as “the DNA blueprint” of humankind. As any developmental biologist will tell you, DNA is not a blueprint for anything – this is a horrible metaphor for DNA’s true function. The closest metaphor we have for the relationship between DNA and a thinking, breathing human is the relationship between a recipe and a cake. DNA does not describe anything about what a human looks like or how it works. There is not a gene that contains the information on how to make an eye, for example, or what the eye looks like or works. All it tells you is which protein to make at which time and in which cell.

As the field of development now knows, the genes encode for RNAs that encode for proteins (vast oversimplification, but lets keep it manageable). In a single fertilized egg, there are an unknown hundreds or thousands of genes and proteins “turned on” and interacting with each other and with the cell, and even with the mother (in the case of humans).

As the cell divides, new genes are turned on, others are turned off, and a new level of complexity is added. The cells now exist in a growing, changing, dynamic network. This network includes genes, RNAs, proteins, different cells talking to each other, groups of these molecules forming modular, yet interdependent pathways, and all of these interactions are now occurring in discrete areas of space and time.

Yet at the reductionist level, all of these things work by more-or-less simple rules about their own behavior. For example, gene A is only turned on when protein B is present. Protein B is only present in cell type C. So in cell type C, gene A is turned on, to make Protein D. Based on its particular shape, Protein D can only interact with Proteins E and F…etc.

This is another vast oversimplification, and one can imagine this network growing to nearly unimaginable complexity, with some proteins turning genes on, others making stuff like muscle, others making neurotransmitters, and a million other effects ensuing. To go back to our eye example, all of these interactions result in subsets of cells growing and shaping themselves into the structure of the eye at specific times and places. The environment around the eye tells the cells where to go and what to become. Some cells produce tons of beta-crystallin and make the lens. Others grow long axons and connect to the brain, while also producing molecules that react to light. We currently know of about 200 distinct cell types that arise from these interactions of genes, proteins, and cells in space and time.

So, given all this amazing complexity, will we ever reach a point at which we can enhance or evolve ourselves? My own answer is: theoretically, yes – practically, no. (again - see Question 10 of 23 Things Science Can Tell Us about Life, the Universe, and Everything).

There is no doubt that we will eventually have all the pieces of the puzzle of our own development (assuming we last long enough). But there is one key element glossed over in discussions of how we apply our scientific knowledge to human enhancement: experimentation and research on developing embryos. I think that regardless of how much data and understanding we obtain from animal studies and studies of human disease and genetics, we will never be able to apply any directed changes without experimentation on humans. This is a simple fact.

Let’s look at one example: animal cloning. Animal cloning involves the relatively simple activities of inserting a nucleus from one animal cell into the cell of another, and coercing that cell to become an animal. We now do this all the time. Heard about Booger the cloned puppies from Korea yet? But there is one problem – in order for us to get to this advanced (and retardedly stupid) point of being able to clone a long lost and beloved dog, we had to go through the production of thousands of utterly deformed animals of many different species (remember the breast-gland derived sheep, Dolly?). I once went to a great seminar by Dr. Ian Wilmut (the Scottish scientist who cloned Dolly). He showed us some data from some mouse or other rodent cloning he was doing – I don’t remember the specifics. But I do remember that out of something like 500 animals produces, only a fraction were viable.

So I ask, does anyone really think that we can alter human development without going through similar experimental growing pains? How many seriously deformed or deficient human embryos will need to be produced before we get it right? No matter what kind of fundamental change one wishes to accomplish in an adult human body, that change will have to occur at the developmental level, altering specific developmental pathways in specific cells. No matter how big the "cloud" of data, or how vast our computing power, we will always have to test any technique to make sure it works (despite the fact that some actually think that astronomical amounts of data make science unnecessary).

My guess is that such evolutionary enhancements would cause be far too many deformed babies for any even half-moral or ethical people to allow. There are people right now attempting to clone humans, and even this is morally reprehensible. Why? Despite the fact that I have no God, no absolute or cosmologically meaningful morals, I still have an in built belief that conscious-human destruction or harm is wrong. It is hardwired in humanity to place value on human life (with some exceptions and gray areas). Furthermore, there are no positive benefits of human cloning for reproduction, other than scientific knowledge itself, and it will unarguably cause deleterious effects on an unknown fraction of embryos, leading to suffering. And it will most certainly NOT bring loved ones back, though apparently there are thousands of gullible pet-owners who believe otherwise. But I digress. Granted, we may come very very - tantalizingly - close to achieving directed enhancement through work in animals, in human cell culture and tissue culture, but this will not quite be enough.

In essence, I think it is near impossible that we will be able to progress to a point where we can actual tinker with our own genomes (at least during or before developmental stages), due solely to cultural/ethical issues, though it will be technically possible. We will definitely attempt to change adult cells (e.g. gene therapy to give certain cells the ability to produce insulin, which is already underway), but this is a far cry from the types of changes to consciously evolve our form and function – a far cry from adding, subtracting, or changing pieces within the insanely complex developmental pathways that lead to our construction.

Despite my pessimism, there is one possible work around that I can foresee. It will take at least one mad scientist working in conditions that would never be considered ethical today, but it is at least conceivable. Imagine the creation of a human being without a brain – without a consciousness. This is, in fact, one goal of Regenerative Medicine today, though not explicitly stated. We will eventually at least be able to produce organs outside of the body – to grow them in a dish. Now if we had an entire human body devoid of a brain, one could easily see us performing experiments on such a life form without worrying about pain and suffering. (Note: I am ignoring moral qualms from anyone who believes in a soul, or believes that we are “as we were meant to be,” or anyone who thinks that the word “natural” actually means something). But for us to create such an entity, this will likely involve ethically questionable research on humans as well, and it may not even be possible to develop a human without a brain while maintaining the integrity of all other organs. Nonetheless, such a creature could at least give us a “model organism” on which to test our various enhancement techniques. Of course, none of these enhancements would involve cognitive function enhancement, for obvious reasons.

All of this type of research, should it ever occur in any form, will require a progressive revolution in the populace at large. We will have to overcome our archaic “playing God” ideas – (honestly, in what ways have we NOT been trying to play God since the discovery of fire, and the domestification of plants and animals). We will have to get over this idea that somehow “natural” things are better than “unnatural” - the words have no meaning in reality. Accepting genetically-modified foods - a potential savior to world poverty, though it is admittedly rife with its own inherent issues that WILL be addressed - will be a necessary first step. It will also require computing power many magnitudes greater than what we have now, but I think this will inevitably come.

In summary, I have very little faith that our society and culture will allow such enhancements, despite the fact that this is the only way we will evolve, barring major cataclysm. I also think side-effects such as the class divisions between altered people seen in GATTACA, might prove to be too big of an issue. I’m not sure human nature will ever progress beyond dividing itself on whatever divisions are possible. Perhaps if we changed our brains…ahh Catch-22.

Then again, I am but a product of today. Who knows what cultural and societal changes may come? Perhaps our children, or great, great…grandchildren will embrace transhumanism.

I doubt it. As I’ve said before, multiple times, humans are no longer evolving at a macro scale, regardless of what cultural norms envelop us. I think that our animal natures will always grow to repress any escape we might attempt from them.

I hope not.

I really want my baby to have gills.

Science Takes Another Step Toward Understanding Human Evolution

In a previous post I highlighted one of the great questions facing science today: how did we evolve and what specific genes make us different from our cousins in the animal kingdom?

In a new study reported in this month’s issue of PLoS Genetics, Carolin Kosiol and colleagues have demonstrated the most complete analysis of the human, chimpanzee, macaque, mouse, rat, and dog genomes to date, highlighting many genes and pathways that have contributed to our own evolution as mammals and primates.

Evolution fundamentally occurs at the gene level. If a gene becomes mutated, thus making an organism (or population) more likely to pass on that gene, that gene can be said to have undergone “positive selection.” The environment has positively selected that gene to become more prevalent.

Just to give you a very quick primer on gene evolution, one thing necessary to understand is that all mammals (and indeed all vertebrates) contain a large number of genes that we share in common. For instance Tbx20, a gene involved in heart development (which I used to study), exists in all organisms from flies to humans. The function of this gene is the same or similar in these organisms, though there are many specific differences between them as well.

It is these genes that we share with the other organisms that these researchers compared. What the authors of this study have done is to look at the differences in the sequences of these mammalian genes to determine which sets of genes have changed the most – i.e. which genes have undergone positive selection during evolution. They highlighted several pathways that have undergone the “strongest” positive selection, such as defense/immunity, chemosensory perception, reproduction and taste perception.

Surprisingly, to me, they did not find pathways and processes in the brain that have a high number of positively selected genes. It seems to me that this can be explained by a few different possibilities: 1) only a few specific genes have evolved strongly, but these few genes resulted in huge changes in the brain, 2) new genes have arisen (which were not looked at in this study – again, only genes that we share were compared), or 3) the brain genes that changed weren’t exclusively part of “brain processes” (for example, the gene I mentioned above, Tbx20, is involved in both heart and brain development).

Regardless, this is a very interesting study, and it brings us one small step closer to understanding what exactly makes us who we are as humans, as primates, and as mammals. And it opens us to new questions of how these specific genetic changes evolved in the first place.

NPR This I Believe: Hope in the Black Void of the Unknowable

Recently, I wrote an essay for This I Believe, an NPR radio series that asks Americans to answer this simple question. My essay has not yet been reviewed; however I doubt my chances of getting selected on the radio program. It is a bit too impersonal, too “what I don’t believe,” and not nearly as eloquent as many of the best essays (for the absolute best – see below mine). My essay is actually a shorter and reworked version of another essay I wrote on the same subject.

Note: If you find that you believe in something strongly and have a story to tell around that belief, I highly recommend you submit your own essay to NPR This I Believe.

This I Believe: Hope in the Black Void of the Unknowable

As a scientist studying the development of the brain and as a student of all scientific knowledge, I find it highly probable that all life and human experience is devoid of inherent meaning or purpose. The Universe seems nothing more than an enormous cosmic accident – an accident that will be corrected in due course as the Universe and its inhabitants are eventually destroyed in an equally pointless cataclysm. At least this is the view of my Universe as seen through the eyes of empiricism, the only eyes through which I know how to look. My morals, my accomplishments, my feelings and thoughts, and my connections to others and to the world in which I live are apparently no more than blips of energy in an inconsequential cosmic blink. However, underlying all of my knowledge and all of science I hold one major faith, one prime assumption. This is the assumption that my senses and experiences are relating real information about reality. That I am not merely in “The Matrix.” There is simply no philosophical workaround to this argument – it is impossible for me to absolutely know anything.

Thus, I cannot conclude anything definitively about my ultimate creator. I cannot absolutely believe in anything. I can only think from within the pragmatic view of science – that my senses work and my experiences along with the collected experiences of my brethren explain my reality better than any other means of purported knowledge. I can only decide to educate my future children about where we as a species come from, though I cannot guess where we may be going. I must make them understand that our science, our knowledge, is the closest thing to an explanation of our Universe we will likely ever have. However, just as importantly, I must admit where this knowledge can never reach, and allow that place to be inhabited with hope – a hope that maybe, just maybe, in that dark void of unknowability lies a meaning to my existence, a meaning I can never know or comprehend.

I must make them understand that although the fables passed down from our ancestors are no longer useful as a defining belief, the true possibilities of our meaning and our worth may be infinitely larger than I ever imagined. I believe that if we take into consideration the grandness of nature, the mind-boggling array of galaxies in our Universe, and the insanely complex biology and chemistry within ourselves, the unknowable creation of our Universe will seem only that much bigger and infinitely more awe-inspiring. I have seen but a glimpse of this awe in the intricate networks of neurons speaking to each other in unintelligible chemical languages, and I can almost fathom an entity setting it all in motion with a mere equation. Almost.

As the philosopher Karl Popper once said, “Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite.” I believe that it is in this infinite ignorance where my only hope for greater cosmic meaning may lie.

The Best "This I Believe" Essay Ever:

NPR This I Believe: I Am Evolution
by Holly Dunsworth, a physical anthropologist at Penn State

I believe evolution. It's easy. It's my life. I'm a paleoanthropologist. I study fossils of humans, apes and monkeys, and I teach college students about their place in nature.

Of course I believe evolution.

But that is different from believing in evolution.

To believe in something takes faith, trust, effort, strength. I need none of these things to believe evolution. It just is. My health is better because of medical research based on evolution. My genetic code is practically the same as a chimpanzee's. My bipedal feet walk on an earth full of fossil missing links. And when my feet tire, those fossils fuel my car.

To believe in something also implies hope. Hope of happiness, reward, forgiveness, eternal life. There is no hope wrapped up in my belief. Unless you count the hope that one day I'll discover the most beautifully complete fossil human skeleton ever found, with a label attached saying exactly what species it belonged to, what food it ate, how much it hunted, if it could speak, if it could laugh, if it could love and if it could throw a curveball. But this fantasy is not why I believe evolution — as if evolution is something I hope comes true.

After all the backyard bone collecting I did as a child, I managed to carve out a career where I get to ask the ultimate question on a daily basis: "Where did I come from and how?"

If our beliefs are important enough, we live our lives in service to them. That's how I feel about evolution. My role as a female Homo sapiens is to return each summer to Kenya, dig up fossils, and piece together our evolutionary history. Scanning the ground for weeks, hoping to find a single molar, or gouging out the side of a hill, one bucket of dirt at a time, I'm always in search of answers to questions shared by the whole human species. The experience deepens my understanding not just about what drives my life, but all our lives, where we came from. And the deeper I go, the more I understand that everything is connected. A bullfrog to a gorilla, a hummingbird to me, to you.

My belief is not immutable. It is constantly evolving with accumulating evidence, new knowledge and breakthrough discoveries. For example, within my lifetime, our history has expanded from being rooted 3 million years ago with the famous Lucy skeleton, to actually beginning over 6 million years ago with a cranium from Chad. The metamorphic nature of my belief is not at all like a traditional religious one; it's more like seeing is believing.

So I believe evolution.

I feel it. I breathe it. I listen to evolution, I observe it and I do evolution. I write, study, analyze, scrutinize and collect evolution. I am evolution.

Amazing, no? If you enjoyed this beautiful and poignant essay, I highly recommend you read the interview with Holly Dunsworth on the excellent Forms Most Beautiful blog (one of my favorite blogs on the internets).

The end of evolution? (yes and no - mostly no)

I occasionally hear people talk about what humans will look and be like in the future. They hypothesize about what the next steps in human evolution will be. Will we continue to become more intelligent, taller, or more able to manipulate things with our hands etc., according to the previous trends in our evolution. However, let us really think about this. In our society today (and I'm mainly referring to the developed countries) we have amazing health care and it is fairly certain that our ability to fight and control disease externally through drugs and treatments will only get better. Soon even those with severe genetic diseases that would have eliminated them from the gene pool before adolescence a century ago will now be able to live relatively long lives. Essentially, we no longer have any reproduction of the fittest - everyone is about as able to produce offspring and pass on their genes as everyone else, as a broad generalization with some exceptions. Of course I realize that at a micro-level some evolution will continue to occur. It is not really correct to say that Darwinian evolution no longer applies to human populations. As I said there will still be some survival (and more importantly, reproduction) of the fittest, but only at a micro-level – mostly at the level of eliminating disease. The diseases that completely prevent reproduction (such as down syndrome) will always be weeded out of the gene pool because the down syndrome traits (an extra 21st chromosome) cannot be passed down to the next generation (or they are passed down at a much reduced rate). Also, certain genes may fluctuate in abundance throughout the population due to environmental and cultural factors. For instance the percentage of brown eyes will probably increase in the US as the Hispanic populations increase and disperse their traits through the gene pool (this is just a random possible example that may or may not happen). This process is more akin to genetic drift than to actual trait selection.

Evolutionarily speaking, no new or novel traits that appear will have any reproductive advantage, because everyone is already able to reproduce as much as the next guy, in general. Before long most countries will have mandatory family size limits to control the world's overpopulation. Many people can't see this occurring in the near future, but in a century or two we will have no choice. In the past, one of the main factors leading to evolution was a genetic change allowing individuals to reproduce more children or to reproduce more efficiently, consequently leading to a proliferation of those traits within the gene pool. Assuming only natural selection as the force of evolution, population control will eliminate this selection. No one will produce more offspring, thus no specific traits will be able to propagate faster than any others. Furthermore, since everyone is basically equal in reproduction, we will not "evolve" new and better genes that make us smarter or stronger (such genes would not be selected for and would not propagate through the population). In fact, it seems more likely that we will accumulate more defective genes that arise due to normal DNA replication errors and environmental mutagens and pollutants, and we will simply treat these problems with pharmaceuticals or therapy. Unless these mutations are so bad that they prevent reproduction, they will continue to be passed down.

Of course, you can probably see where this argument is going. This lack of evolution and accumulation of faulty genes will probably not happen. Not only has technology virtually eliminated any natural selection, with a few exceptions, it has created the new prospect of artificial selection. The human race WILL evolve, but it will be according to an actual plan, as opposed to the random forces of natural selection. Alternatively, a culture of breeding only with the most genetically fit might arise, a la “GATTACA,” however we see even today that it is the poorest of the poor and the most uneducated that actually has the highest birth rates (no offense intended to these populations). Honestly, if we want our lineage to continue and evolve (I hesitate to say race - race is too static of a term for a changing species), we have no choice but to actively evolve. Now don't misunderstand me and think that I'm saying we should go ahead now. Far from it! We are still in the infancy of understanding human genetics and development. We are still far from understanding exactly how the brain works and gives us self-consciousness, imagination, creativity, empathy, love, hate, and all the other nuances of human consciousness. However, that doesn't mean that we will not figure it all out eventually. We will, assuming we don't annihilate ourselves first. There are also many ethical problems with this that will have to be resolved within the population and I'm not sure how this is could work, under our current culture. However, we are already seeing the beginnings of this movement in the genetic screening of embryos for implantations. The number one thing that will have to happen is complete public education on the issues, the technologies, and the implications that go with them. Many people feel that there is something inherently wrong and sinful in "playing" God. I can see why some folks would feel that way, but I also believe that many those feelings stem from ignorance of the facts. Assuming we can overcome our fears and our ignorance, we may well be able to evolve consciously and designedly. No one is really in a position to say exactly what traits we will choose to develop - that prospect is still too far off. It certainly will not create a "perfect" human race as many people fear. That term really has no meaning. Imagine, just for fun, the human race actively developing traits that increase the sense of compassion and empathy, increasing our intelligence, giving a population of humans external gills and leathery skin to colonize the other three-quarters of the earth. Of course, these are far out ideas and have a ring of fantasy and science fiction in our ears. But these types of things are conceivably possible in the not-too-distant-future. We are learning more about how organisms develop and how the genes and environment direct this development every day.

Thus, technology hasn't really stripped us of our ability to evolve. It has simply made it so that relatively minor accidental mutations do not have the pressures to give any individuals a better chance of surviving and reproducing. Honestly, which sounds better and safer to you: waiting around for something to damage our DNA in just the right way to confer some sort of survival or reproductive advantage, or actively and carefully designing and developing these mutations and additions in order to further our long-term survival and potential?

Something one must keep in mind is that if any major catastrophe were to occur and cripple our civilization and society as we know it, the old method of natural selection would most likely resume. However, we may even be able to prevent this from occurring using our abilities of genetic manipulation. I can easily foresee us colonizing space, Mars, and, perhaps far in the future, other solar systems (assuming interstellar space travel or suspended animation are ever figured out or even possible). Regardless of how many of these ideas we as a species bring to fruition, you can be guaranteed that the human race is not truly in a state of evolutionary suspended animation, though it may appear so during our short technological adolescence. Remember the time spans involved in Darwinian evolution. If Earth history were compressed into a single year, humans would not have arrived until 2PM on December 31^st. We have not yet even been able to look at ourselves in the mirror long enough to determine if we are really evolving or not.

Science as Dr. Frankenstein

I hope every single one of you realizes that "the perfect human" is a phrase completely devoid of meaning in a constantly changing world and universe.

I read an article yesterday in TIME magazine that made some good points about genetic engineering, and as I often do, I started thinking about this subject: scientists genetically engineering humans to make them supremely intelligent, strong, agile, wicked, purple, hermaphroditic, or a combination of the above. The article was called "Why Pro-lifers are missing the point" and its main argument was that the moral question of stem cell research should not be where the tissue is coming from (dead fetuses vs. embryos for in vitro fertilization), the question should be where it is going?

I think this is a very valid concern and it ought to give us pause to consider the implications of genetic engineering research. However, I’d like to tell you some of the things mentioned in the article that I believe are full of the proverbial “it”.

First,

"In 1998, Massachusetts scientists injected a human nucleus into a cow egg. The resulting embryo, destroyed early, appeared to be producing human protein, but we have no idea what kind of grotesque hybrid entity would come out of such marriage."

What!!?? No "grotesque hybrid" could possibly come from this. Why? Because THERE IS NO COW DNA IN THE EGG, except for some maternal mitochondrial DNA. It was an enucleated egg, replaced with a human nucleus. The only thing that would happen is the embryo would die because there would not be the correct maternal mRNA for proper development. Besides where would the fetus gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?! (Thank you Monty Python) I seriously doubt that you could just stick it in a cow. First, the embryo would not be able to implant into the cow’s uterus. If it miraculously could, the cow's body would more than likely detect a "problem" with the embryo and would reabsorb it or flush it.

Second,

"Last October, the first primate containing genes from another species - a monkey with a jellyfish gene - was born. Monkeys today. Tomorrow humans."

This is true. I've seen pictures of the little rhesus monkey, and damn was he cute. I should note that although his chromosomes contained the green fluorescence protein gene, the gene was not expressed (meaning no protein was made and the gene was essentially just sitting there doing nothing). Yes humans are next. Big deal. Some of our genes were imported from other species into our own genome by retroviruses! What is better, random insertion of a random gene with an astronomically small chance of it helping an organism, or carefully planned and controlled introduction of a gene for a specific beneficial purpose with a much higher chance of success? You make the call.

Finally, the article says,

"but just around the corner lies the logical by-product of such research: the hybrid human-animal species, the partly developed human bodies for use as parts, and other grotesqueries as yet unimagined."

As for the human-animal hybrids, in the not-too-distant-future this may become possible. However there would be very little incentive for this other than the "look what I can do" factor. What is so inherently "grotesque" about a species of organism that has some human and some animal aspects? Any hybrid we created wouldn't be human. Humans are animals, therefore the new hybrid would simply be another species on this planet. God knows we've killed enough off already. I personally think it would be pretty amazing to have another intelligent species on this planet. Besides if people create animals with human intellect, it isn't going to be for food or slavery. It almost seems preposterous to imagine, but I think it will not be so in a few generations.

It is very possible in the future that if animals continue to be exploited by humans for food, the animals will likely by made dumber and stripped of pain perception, which will make slaughter a little more like cutting down a tree.

Some of this technology may even allow us to replace some of the species we’ve already killed off.

Human bodies grown for body parts are not a "by-product" of this research. They are one of the ULTIMATE GOALS of this research. Do you realize how many people die every day because they can't find a heart, lung, liver, or kidney donor? Now imagine if we could grow human bodies with no conscious, self-awareness, feelings, or even the brain structures to allow these things. It wouldn't be a deformed grotesque human, it would be a TISSUE CULTURE for saving lives. This would be revolutionary. Tell me you won't appreciate this in twenty years when your liver is an alcohol-ridden degraded soggy mass full of holes.

People think we're trying to play God and that we are trying to do in a short time what it took nature billions of years to do. But nature is not an entity that sat here and thought "I wonder what would happen if I stuck feathers on that little lizard’s arms?" It took millions of failed mutations that led to grotesque deformities and sudden deaths for every single gene that benefits an organism. If you were to watch evolution through a time-lapse, it would not be a pretty sight (actually I think it would be fascinating and beautiful, but that's just me) compared to what "grotesqueries" we might create.

Now I am not saying we should just start engineering things and cramming different genes in different organisms to see what we can sculpt. Life is not a toy and there are many, many, MANY obstacles to be overcome. We still don't have a single descent way of introducing a gene into a human chromosome in a controlled way as to prevent the disruption of other genes or cause a myriad other problems. All our current techniques involve "shotgun techniques" shooting DNA into a nucleus, hoping the gene gets stuck in a good place on a random chromosome. Most of them involve using viral capsules (basically just containers with no viral DNA) to get the DNA into the cell, which is so far turning out to be very inefficient and unpredictable. This is not how human genetic engineering should be done. But as long as we (which includes everyone in the public) proceed which extreme caution, skepticism of all data and discoveries, and keep an OPEN MIND, then I will remain optimistic of the benefits that genetic engineering and stem cell research can do for our race.

At least the ones that can afford it.