It's been said quite a few times in these forums that evolution will no longer have an affect as genetic engineering takes hold.

Do you think this is true?

And in the long run, which method would you trust more to sustain the future of the human race?

Genetic engineering is nothing more than directed, forced evolution.

Instead of waiting 1,000,000 years for a mutation to take place and take hold, we just do it.




Genetic engineering. Evolution fails species all the time. Of course, it depends on what we engineer and if we behave wisely.

If genetic changes introduced via engineering can be inherited, then evolution will still be at work. It just means that there's now another mechanism introducing change, first there were just mutations, now engineering.

That's what I was going for. You said it much better.

I don't entirely agree with this, Neognosis.

Evolution by the process of natural selection selects for organisms suited for the environment they exist in. Genetic engineering is not 'natural selection'. We would not be selecting for an environment but for an ideal (in many cases). There is no evidence that the process of genetic engineering accelerates the expression of alleles that would have been selected for if the organism was left to naturally evolve.

Maybe it's just the semantics, but I see evolution and genetic engineering as not directly comparable given the end result desired with each.

Genetic engineering on humans is prohibited. Even gene therapy is on hold but dont expect that to last. Trickiest part will be getting the mutation to be inheritable. We have enough issues dealing with mouse embryos.... how much more ethically complex will it be on humans?

Well that's the thing. It's putting a heck of a lot of trust in the wisdom of people.

And human ideals and goals are very fickle. They change a lot throughout history.

No, but it can produce new genes which would be subject to natural selection. Look at sickle-cell anemia and malaria, now pretend that sickle-cell anemia was the product of engineering instead of a mutation...see what I'm getting at?

It will unnaturally select from the wealthy and leave the poor out.

So in a sense, it will be natural selection by the standards of today's survivability: wealth in an environment where wealth is the measure of sucess.

Whoever can afford to have a child engineered to be muscular and disease resistant will have one.

Raptor, Neo,

I'm not debating that GE can modify genes. What I am debating is that it is directed evolution. By comparing GE to evolution we are redefining evolution in doing so to mean 'improvement' of an organism, but evolution is not about improvement, it's about survivability in an environment. Making humanity all beautiful or handsome or intelligent does not equate to evolutionary success for the species, neither does curing genetic abnormalities or conditions such as cancer, MND, fibrous cystitis etc.

I'm not saying that doing these things might not be beneficial for individuals, but they are not evolution in action, forced or otherwise.

Raptor,

I see the point you are making about inherited genes, but GE is not (yet) being mooted as a way to allow humans as a species to survive in an otherwise hostile environment. It is being looked at as a treatment for medical/genetic conditions and as a potential 'uber-plastic surgery' technique.

I know that, what I mean to say is that GE could play the same role as mutations do in evolution.

How can you say that?

First, making people smarter will increase their ability to gain wealth and therefore live longer and have longer living children.

Second, increasing resistance to disease equates to an evolutionary process.

While Cystic Fibrosis might have been wiped out naturally a thousand years ago if those with CF kept dying in childhood, now it can be wiped out by manipulating the genes. One is natural evolution, the other a forced evolution of sorts.

We're arguing semantics. Genetic engineering, while changing genetics for a desired effect, can be thought of as an evolution with desire and design the pressure factors instead of natural selection.

It's intentional selection. If that makes it Non-evolutionary, it is of no consequence to me.

Yeah. Good point.

Do you think that making changes over such a short period of time will overshadow the slow pace of evolution though?

I mean, say normally evolution might be gradually heading in one direction to better take advantage of part of the surrounding environment. But humans keep interrupting the process by making their own drastic changes around the same area.

If you get what I mean...

Much bigger scale though isn't it?

Mutations start out very small and gradual and on a very small part of the population don't they?

Neo, we are already successful as a species. Living longer, having more children, these things are unnecessary for our survival as a species. We only need to live long enough to procreate and raise out children. Evolution is about what the organism needs to survive as a species, not what it desires as an individual.

Raptor,

Sorry, I realised I hadn't addressed your point. I added this response to my post above.

Yes, but it's the same principle. If you altered a single gene of a single individual then it's no different from a mutation.