What is the Limit?

[foodchain]

With the advent or ability of humans to modify or understand genetic code, and such a code being responsible in large for the physiology of an organism what will the future truly hold for such an ability. I personally view genetics of course having to be able to operate basically in the reality that is physics and chemistry overall, that being said what would be available in a reality of total understanding of genetics. Will people be able to modify humans that can live in the vacuum of space, will we have people that are more akin to characters in the X-MEN comic book series for instance? IT sounds far fetched and even laughable, but the reality of understanding how to perfectly control genotypes and phenotypes via genetic engineering I see only as a medium in which such could occur. I don’t want to spin complete science fiction but within genetics we already have spider silk compounds being produced in goats milk to a myriad of other "innovations" that one hundred years ago would have sounded more outlandish at large then what I am posting here. For instance, UV vision, or to be able to see in such could be part of a GMO human, what would be the upper limits of such overall as understanding of the natural world is incorporated into genetic engineering?

 

Could we see in time evolution being primarily nothing more then a product of artificial selection?

[wangerbio]

The DNA and genetic code today are the evolutive results of millions of years.We human beings are merely studying on the very small part of it.

[lucaspa]

For instance, UV vision, or to be able to see in such could be part of a GMO human, what would be the upper limits of such overall as understanding of the natural world is incorporated into genetic engineering?

 

Could we see in time evolution being primarily nothing more then a product of artificial selection?

 

You do realize that "artificial selection" and "natural selection" are simply Darwinian selection, don't you? Darwin looked at the type of selection human breeders were doing and simply said that such selection was occurring in "nature" -- thus "natural selection".

 

There is a huge difference between understanding the genome and being able to genetically engineer to what you want. Humans are already genetically engineering animals. I have a strain in the lab called ROSA mouse. It has had the bacterial beta-galactosidase gene inserted into its genome (randomly by a viral vector) so that every cell in the body expresses beta-galactosidase. It allows those cells to be identified and tracked when placed into another non-ROSA mouse.

 

There are also mice genetically engineered with green fluorescent protein. Many of these are tied to specific promoters -- such as troponin I in heart muscle -- that are expressed in specific tissues. Thus that tissue, and only that tissue, express the GFP.

 

The problem with gene engineering humans is that we are presuming that certain traits are inarguably "good". This means that we are saying that we are smarter than natural selection. Remember, EVERY trait comes with a cost as well as a benefit. Natural selection constantly does a balancing act between cost and benefit. Humans would not do such an analysis or balancing. We are NOT smarter than natural selection. I think we should recognize our limitations and do technology instead. We can make visors that see in UV; we don't need to genetically engineer that.