Slashdot Mirror
Ape-Human DNA Split
M. Boss writes "CNN is running a story about a gene split between humans and the apes. This is the second major DNA article regarding human evolution published in the last month (the first being about the FOXP2 gene, possibly responsible for human speech and comprehension). This second story is about a gene missing in humans that is responsible for production of a sugar acid, and possibly human brain expansion."
You're probably correct that the next step will be trying to activate this gene in apes. It is in our nature to muck with things that we do not understand. Personal responsiblity in science is only relevant where lawsuits are involved. As long as the researcher is not liable for being found guilty of a crime in a court of law, there is no bounds to what may be researched.
This is an ethical issue of biblical proportion. Something inside us says that this is wrong, but the same is true of cannibalism. Cannibalism is the norm for adolescent wolf spiders, so why is it that we as human beings find it so distasteful? Same-species protein is wrong simply because it comes from the same species.
It's an interesting dilemma.
Do we ignore the potential to test our theories on hapless and helpless apes or do we go with our questions unanswered. Between you an' me, I'll guess that the pocket-protector types will figure out a way to test on our ape brethren.
"Get your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape!"
>
Here is a site about the pathway sialic acid took through human cells. Its a bit confusing, but informative never-the-less. And here is a PDF of the basic functions of sialic acid. It also has a bit on directed evolution.
I once shot a man who posted too many, "Imagine a beowulf cluster of these"
Does this mean we split the Darwinism Award for our cousins?
I can't imagine what the apes can do that us human frequently and stupidly do?
To the question about censoring, the scientists who are most interested in this, already knew. Now we can know what to expect.
As far as producing apes of human intelligence, we must recall that evolution does not occur as a path to a specific end. While the absence of this gene might allow the increased brain function, we cannot say now that it necessitates it. What we may find an entirely different result in the long term evolution of apes. They face different tribulations on their reproductive trail than pre-humans faced. They are not competing soley among themselves for the right to reproduce and pass their genes to the next generation. They are competing with extreme external pressures to merely survive.
Anything you say will be held against you.
Amen, brother.
Get your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape
The next obvious step of experimentation will be trying to activate this gene in apes, which may well produce apes of human intelligence.
You *do* know this will mean that apes will rule the world after the next nuclear holocaust, right?
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
> Cannibalism [...], why is it that we as human beings find it so distasteful? Same-species protein is wrong simply because it comes from the same species.
Incorrect.
Cannibalism is wrong because same-species flesh carries bacteria, viruses, prions, concentrated toxins, and all sorts of nasty stuff that is bad for us.
Many seemingly senseless taboos have a basis in fact.
Why is it we eat lots of herbivores (chickens, pigs, cows, etc), but we don't eat carnivores (dogs, cats, tigers, lions)? Is it because it doesn't seem "right", or because carnivores being higher up the food chain concentrate toxins?
Why don't Jews eat pork? Is it because God said so, or is it because God (and his numerous assistants down here) noticed that before refrigerators you got Trichinosis from eating pork?
Why do many organized religions have taboos against sex outside of marriage? Is it because you will go to hell if you have sex, or perhaps it is because people recognized that lots of promiscuous sex was correlated to diseases?
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
It is in our nature to muck with things that we do not understand.
;- )
Like women...
Personal responsiblity in science is only relevant where lawsuits are involved.
Science, fast foods, hairdressing, driving, medecine, tooth brush manufacturing...
As long as the researcher is not liable for being found guilty of a crime in a court of law, there is no bounds to what may be researched.
Hurrah! Now that's sweet! Never ending progress...right on!
This is an ethical issue of biblical proportion.
The bible is an ethical issue? Hmmm...I guess you're right. Its all about stoning people to death and such...I had not thought of it as such before though..
but, how is this as questionnable as the Book that teaches violence and hatred? Its just comparing the genes of humans and other apes so see where's the difference, its not doing any harm.
Cannibalism is the norm for adolescent wolf spiders
Really? Those teenage punks...
so why is it that we as human beings find it so distasteful?
Well, we're pack animals. We need to keep our family alive or we'll die too (in nature, in civilised society its a bit more complex than that). Of course, some human cultures took to eating people from neighboring villages, eating "their own kind", but not their kin. And then there are the psychos...they don't find it distastefull, but they aren't "normal", so they don't count
Same-species protein is wrong simply because it comes from the same species.
This sentence makes no sense to me...what do you mean?
Do we ignore the potential to test our theories on hapless and helpless apes or do we go with our questions unanswered. Between you an' me, I'll guess that the pocket-protector types will figure out a way to test on our ape brethren.
Are you talking about nerds? On slashdot? Wow! Its as if you thought that there were none of those around here! That's so cute : )
You can't take the sky from me...
The next obvious step of experimentation will be trying to activate this gene in apes, which may well produce apes of human intelligence.
I'm hoping this post is in jest, but its hard to tell. The thing that bothers me about stories like this is that it reinforces the one-gene/one-function myth that popular journalists seem to love so much. Sure, in many cases we can isolate genes that produce proteins with specific functions that are useful. But, when you start talking about genes related to development and morphology, I'd guess (being an armchair science-geek) that that things get much more complex. No one in the news wants to talk about the extreme complexity and and inter-relatedness of genes, but everyone want to say "Hey, Scientists Discovered the Intelligence Gene!"
Don't blame me, I get all my opinions from my Ouija board.
> Cannibalism is wrong because same-species flesh
> carries bacteria, viruses, prions, concentrated
> toxins, and all sorts of nasty stuff that is bad
> for us.
Oh, piffle. All it takes is a little care and preparation of the meat. Also, eating healthful specimens is better than munching away on Johnny CouchPotato.
> Why is it we eat lots of herbivores (chickens,
> pigs, cows, etc), but we don't eat carnivores
> (dogs, cats, tigers, lions)? Is it because it
Who's "we"? There are several asian cultures where dog meat is considered a delicacy. Anyway, that said, hunter-gatherer humans would eat the meat from any animal preyed on. The main reason our diet currently consists of herbivore flesh is that herbivores are easier to domesticate and raise in an agricultural environment. And, historically, most herbivores would be much less dangerous for humans to hunt and kill.
If it were about avoiding toxins, nobody would be smoking, drinking, overdosing, etc. We, as a species, are smart, but not that smart.
> Why don't Jews eat pork? Is it because God said > so, or is it because God (and his numerous
> assistants down here) noticed that before
> refrigerators you got Trichinosis from eating
> pork?
Ask some Jews and you'll get one answer, ask science-oriented non-Jews and you'll get a different answer.
> Is it because you will go to hell if you have
> sex, or perhaps it is because people recognized
> that lots of promiscuous sex was correlated to
> diseases?
It's because there are vast numbers of people out there who really subscribe to the idea that if it feels good it must be wrong. If sex were really considered okay today, we'd never have BS "storks bring babies" stories taught to youngsters. Unfortunately, the world is full of people for whom even nudity is something of which to be ashamed.
Really, man, you give too much credit. You state that many seeminly senseless taboos have a basis in fact, but I would say that many of them have a basis in nothing more than psychological control. And the church still uses those tactics today. How...modern of them.
>> The next obvious step of experimentation will be trying to activate this gene in apes
> I'm hoping this post is in jest
I have to agree. Absolutely. The mere thought of it just makes me wanna go "Oook!"
...and incest taboos reduce birth defects.
:-) "Ye shall not cut off the hair of your heads round about your temples." (Leviticus 19:27)
Some other religious taboos aren't so easy to explain though
Many seemingly senseless taboos have a basis in fact.
Agreed, but I feel that you are reading too much into them. They have a basis in fact, but they arne't a be all and end all.
Why is it we eat lots of herbivores (chickens, pigs, cows, etc), but we don't eat carnivores (dogs, cats, tigers, lions)? Is it because it doesn't seem "right", or because carnivores being higher up the food chain concentrate toxins?
We eat lots of herbivores because it is more efficent to. We need a heap of plant material to feed a herbivore, but if we farmed carnivores, we would need a heap of herbivores to feed the carnivores, and a truely massive amount of plant material to feed the herbivores. It's far more efficent to eat the stuff at the bottom of the food chain.
That being said, if you got your meat from hunting carnivores, it wouldn't do you any harm.
Why don't Jews eat pork? Is it because God said so, or is it because God (and his numerous assistants down here) noticed that before refrigerators you got Trichinosis from eating pork?
While pork can cause health problems, virtually every type of food (meat especially) can do the same. Why pork and not chicken? It was probably a cultural thing that got passed down through history (as far as I know, the non-eating of pork is the oldest archeology dated Jewish custom).
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
A few problems with this comment. 1) recognizing a difference between two species (especially at the molecular level) doesn't mean that it is what causes observable differences in the species. The scientist's claims that the absence of the sugar allows the brain to develop larger is purely conjecture. 2) Inhibiting the gene activity (the author incorrectly suggests activating the gene) in apes in the absence of all the other evolutionary changes that have taken place (2% of 3 billion nucleotides is still A LOT of differences) would most likely just kill or severly harm the poor ape. Scientific regulations don't generally allow this kind of experimentation on primates... 3) As a general principle, supression of scientific information for the "good" of mankind is a bad idea. Ask Gallileo...
That's an easy one. It's an early remedy for balding!
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
The anti-carnivore taboo isn't nearly as universal as you think it is. Dogs are a part of many Asian cuisines, and there doesn't seem to be any associated health problem -- other than PETA death threats. Some popular food animals (inlcuding a couple you cite) are thought of as herbivores but are actually carnivores or ominvores -- Salmon, pigs.
Many Asian cultures seem to have a taboo, or at least some aversion, to eating draft animals. No obvious answer for that one. Then there's horsemeat -- popular in continental Europe, gross in English-speaking countries. Cuteness factor?
Health issues are often cited as a source of taboo, but that's hard to justify. The usual example is the tricinosis spread by pigs. But there are easier ways to prevent this disease -- like cooking thoroughly. Every animal food, even eggs, spreads diseases that can be controlled by cooking.
(Incidentally, the fact that pigs spread trich has more to do with the similarity between human and porcine physiology. It's quite striking. Pig embryoes are sometimes used in human anatomy classes. One 16th century scientist even though that humans evolved from pigs. I'd tell you his name, but I'd stand accused of a gratuitous pun.)
Taboos have a lot more to do with defining your cultural identity, and separating your own culture from others. Jewish culture (my own heritage) is full of bizarre prohibitions. No mixing meat and milk -- you even have to have separate containers and utensils for them. (Though somehow fish is not considered a meat!) No flicking a light switch on the sabbath. (Electricity is a kind of fire, and you can't light or douse a fire on the sabbath.) No consumption of any non-scaly aquatic life. (Salmon is OK, even though they're carnivores, but sturgeon is not.) It goes on and on.
My own pet theory about the pork taboo goes like this: many, many years ago, the ancestors of todays Jews and Arabs were nomadic peoples who had a free open life in the deserts and hills. They looked down upon (and occassionally conquered or pillaged) the agricultural peoples who spent their life mucking out a living in the various river basins. Clean noble nomads raise herd animals. Filthy peasants raise disgusting dirty pigs. And a taboo is born. Just a theory!