Genome Surprise

Catskul writes "Along with the news that the polished and (more nearly) complete human genome being published Monday, comes a surprising observation about the genome: We have substantially fewer genes than expected; between 27,000 and 40,000 as compared to an original estimate of 140,000." Update: 04/14 01:22 GMT by T : For everyone who can't look at a Z, headline updated with an S in "surprise."

Comments

I thought so.

[Capt'n Hector]

We are simple creatures, no doubt. But the number of genomes does not point to our complexity. Rather, these genomes could be incredibly complex, controlling all sorts of things. They could intermingle, with no clear linear relationship between a single function and a single genome. It would have been easier to decode had there been more, because now it is clear that these genomes are more complex than originally thought.

Re:I thought so.

[Spy Hunter]

Yeah, I was astonished at the stupid claims being made in the article based on this percieved lack of genes.

The small number of genes is significant [because it means] we're not hard-wired

It means no such thing! It could just mean that fewer genes are necessary to hard-wire us. Nobody really knows how much effect particular genes have on us, so saying that 140,000 would be enough but 40,000 isn't enough is just spewing hot air.

The low number of genes means humans have as few as 300 more genes than a mouse and only twice the genes of the fruit fly. "A lot of people will find that philosophically disturbing," says theoretical biologist Jean-Michel Claverie

I don't see why they should. More genes == more superiority? Who made up that rule? How about "better genes == more superiority"?

The low number of genes [means] that there is no genetic basis for race.

Totally not true. Of course race has a genetic basis. It is inherited, after all. Black people have black children. It just means that the number of genes necessary to determine race is smaller than we thought.

...how have we become so much more complex than other creatures, whilst having relatively few extra genes.

I don't think it's any mystery. We're NOT "so much more complex!" The only part of us that is more complex is our brains. And animals have brains too, some of which are quite sophisticated by any measure of complexity.

Looks like people are having a field day speculating about what this low number could mean. I think it just means that we were wrong before, and we still don't have a clue about how big an effect single genes can really have on an organism.

Re:I thought so.

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

I don't see why they should. More genes == more superiority? Who made up that rule? How about "better genes == more superiority"?

What the heck does "better genes" mean? For that matter, what does "more superiority"? Despite what everyone seems to want, evolution is not a moralistic process! There is no "superior" or "inferior". At best, there is "more fit" and "less fit" -- and even that is strongly location-dependent and time-evolving. In terms of survival fitness, it can be argued that, say, bacteria -- or insects -- way outperform humans. Sure, they don't build cathedrals or rocket ships, but what the heck does evolution care?

The less one makes declarative statements...

[eidechse]

"What we've got now is what we'll have for all eternity"

Perhaps in the future we'll get to see this next to:

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." -Charles H. Duell

"640k should be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates

I grant that this particular case may seem less "philosophical" than the cases in the quotations above but a "stick a fork in it...it's done" mindset is not only arrogant but detrimental to science as well.

Re:Just for comparison's sake...

[dspeyer]

Not to argue with your basic idea there, but how does culture determine the similarities then? The fact that most native Africans have dark skin, most Northern Europeans are relatively fair skinned, and most Asians are notably shorter than Native Americans? There has to be some genes doing something. Or some other mechanism we have yet to discover.

Dark-skinned is not a race. "Black" is a race -- and very few black people have actual black skin (much less black teeth!). Races are cultural constructs that may include genetic/physical characteristics in their definitions. Some physical characteristics are often considered (e.g. skin color) and some (earlobe attatchment, blood type) are generally ignored. Furthermore:

• USA custom dictates that an individual with one great-great-grandfather from Nigeria and the rest from England is black, completely irrespective of any alleles the individual may actually express or carry.
• USA custom acknowledges "Hispanic" as a race, even though it carries no genetic correlation. It is roughly defined as an individual who's native language is an American dialect of Spanish, or the decendant of such a person to the fourth generation. Except Jamacans, who might be black. And including Haitians and Brazilians, or something like that.
• Mexican custom dictates that an individual with one nigerian parent and one Castillian is black, mulatto, or white depending on the individual's net income. (Disclaimer: I haven't been to Mexico -- this is the finding of some random ethnographer.)

What's probably most significant, though, is that the races which do correspond to genetic traits make no sense as biological characterizations. They don't match actual genetic difference groups at all. This is what is meant by the statement that races are purely cultural.