0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
“Viral elements are a large part of the genetic material of almost all organisms,” said Dr. Sharp, who won a Nobel Prize for elucidating details of our genetic code. Base for nucleic base, he said, “we humans are well over 50 percent viral.” Scientists initially dismissed the viral elements in our chromosomes as so much tagalong “junk DNA.” But more recently some researchers have proposed that higher organisms have in fact co-opted viral genes and reworked them into the source code for major biological innovations, according to Luis P. Villarreal, director of the Center for Virus Research at the University of California, Irvine. Some genes involved in the growth of the mammalian placenta, for example, have a distinctly viral character, as do genes underlying the recombinant powers of our adaptive immune system — precisely the part that helps us fight off viruses. In fact, it may well have been through taking genomic tips from our viral tormentors that we became so adept at keeping them at bay.
The researchers looked for Wolbachia genes in the genomes of more than 24 invertebrates, including wasps and nematodes, and found it in 8. In some cases, just short sequences of the bacterial genome were embedded in the invertebrate DNA. But in the fruit fly Drosophila ananassae, practically the entire Wolbachia genome was present. Further work showed that the bacterial genetic material was passed on in reproduction like normal genes.
Where humans and domesticated animals are concerned there is also the mechanism of 'culture based' evolution. The increased level of communication between humans by speech, writing etc. means that cultural changes are accelerating and technology has been produced which is sidestepping Darwin completely. Individuals who would have died or failed to reproduce, in the past, are now surviving and this must have severe knock-ons for the genes of future generations. It is, perhaps, not a PC subject to discuss but it does constitute a time-bomb which our grandchildren may have to deal with. What would we do if low fertility and reproductive problems no longer self-limited, resulting in a population with low fertility and defective reproductive systems?
This is not so much a biological but an ethical question. Do we have ways to decide who's worthy to procreate? Can we now decide what will be bad genes for future generations? If we do, we lose our humanity. Even if we have in the future, the far future IMO, fertility problems, there will be other ways of procreation of the human species.What we now call "bad" gene might have an advantage somewhere else, see sickle cell anemia, where having the train protects you some what against malaria.
Of course it's a statement of faith because it hasn't happened yet - we can only wait and see.