[Kryptid]

Do you have any evidence from a reputable source that demonstrates that humans are capable of acquiring genes from the food they eat?

I heard of one case where humans in Japan acquired the ability to digest alginate, the structural polysacharide in seaweed. Japanese people tend to eat a lot of seaweed (in sushi, for example).

It is thought that undersea bacteria that live on seaweed and normally eat seaweed were eaten by humans. Horizontal gene transfer resulted in normal human gut microbes common in Japan acquiring the ability to digest seaweed - which of course benefits the human hosting these microbes.

Such a strain of gut microbes would have a significant advantage in the Japanese population.

So, in one sense, "human" includes "human microbiome".

But this case also aligns with the following question:

I'm well aware that hortizontal gene transfer takes place and is common among bacteria. What I have yet to see is any verified cases where it has occurred specifically between humans and their food.

See: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-26104-1

That's admittedly interesting, although it doesn't seem to be what the OP is suggesting. What you have posted is a form of bacteria-to-bacteria horizontal gene transfer. The OP is talking about horizontal gene transfer between eukaryotic organisms like fish and plants. That would presumably be much more unlikely to occur. He also argues that such horizontal gene transfer, if it does occur, is more beneficial if the genes are natural instead of artificial. I guess that means transferring genes from a fish to a tomato should be just fine in his view, since those fish genes are natural?

[cleanair (OP)]

Humans combining genes with each other happens all the time. It's called sexual reproduction. I don't know how you can call that a "potential unhealthy deviation" when that is the normal way the humans share genes with each other whereas horizontal gene transfer from some other species is far less likely to provide any benefit.

The difference lays in the fact that the genetic fabric that would possibly be involved in horizontal gene transfer is constructed on the basis of short term self interest of the human. Such a concept may lead to diversity issues similar to those with incest. It may lead to misguided evolution and other problems.

The foundation for the spirit in genetically engineered plants and animals may be severely disrupted. The effects could span 1000 years so that it is difficult or impossible to see or predict. My intuition says that humans extract vital information from food (not just building blocks / genes, but information for going beyond what exists). Maybe the complex coherence of genes provides in essential information for longer term evolution. I don't think that humans stand disconnectedly and operate purely on the basis of fuel.

[alancalverd]

Various genes get turned on or selected for by environment. I'd not heard about the alginate case before but most caucasians are more tolerant of alcohol and dairy products than other races. It's the word "most" that gives it away: all homo sapiens have 7 cervical vertebrae regardless of environment, some traits provide advantage in some circumstances, but some caucasians do not have those tolerances, so it's more subtle than a distinct species change.

[Kryptid]

The difference lays in the fact that the genetic fabric that would possibly be involved in horizontal gene transfer is constructed on the basis of short term self interest of the human. Such a concept may lead to diversity issues similar to those with incest.

That makes absolutely not sense. The creation of new genes would increase genetic diversity, not decrease it.

It may lead to misguided evolution and other problems.

What is "misguided" evolution? Evolution is trial and error. It isn't a thinking machine with purpose in mind.

The foundation for the spirit in genetically engineered plants and animals may be severely disrupted.

What does "spirit" have to do with anything?

My intuition says that humans extract vital information from food (not just building blocks / genes, but information for going beyond what exists).

Can you actually support that intuition with verifiable evidence?

[cleanair (OP)]

The OP is talking about horizontal gene transfer between eukaryotic organisms like fish and plants. That would presumably be much more unlikely to occur. He also argues that such horizontal gene transfer, if it does occur, is more beneficial if the genes are natural instead of artificial. I guess that means transferring genes from a fish to a tomato should be just fine in his view, since those fish genes are natural?

evan_au argues that bacteria are essentially a part of the human microbiome but there is evidence that horizontally transferred genes from bacteria can transfer into the human genome.

You—and everyone else—may harbor genes that have jumped from bacteria, other single-celled organisms, and viruses and made themselves at home in the human genome. That’s the conclusion of a new study, which provides some of the broadest evidence yet that, throughout evolutionary history, genes from other branches of life have become part of animal cells.

sciencemag.org /news/2015/03/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms

There is a human wisdom that claims "You are what you eat".

My argument is that successful (healthy) evolution may not be just about transferring individual genes. It may be more complex than that and it may be that food plays a role beyond fuel.

Filtering out genetic defects and unwanted properties logically results in weakness in evolution.

Overcoming problems is essential for progress in life. Some presumed defects may be a part of a 300 year evolutionary strategy that is essential to acquire solutions for longer term survival. GMO could disrupt such processes and hinder successful evolution.

An example of evidence may be bacteria. When bacteria are fought with antibiotics they become stronger until the antibiotics do not work anymore. Scientists currently fear super-bugs that can pose a threat to human existence.

The discovery of penicillin in 1928 changed the world: an infection was no longer a death sentence but a minor inconvenience. But over time it has bred an increasing number of superbugs that have become immune to our strongest medicines.

sciencefocus.com /the-human-body/human-extinction-how-could-it-happen/

It may not be wise to filter out 'genetic defects' for the short-term self interest of individual humans or for a controversial ideology (eugenics). An easy life or offspring with genes linked to prosperity (financial, career, intelligence etc) may not be what is good for human evolution.

It may be essential to value what it takes to perform like Stephen Hawking in life. Despite a genetic condition, he has contributed to human existence in ways that few others may have could.

When humans would be driven by culture to fight to overcome problems, to move mountains day after day, like bacteria do to become stronger than antibiotics, they would become "super humans". Normal humans capable of long term survival. Humans that push the limits of what is possible so that next generations will be better equipped to go even further.

It may be best to serve life instead of to attempt to stand above it.

[alancalverd]

An example of evidence may be bacteria. When bacteria are fought with antibiotics they become stronger until the antibiotics do not work anymore. .

Wrong. Antibiotics do not kill all bacteria but more-or-less selectively bring certain species under control. The survivors now have no competition for their environment and nutrition, so the species evolves by Darwinian selection. Bleach always works.

[Bored chemist]

A search in Google provides many studies.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5379729/

And here's what that paper says
"Horizontal gene transfer has been found prevalent in prokaryotes but very rare in eukaryotes"

People are eukaryotes.

So, this process is rare.
More importantly, it has always happened.
And we survived, so there's no good reason to imagine that the (very rare) transfer of genes from GMO to humans would do any harm.

I'm unlikely to be troubled by picking up the gene for glyphosate tolerance .

Then you need to look at the flip side.
It's certainly plausible that one target for GM will be producing fruit that's less susceptible to fungal attack.
Which means two things- less exposure to fungicides (probably not important) and less exposure to foods that are affected by fungi.
Now, given that some of the most toxic and carcinogenic materials known are fungal by-products, it's reasonable to see how GM might reduce the damage to my DNA far more than teh very rare HGT would cause me a problem.

[Bored chemist]

sciencefocus.com /the-human-body/human-extinction-how-could-it-happen/

That's disappointing, the BBC are usually better than that.
A moment's thought will show that  even if all the bacteria suddenly became immune to all the antibiotics it wouldn't lead to the extinction of the human race.
Your great grandparents did without antibiotics and so did all their ancestors.
There's no reason why your descendents shouldn't do so too.
People still have an immune system.
It would bugger up humanity, but it wouldn't wipe us out.

[cleanair (OP)]

The creation of new genes would increase genetic diversity, not decrease it.

The source of the genetic structure would be singular. It could be compared with stating that having a large family would increase genetic diversity. It wouldn't resolve the incest issue.

What is "misguided" evolution? Evolution is trial and error. It isn't a thinking machine with purpose in mind.

That statement is based on an assumption. The source of life is unknown. It is not possible to claim that life has no purpose when it is not yet known what life is.

What does "spirit" have to do with anything?

Spirit is the source of life within a plant or animal. It is not plausible to assume that life is limited to what can be seen. Therefor it is not possible to state that the evolution of plants and animals has no purpose.

Can you actually support that intuition with verifiable evidence?

No. I simply don't believe that humans stand disconnectedly and operate purely on the basis of fuel.

[Kryptid]

evan_au argues that bacteria are essentially a part of the human microbiome but there is evidence that horizontally transferred genes from bacteria can transfer into the human genome.

So how would the bacteria get the genes out of, say, fish cells in our stomach and then transfer those genes into our eukaryotic genome? Has this process ever actually been observed in humans?

For the sake of argument, let's say that this does indeed happen. Now the question becomes "what difference does it make where the genes come from?" To give one particular example, let's consider a genetically-modified tomato that has genes incorporated from blueberries in order to allow them to make anthocyanins, turning them blue. How can it possibly be more harmful to eat these blue tomatoes than it would be to eat regular tomatoes and blueberries at the same time? The genes involved are identical in both scenarios.

The source of the genetic structure would be singular. It could be compared with stating that having a large family would increase genetic diversity. It wouldn't resolve the incest issue.

A gene is a sequence of nucleotides. The cell has no way of telling the difference between a naturally occurring anthocyanin gene (like in blueberries) and an identical one that was introduced via genetic engineering (like in the blue tomato I mentioned earlier). Their genetic sequence is the same and the resulting proteins produced must also be the same. Where those genes came from is completely irrelevant.

That statement is based on an assumption.

No it isn't, it's based on observation. The majority of mutations are either neutral or deleterious. It's up to natural selection to get rid of those that don't benefit the survival of organisms. You don't have to add intelligence of any kind in order to make it work. Evolution simulators on computers have demonstrated this. You don't have to program an AI in.

The source of life is unknown.

I never said anything about where life came from.

It is not possible to claim that life has no purpose when it is not yet known what life is.

I never said that life has no purpose. I said that evolution is not an intelligent process. It works by trial and error.

Spirit is the source of life within a plant or animal.

Evidence?

It is not plausible to assume that life is limited to what can be seen.

Why not?

Therefor it is not possible to state that the evolution of plants and animals has no purpose.

That does not follow. Whether or not animals or plants have spirits is irrelevant to how evolution works (evolution acts on tangible things like genes anyway) or whether or not evolution has a purpose. Even if one assumes that evolution does have a purpose, that doesn't change the fact that evolution itself is not intelligent nor does it create with purpose in mind. A good example of this would be genetic algorithms on computers. The computer programmer makes the programs specifically so that computational evolution will produce superior designs over time. In that case, the digital evolution could be said to have a purpose because the programmer created it with a purpose. However, that doesn't mean that the evolutionary process itself is intelligent or creates with a sense of purpose on its own. It's still trial and error.

No. I simply don't believe that humans stand disconnectedly and operate purely on the basis of fuel.

Then please recognize that such is your belief and we are under no obligation to share it. Don't get me wrong, the chemicals in food can definitely have an effect on us. But that's not the same as claiming that genes from our food can enter our DNA (at least not at rates that would cause us concern).

[Bored chemist]

Spirit is the source of life within a plant or animal.

No
That idea was ruled out in the 19th C by Wohler
(I realise you probably won't understand this)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%B6hler_synthesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

[cleanair (OP)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

"Soul" and "spirit" can easily be interpreted as vital force.

...

"not a trace of separable soul to be found."

The source of life or spirit cannot be measured because the physical cannot be the source of itself. The argument that no trace of a spirit can be found is therefor no evidence for a claim that life is limited to what can be measured, i.e. support for the naturalism belief.

what difference does it make where the genes come from?

What I've tried to argue is that the information within the complex coherence of genes may be vital as well.

A gene is a sequence of nucleotides. The cell has no way of telling the difference between a naturally occurring anthocyanin gene (like in blueberries) and an identical one that was introduced via genetic engineering (like in the blue tomato I mentioned earlier). Their genetic sequence is the same and the resulting proteins produced must also be the same. Where those genes came from is completely irrelevant.

It would be the creation as a whole. When taken to an extreme, it's genetic construct would be limited to the short term self interest of the human. It would essentially be a sort of human offspring that is consumed. That may not be healthy (in regards to diversity).

That statement is based on an assumption.

No it isn't, it's based on observation. The majority of mutations are either neutral or deleterious. It's up to natural selection to get rid of those that don't benefit the survival of organisms. You don't have to add intelligence of any kind in order to make it work. Evolution simulators on computers have demonstrated this. You don't have to program an AI in.

Your next message essentially refutes your claim. If it is not known where life came from, it is not possible to claim that what you have observed is limited to what has been observed. The origin of life cannot be factored out because it hasn't been observed.

I never said anything about where life came from.

Spirit is the source of life within a plant or animal.

Evidence?

The spirit is a direct exponent of the source of life. The evidence for this is that you cannot perceive the perceiving as perceiver while you perceive.

It is not plausible to assume that life is limited to what can be seen.

Why not?

The physical cannot be the source of itself.

Therefor it is not possible to state that the evolution of plants and animals has no purpose.

That does not follow. Whether or not animals or plants have spirits is irrelevant to how evolution works (evolution acts on tangible things like genes anyway) or whether or not evolution has a purpose. Even if one assumes that evolution does have a purpose, that doesn't change the fact that evolution itself is not intelligent nor does it create with purpose in mind. A good example of this would be genetic algorithms on computers. The computer programmer makes the programs specifically so that computational evolution will produce superior designs over time. In that case, the digital evolution could be said to have a purpose because the programmer created it with a purpose. However, that doesn't mean that the evolutionary process itself is intelligent or creates with a sense of purpose on its own. It's still trial and error.

Before the source of life is known, it is not possible to make claims regarding intelligence being a part of it or not. External observation of a process would not suffice.

No. I simply don't believe that humans stand disconnectedly and operate purely on the basis of fuel.

Then please recognize that such is your belief and we are under no obligation to share it. Don't get me wrong, the chemicals in food can definitely have an effect on us. But that's not the same as claiming that genes from our food can enter our DNA (at least not at rates that would cause us concern).

I came to this forum with a simple question whether philosophy and ethics play a role in the synthetic biology revolution. I may not be the right person to defend philosophy or ethical arguments for or against such a practice.

The report in The Economist literally communicated that the synthetic biology revolution is unguided and has no intent while business revenue from GMO is already at 2% of US GDP. I therefor also wondered what users on this forum would communicate in that regards. Is it wise to let companies on the loose if the future of humanity is at stake?

[Kryptid]

What I've tried to argue is that the information within the complex coherence of genes may be vital as well.

And what is the evidence for this? In particular, how would that possibly have any effect if the anthocyanin gene is taken from a genetically-modified blue tomato than it is from a blueberry? The nucleotide sequence that ends up inside of the cell is the same in either case.

It would be the creation as a whole. When taken to an extreme, it's genetic construct would be limited to the short term self interest of the human. It would be human offspring that would feed itself. That may not be healthy (in regards to diversity).

That didn't come even remotely close to addressing what I said. How can your body tell the difference whether it received an anthocyanin gene from a blue tomato or a blueberry if the two genes are identical in nucleotide sequence?

Your next message essentially refutes your claim. If it is not known where life came from, it is not possible to claim that what you have observed is limited to what has been observed.

One does not need to know where life came from in order to know how it behaves and functions any more than one has to know what store you bought baking soda and vinegar at in order to study the resulting acid-base reaction between the two.

The spirit is a direct exponent of the source of life.

What does that even mean?

The evidence for this is that you cannot perceive the perceiving as perceiver while you perceive.

I can't make sense of this sentence, but it's probably a non-sequitur.

The physical cannot be the source of itself.

Based on what reasoning? Where physical matter came from is also irrelevant to what its observable properties are. The atoms in a living animal are the same as those in a dead animal. The only difference is how they are arranged.

Before the source of life is known, it is not possible to make claims regarding intelligence being a part of it or not. External observation of a process would not suffice.

Then what you have done is create a non-falsifiable, and therefore non-scientific, hypothesis. One could just as easily claim that you can't rule out the possibility of gravity being intelligent because observations can't determine whether an intelligence is there or not. If we don't need an intelligence in order to explain a process, why should we bother complicating our models by unnecessarily adding one to it? It isn't parsimonious.

I came to this forum with a simple question whether philosophy and ethics play a role in the synthetic biology revolution.

It certainly does play a role, seeing as how there are already laws against some forms of genetic engineering.

The report in The Economist literally communicated that the synthetic biology revolution is unguided and has no intent while business revenue from GMO is already at 2% of US GDP. I therefor also wondered what users on this forum would communicate in that regards. Is it wise to let companies on the loose if the future of humanity is at stake?

If one is to bring up concerns about the possible risks of genetic engineering, they'd better be able to support those claims with good reasoning and evidence. "Genetic engineering is like incest" and "genes absorbed from GMOs are bad while genes absorbed from non-GMOs are good" is not an example of either one.

[alancalverd]

It is not possible to claim that life has no purpose when it is not yet known what life is.

As I said earlier, philosophy is bunk.

You have introduced a word, stated that you don't know what it means, and with a brilliant non sequitur, asserted that nobody else can prove it has no purpose. And you can't excuse this as philology because tortured logic does not equate to a "love of words".

Let's try some logical analysis:

Life is the common property of the set of living things.  There is no evidence of a universal purpose since many living things live by killing other living things. Except perhaps for the ultimate purpose of selecting the final living thing that has killed all the others. Interestingly, if it is to continue living, it must  then do so by consuming nonliving things, so the only logical purpose of life is to develop a toxic plant.

This will come as a shock to anthropocentric religions.

[evan_au]

there is evidence that horizontally transferred genes from bacteria (in food) can transfer into the human genome (emphasis added)

We are still waiting for that evidence to be provided....

There are a couple of reasons I am skeptical:
1. Food passes through the gastro-intestinal tract, where it is exposed to assorted enzymes, acids and bases which are optimised to break down proteins and nucleic acids into their component pieces for digestion. There isn't enough left to transfer a new gene into human cells (apart from a few micro-organisms and parasites which are optimised to live in the gut, and are protected by a tough shell or spores that survive this arduous journey, freeing the organism to grow in its preferred environment)

2. The cells lining the gastro-intestinal tract are exposed to food pathogens and the same corrosive chemicals and enzymes, so they tend to die quickly (after few days) and get replaced by living cells from underneath. Even if some foreign genes did get incorporated into the genome of these GI cells, they would be dead and shed into the GI tract within a few days. It wouldn't affect the whole human.

3. Even if it spread beyond the top layer of cells, it would only affect that human, not all of humanity.

4. The only way to be passed on to the next generation would be for the non-human DNA to be incorporated into the egg or sperm cells of a human, in which case, the next generation would have a copy of this gene.

5. Most genes inserted into a random place in the DNA don't do anything, plus they sometimes disrupt an existing gene or control region, and do something negative. It won't spread through the human population unless it does something positive.

6. The most likely way for foreign DNA to make it into egg and sperm cells is for it to be carried there by viruses, some of which do insert new genes into human DNA. In fact, it is estimated that around 44% of human DNA is derived from viruses, in the form of transposons. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposable_element#Discovery

7. The most likely way for DNA of food or other species to find its way into human DNA is for the virus to infect this other species, and then for the virus to accidentally incorporate some of the host DNA into a virus particle. That virus particle then carries it into a human egg or sperm cell, which now carries some animal or plant DNA.

8 So we are looking for retroviruses which infect humans and food species, and are transmissible between this other species and humans.
- There aren't very many viruses that infect plants and humans - we are just too different
- There are some viruses like influenza in which certain strains can infect humans as well as birds, pigs or camels. So that is a potential vector
- However, influenza is not a retrovirus, so a payload of pig DNA won't find its way into the human germline.
- And even if there were such a retrovirus, I can't imagine one which is specific to genetically-engineered animals, and to which non-engineered animals are immune
- In fact, the 150-odd stretches of foreign DNA reported to be in the human genome (see link above) are probably mostly viral DNA.
- Transfer of DNA from other species is possible, but requires a sequence of events which renders it a rare event
- Transfer of DNA from food is even less likely, IMHO.

So I don't see how eating genetically-engineered food is a form of incest, and I don't see how it will change the human genome any more than eating normal food.

That's an entirely different story than someone genetically engineering a retrovirus to carry some DNA into the human genome - this has already been tried in genetic therapy for blindness, immune deficiencies and cystic fibrosis. But international conventions currently forbid therapy which would change the human germline.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy#Background

[cleanair (OP)]

And what is the evidence for this? In particular, how would that possibly have any effect if the anthocyanin gene is taken from a genetically-modified blue tomato than it is from a blueberry? The nucleotide sequence that ends up inside of the cell is the same in either case.

The issue with your argument is the underlying assumption that evolution is a unguided mechanism. As long as the source of life can't be explained, that can't be considered an established fact. Therefor it is not possible to use it as a basis for conclusions and it would make it contentious to use it as a basis for a synthetic biology revolution.

That didn't come even remotely close to addressing what I said. How can your body tell the difference whether it received an anthocyanin gene from a blue tomato or a blueberry if the two genes are identical in nucleotide sequence?

What would be the ultimate state of what it is that is consumed? The genetic structure would serve a concept that should be as it is, i.e. it would be a 'fixed state'. That state is directly produced by the short term self interest of the human that consumes it.

Your next message essentially refutes your claim. If it is not known where life came from, it is not possible to claim that what you have observed is limited to what has been observed.

One does not need to know where life came from in order to know how it behaves and functions any more than one has to know what store you bought baking soda and vinegar at in order to study the resulting acid-base reaction between the two.

It appears that the problem with your thinking is that you assume that nature is limited to what can be perceived. The fact that the source of life can't be explained provides evidence that such a assumption may not be valid.

The spirit is a direct exponent of the source of life.

What does that even mean?

If the source of life is considered a factor involved in existence, the spirit within plants and animals would be a direct exponent of that factor.

The evidence for this is that you cannot perceive the perceiving as perceiver while you perceive.

I can't make sense of this sentence, but it's probably a non-sequitur.

Following the logic in the previous argument, in humans, perception would be a direct exponent of the spirit and therefor of the source of life. When you would examine the concept by considering to perceive the perceiving as the perceiver while perceiving you could make it evident by logic that it is not possible to determine the source.

The physical cannot be the source of itself.

Based on what reasoning? Where physical matter came from is also irrelevant to what its observable properties are. The atoms in a living animal are the same as those in a dead animal. The only difference is how they are arranged.

It is simple logic.

Before the source of life is known, it is not possible to make claims regarding intelligence being a part of it or not. External observation of a process would not suffice.

Then what you have done is create a non-falsifiable, and therefore non-scientific, hypothesis. One could just as easily claim that you can't rule out the possibility of gravity being intelligent because observations can't determine whether an intelligence is there or not. If we don't need an intelligence in order to explain a process, why should we bother complicating our models by unnecessarily adding one to it? It isn't parsimonious.

I don't agree with the unnecessariness of being able to explain the source of life when you would intend to 'redesign' life. It can't be compared with randomly assigning intelligence to something else of which the origin is yet unknown.

This topic isn't intended to provide arguments against GMO or synthetic biology but to discuss the fact that it is a unguided practice.

The report in The Economist literally communicated that the synthetic biology revolution is unguided and has no intent while business revenue from GMO is already at 2% of US GDP. I therefor also wondered what users on this forum would communicate in that regards. Is it wise to let companies on the loose if the future of humanity is at stake?

If one is to bring up concerns about the possible risks of genetic engineering, they'd better be able to support those claims with good reasoning and evidence. "Genetic engineering is like incest" and "genes absorbed from GMOs are bad while genes absorbed from non-GMOs are good" is not an example of either one.

Wouldn't a valid argument be that it should be guided, i.e. think before you act?

The fact that the synthetic biology revolution is officially unguided (driven by companies on the loose) may be a red flag that indicates that something may be wrong with the underlying theory and assumptions.

If there were to be valid theory, journalists of The Economist who crafted the report for "the world" would likely have mentioned it instead of literally communicating that it is unguided and without an intent.

If there were to be valid theory, it would likely be that the revolution would be guided into the optimum direction.

[Kryptid]

The issue with your argument is the underlying assumption that evolution is a unguided mechanism.

Can you show that there is any need for such guidance?

As long as the source of life can't be explained, that can't be considered an established fact.

That does not follow. You don't have to know the source of life in order to study how inheritance and mutation work.

What would be the ultimate state of what it is that is consumed?

A combination of nutrients absorbed by the body and wastes excreted from the body.

The genetic structure would serve a concept that should be as it is, i.e. it would be a 'fixed state'. That state is directly produced by the short term self interest of the human that consumes it.

Genes are not fixed. Mutation and genetic recombination insure that.

You keep dodging the question. How does the body know whether an anthocyanin gene came from a blue tomato or a blueberry? If it can't tell the difference, then whether the gene came from a GMO or not can't possibly have an impact on the body's functioning.

It appears that the problem with your thinking is that you assume that nature is limited to what can be perceived. The fact that the source of life can't be explained provides evidence that such a assumption may not be valid.

That is the argument from ignorance fallacy.

If the source of life is considered a factor involved in existence, the spirit within plants and animals would be a direct exponent of that factor.

What I'm not understanding is your use of the word "exponent".

Following the logic in the previous argument, in humans, perception would be a direct exponent of the spirit and therefor of the source of life.

I still don't know what you mean by "exponent".

When you would examine the concept by considering to perceive the perceiving as the perceiver while perceiving you could make it evident by logic that it is not possible to determine the source.

I can't make sense of this sentence either.

It is simple logic.

That isn't an answer.

I don't agree with the unnecessariness of being able to explain the source of life when you would intend to 'redesign' life.

That doesn't explain why we should assume that something unnecessary is actually there.

Wouldn't a valid argument be that it should be guided, i.e. think before you act?

Yes, and genetic engineering should be done with care.

[Bored chemist]

The spirit is a direct exponent of the source of life. The evidence for this is that you cannot perceive the perceiving as perceiver while you perceive.

You will need to clarify those two sentences before you can get ny further.
As they stand, I'm fairly sure they are both wrong.

[alancalverd]

"Guided" agriculture has led to the overt disasters of Lysenkoism, the Chinese slaughter of sparrows (and the resulting crop infestations of insects), the Irish Potato Famine, the sterilisation of the North Sea, the utter economic failure of EU-mandated linseed crops, the scandal of setaside payments, and the mortal sin of food denaturing.

Amartya Sen received a Nobel prize for pointing out that there has never been a famine in a democracy. The combination of capitalism and democracy  produces progress mitigated by public demand - the economic equivalent of evolution. Let's have more of it.

[Bored chemist]

there has never been a famine in a democracy.

That depends on how many foodbanks you count before you accept there's a fundamental problem