Our modern science has led me to 2 seemingly contradictory notions. I am posting here so that perhaps someone can help me bridge the gap in my mind, and help things make sense. The 2 notions are: 1. (From our evolutionary scientists) sometimes gene mutations/abnormalities can confer an overall advantage to the survival of an organism, and eventually a species. 2. (From our geneticists) aborting/modifying/deleting mutations/abnormalities observed in fetuses is desirable for humans. The two ideas, existing at the same time, do not make sense to me. Can someone help me understand?
The overwhelming majority of mutations don't carry a benefit so would someone want to take chance with their kid?
1 is dealing with the species whereas 2 is dealing with the individual....quite simple to understand. Perhaps an analogy is in order: John wants his car to look cool, so he gets a custom paint job with flames and a skull and crossbones. Ford Motor Company however does not paint all mustangs this way...to prevent a drop in sales.
The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. This is why they can exist at the same time. There are also at least two additional complimentary ideas: Some mutations are completely neutral and so make no real difference one way or the other. ~and~ Some mutations are both beneficial and deleterious at the same time, but given certain external circumstances. For example: The mutation that causes the disease of sickle cell anemia also offers immunity from malaria. In a region where malaria is pandemic, it is a net beneficial mutation. In a region where there is no malaria, it is a net deleterious mutation. As long as you take a Platonic view of the universe, you will remain disturbed by its subtlety. That is a reflection not on the universe, but on your conceptual capacity.
1. is about traits, like the light and dark moths (See: Peppered moth evolution). 2. is about genetic diseases that are bad, we know about their affects on the body, and these are detectable now with genetic testing.
And you might go on to say that many mutations are nearly neutral at the time they occur, but if they aren't lost too soon, then later on they can combine with other mutations to do something remarkable. Lenski's e. coli gained the ability to metabolize citrate through a combination of two neutral mutations. Some populations stumbled onto only one, some onto only the other, without benefit. But one population stumbled onto the second before the first was lost, with dramatic results. Dramatic enough that in a citrate-rich environment, that combination reached fixation quickly, and remains highly selected.
So basically you are saying that the geneticists who are deleting deleterious genes, are smart enough to know that those genes truly are deleterious, and there is no way they can combine in an unforeseen way to provide an advantage to humans? The sickle cell gene is allowed to continue, because it provides a benefit against malaria? How are these decisions made as to what genes to delete/abort/tweak, and which ones to allow to develop because they might offer an advantage to human survival?
Nope. I just went back and reread my post. I came nowhere close to even a hint of such an assertion. If you wish to argue against something I said, then perhaps you are best to argue against something I actually said. I will not defend the voices in your head. Actually, no. The sickle cell gene continues because in areas with high rates of malaria its selective advantage is so high that it has spontaneously reoccurred and then been fixed in the relevant populations multiple times. No human intervention necessary. Any such decisions belong solely and completely in the hands of the potential parents. Nobody else's opinion really matters.
What parent will pick a gene with a mutation with an unknown phenotype outcome? Why not just get rid of the mutation?
I just don't see how humans evolve if we create the capability for parents to choose their genes. It seems to me, that in order for human evolution to continue, some parents will need to go the random route. I guess we intend to make these genetic tweaks to our children so expensive that some will continue to have random mutations in their offspring? This genetic tweaking practice in order to produce healthy babies seems to be something that everyone can't do.
Why would that matter to you one way or another? Unless you know something I don't, most parents are going and will continue to go the random route. It sounds to me like a solution in desperate search of a problem. Again, unless it's your child I can't see how it would be any of your business.
Because I have morals. I believe in at least attempting to leave a place better than what you found it. That applies to one's place of work, one's land, one's planet. I don't want future generations blaming my generation for mistakes made. Which is what constantly happens throughout history. I have a sense of responsibility to ensure future generations survive.
How do you know that? We are developing tests and techniques to eliminate mutated genes, and then implant the "clean" DNA blueprint in a fetus. How can you possibly know the extent that this technology will grow? How can you be sure that future humans won't use this technology? Again, my instinct says it is something everyone can't do (genetic tweaking), and therefore, immoral.
Experience with other human beings. But if I'm wrong, what does it matter? Yes, we are. Experience with other human beings. But if I'm wrong, what does it matter? I have absolutely no doubts that some will. I also have no doubts that some won't. And again... if it's not my child, it's none of my business. Connect those dots for me. How is it immoral if everyone can't do something? It sounds to me by that criteria that there is exactly nothing moral in the human experience. Because short of bodily functions, I can think of essentially nothing that is non trivial that everyone can do. Please... elaborate.
We all have morals. They're just not always the same ones. So do I. But unless you are a research geneticist, I struggle to see what you have to offer in this particular area. That water's already over the dam. Yes. It constantly happens throughout history, even though history is filled with people who shared your sentiments with regard to the future. Welcome to the human condition.
It is something that if everyone did, it would probably destroy us. I believe these methods are a result of our instant gratification, don't worry about the consequences culture.
Maybe, maybe not. But it would be just one thing on a very long list if it was. But you seem to be contradicting yourself now. Earlier you said it would be immoral if everybody couldn't do it. Now you;re saying it's immoral if they could. Your argument is impossible to follow.
I do believe that natural selection in humans will be taking a back seat now due to technology. Sexual selection still seems to be around.
I don't like that idea, because instead of trusting to nature, I would be trusting in a small group of humans, who claim they know better.
Wouldn't a sentient being capable of "knowing" by definition "know better" than something that doesn't "know" at all?