🚀 go-pugleaf

[From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)]
[Newsgroups: net.sci]
[Subject: Re: Population control & Freedom]
[Date: 30 Sep 86 14:56:30 GMT]
[References: <564@gargoyle.UUCP> <26500108@inmet>]

>>Genetic diversity can be increased very fast by creating
>>*artificial* habitats, by genetic engineering and cross-breeding.
>>[janw]

>The kind of genetic diversity that we are destroying now (through extinction)
>cannot be "increased very fast" by any of the methods Jan lists, nor any
>methods I know of.  Here's why.

>Cross breeding:  Very simply, cross breeding reassorts genes; it doesn't
>produce any new ones.  The benefits of cross breeding are only possible
>if you have genetic diversity of parent stocks.  Here Jan has put the
>cart in front of the horse.

Cross-breeding creates, not new genes, but new genotypes. In  the
absence  of  genetic  diversity  of  the parent stocks, it is, of
course, impossible. In its presence, it increases the  diversity.
A  new book can add diversity to literature, even if all its words
are already in the dictionary. So with genes and genotypes.

>Artificial habitats:  No habitat creates genetic diversity: a habitat can
>only select among diversity from parent stock or mutation.  While we might
>be able to speed mutation and selection rates artificially, it's not
>likely either that the results will be qualitatively comparable to those
>of millions of years of natural evolution, or that the process can be speeded
>enough to be economically feasible.

A new habitat starts new genetic trends. It is true that, left to
nature,  they  don't  create  new  variations soon. (But they can
create many of them in parallel).

In case of an *artificial* organism, however, one could work both
ways - adapt the habitat to the organism, and the organism to the
habitat. Mutation rate can indeed be increases enormously -
nor need the many versions of the organism be tried one by
one: they can all be thrown into the habitat to compete.

We breed drug-resistant strains of germs, pesticide-resistant
strains of pests only too fast - even without mutating them
intentionally...

There's no need to duplicate the results  of  millions  years  of
evolution,  if one does not start from scratch but changes exist-
ing organisms. (Increasingly, one can vary existing  *artificial*
organisms,  building on preceding results. Thus the process would
accelerate). Also, most of nature's attempts need not be made be-
cause  their  results are predictably fatal. People can see that,
blind nature doesn't. Here, too,  the  process  accelerates  with
experience and knowledge.

>Genetic engineering:  We're not there yet, and it's not clear that we'll
>be there in the next 100 years.  What's "there"?  Being able to redesign the
>development of an organism.  Being able to create a suite of adaptations
>that work together to fit an organism into a special habitat.  

New organisms, fit for special habitats, and special functions in them,
are *already* being marketed. The chief hurdles aren't technical 
difficulties but regulatory agencies. If the purpose were not to
achieve a particular economic effect but simply to increase
genetic diversity - then surely the task would be easier.

>Being able to design enzymes  to  perform  important  biochemical
>functions.  There are several million different sets of solutions
>to these problems, different in  ways  we're  only  beginning  to
>understand. But they are being destroyed before we have the tools
>and knowledge to understand how they work: from  that  standpoint
>alone, extinctions will retard or prevent whole fields of genetic
>engineering from developing. Many biochemical phenomena will nev-
>er be studied because the organisms died out first.

There are far more species and variations than can be studied  in
a  foreseeable future. Those that exist but are not studied might
as well not exist as far as the information in them is concerned.
However, it *is* desirable to save as many as possible. There's
no disagreement on this.

			Jan Wasilewsky