

Why not rewrite large parts of our DNA from scratch leaving only certain parts to evolve? - amichail

Our DNA sequence is a product of billions of years of evolution and is incredibly hard to understand and modify.<p>Why not figure out what various genes do and rewrite their implementations from scratch?<p>Maybe this could be done with all genes unrelated to intelligence, personality, and facial features as we would like those aspects to continue to evolve.<p>Moreover, we could also try to use redundancy and/or error correcting codes to stop evolution of reimplemented genes.
======
anamax
> Why not figure out what various genes do

Do you really think that no one else has thought of that?

We're several Nobel prizes away from being able to do that in general.

I find that I'm generally better off when I assume that folks in a given field
are not stupid. Yes, sometimes they are. Sometimes they're missing something
obvious (to me). However, that's a low probability bet.

~~~
amichail
My point is about rewriting our DNA from scratch. I don't think many
scientists are thinking of doing that.

~~~
menloparkbum
Google: synthetic biology. There are plenty of people working in this area,
it's just really hard and they've only got around to synthesizing bacteria.

~~~
amichail
Do they plan on rewriting our DNA from scratch to make it easier to change
things in humans?

~~~
menloparkbum
I don't know but that would be cool.

------
maxharris
> Why not figure out what various genes do and rewrite their implementations
> from scratch?

Figuring out what various genes do is a major function of research, and will
be for quite some time.

> Moreover, we could also try to use redundancy and/or error correcting codes
> to stop evolution of reimplemented genes.

Have you thought about taking some courses in cellular or molecular biology,
genetics or biochemistry? These are not impossible classes, and they would
give you a real appreciation for how existing biological mechanisms work, and
in some cases why they must work the way they do. And you'll get to take
organic chemistry, which is an incredible experience!

~~~
amichail
Are you saying it is impossible to essentially stop evolution for most genes?
If so, why?

The goal is to have a human race where everyone has the same DNA sequence
except in a few sections pertaining to intelligence, personality, and facial
features.

~~~
maxharris
No, I'm not saying that.

But we don't know quite how, and to do that, you need to go to school (or a
textbook, if that works for you) to learn about this stuff. Otherwise, you end
up asking questions that don't quite make sense to scientists, or lack
relevance for contemporary research.

That is not a put-down - I had some of these same questions/thoughts/ideas
before I took any classes.

~~~
amichail
Please elaborate on how my questions don't make sense to scientists or lack
relevance for contemporary research.

So what if what I propose is not feasible anytime soon? Thinking about the
distant future could make for interesting discussion.

~~~
maxharris
Stopping all changes in genes isn't possible, at least currently. If you could
figure out a way of doing this without killing yourself, you'd have a surefire
way to prevent cancer and diseases caused by retroviruses (such as Hep C and
HIV, among others.)

> So what if what I propose is not feasible anytime soon?

When uninformed people write about the future, they usually end up being
either dead wrong if they make specific predictions, or they say things that
are so vague that they're useless.

How would anyone be able to predict RNA interference in 1985? You could
predict all sorts of (useless, wrong) things, but you almost certainly would
not have been able to predict something fundamental and useful like RNAi.
Smart people focus on the details, and stick to what's within reach.

If you're not up to that, you can always be a science fiction writer - but not
a great one like Isaac Asimov, who had a PhD in biochemistry before he became
famous.

------
jibiki
Can you give an example of a gene you think is poorly implemented? Because I
think God did a pretty good job when he designed us 6000 years ago. Sure,
maybe the code would have been a little better if he had spent more than a day
on it, and it's possible that massive inbreeding (due to the fact that we are
all descended from 2 people) has messed things up a bit, but on the whole, I'm
happy with our existing genetic code base. And really, if you want to change
it, you're second guessing god, and He's been around a long time. So that
doesn't seem like such a good idea.

~~~
ErrantX
6000 years ago our DNA was almost certainly incredibly different to what it is
today (whether you believe God created it or not). A drastic change like that
would basically be akin to evolving 6000 years in the space of just a few :)
(Ive lost my link to the research done into our genetics that shows we did not
all come from 2 common ancestors but I know some was done somewhere)

Mastering the genome has long been my marker for true mastery of our race. But
(and this is directed at the OP) I wouldnt like to seeanyone overly mess with
it. We'd have to be damned certain we knew it inside out before tampering with
it that heavily.

On the other hand they are tampering with genes in mice etc. to try and cure
diseases (and Folding@Home is investing a LOT of time modelling protein
creation to help move things along :)).

------
russell
We arent even close to understanding the genome. Genes encode proteins. There
is pretty good evidence that the "junk dna" is functional in some way, just
not directly encoding proteins. I dont junk dna has been decoded at all. Also
we have very limited understanding of traits that are encoded by multiple
genes.

I am in favor of curing diseases by genetic modification, but I am reluctant
about further tampering, especially at this state of our knowledge.

~~~
amichail
Is it possible to understand what a gene/junk dna does by observation? If so,
perhaps it can be rewritten from scratch without understanding its
implementation.

Understanding implementation that is a product of evolution is extremely hard.
It's a real mess.

~~~
russell
Someday maybe. There are something on the order of 25,000 genes. Lots, maybe
even most, have variants, which increase the chance of disease, particularly
with certain variants of other genes. Many genes are triggered only at certain
times in the embryo's development and in an adult may have an entirely
different purpose. So here you have a massive super computer with 25,000
objects and variants whose function varies over time. I don't think we are
even close to figuring it out. For example, simulating the folding of a single
protein takes a super computer.

