Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: stremba
"Most likely, if you changed your DNA enough, while you would still bear a very close resemblance to other people, you would be rendered incapable of interbreeding with them, and hence by the usual working definition of species, you would no longer be human, or more preciesly you would no longer be a member of the species homo sapiens."
---
Most likely you will be dead for the damage to your DNA.
Let's say (for giggles) that you do live to reproductive maturity. You're probably sterile.
Let's allow the possibility that you're not sterile.
You could not select a homo sapien as your mate since you wouldn't produce children.
You would have to search the world in the hope of finding a member of the opposite sex with the same DNA mutation you have that you agree to mate.
78 posted on 08/17/2005 9:26:54 AM PDT by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]


To: Stark_GOP

If you change the correct portions of your genome, you would not be sterile, nor would you be dead. Your statements to the contrary are simply assertions without evidence. The evidence that I have that changing the correct portions of the DNA of a human results in a viable organism is chimpanzees. They have DNA that is ~99% identical to humans. Therefore, changing the proper 1% of the genome of a human results in a chimp, which is a fertile, viable organism. You may argue that it's unlikely that this particular 1% of the genome would be the portion that changes, and you would be right if random processes were all that were at work. However, natural selection ensures that of all the variations that occur, only those that are viable and fertile will survive to leave descendants. Mutations producing nonviable and nonfertile organisms indeed do occur, but we never see the products of such mutations. Please note that the particular mutation that produces a nonviable or nonfertile organism is just as unlikely as the mutation that produces a fertile, viable one.

As for your other objection that there would be no organism for a human that mutated to the point where interbreeding with humans was impossible goes, keep in mind that in reality, there are no large changes that occur in single organisms. Large changes occur over many generations in populations of organisms. Just to illustrate, suppose that there is some general trait that can be measured numerically and is characteristic of a species. Suppose that humans have a range of values between 40 and 60 for this trait. Now suppose a group of humans becomes genetically isolated from the rest of the population. The rest of the population can evolve in such a way that the value for this trait decreases to 35-55, while the splinter group evolves so that their range is now 45-65. Note that there is still some overlap between the two populations, so we don't characterize them as separate species. Further evolution in these directions though might result in a range of 25-45 for the main group and 50-70 for the splinter group. Now the two populations are separate species, without ever having a single organism that had no other organism with which to interbreed.


172 posted on 08/18/2005 7:01:17 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson