From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: A Technomaniac Position (was: W
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:04:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: topaz.STEINLY.92Apr12200436
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
In-reply-to: alanm@igc.org's message of 11 Apr 92 09:19:00 GMT

In article <1466601319@igc.org> alanm@igc.org (Alan McGowen) writes:

   /* Written  4:02 am  Apr  9, 1992 by steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu in cdp:sci.environmen */
   /* ---------- "Re: A Technomaniac Position (was: W" ---------- */
   >thus human haemoglobin
   >is distinct from animal haemoglobin but I know of no proof that some
   >variation on some other species haemoglobin would not work in humans,

   Ha! We share several blood groups with both gorillas and chimps. 
   We diverged  from them only some 5-7 million years ago.

   It is not clear that we could not be interfertile with them, to 
   some degree, though if any viable offspring were produced, it 
   would be sterile because of inversions of chromosome sequences 
   between the parents, which whould interfere with meiosis in the 
   offspring, [E.g. this is the cause of sterility in mules.] At the 
   very least, a significant amount of embryonic development would 
   take place before fetal death.

Is this relevant? I was speculating on the robustness of proteins,
ie if you could retain functionality with a different structure,
the above is interesting but not directly relvant. We were discussing
_engineering_ not cross-breeding...
BTW I assume you haven't heard that a few months ago a mule
produced an offspring with a horse I think - I don't have a ref,
saw it as a news short, maybe in Nature.

   >	Further, for ecological purposes, you need particular
   >functionality, not a phenotype or a genotype,

   A phenotype includes all "particular functionality" -- i.e. all 
   proteins --  and a genotype all the genetic information which 
   encodes it."

Yes, but how many different genotypes and phenotypes would
produce a species with the _same_ ecological functionality.
eg, my melanomin content affects my phenotype, and to some extent
my environmental response, but only in a limited way, which can
be compensated for. For a many purposes, it is irrelevant.

   > and while the
   >functionality certainly arises in nature by coevolution, a designed
   >species might be squeezed into a particular niche, although this is
   >most likely to lead to "unforeseen side-effects" :-) 

   The speciation process, which is terribly random in outcome, 
   needs to be considered here. Sigurdsson simply assumes that it 
   will be trivial to produce "a designed species".

I never assumed it was trivial, indeed suggested that it was probably 
impossible. I was merely pointing out that statements so far had
overestimated the difficulty by a large factor.

...
   equilibrium in the face of the world it encounters. And it is 
   clear that  Sigurdsson has no idea of how to do that, or even 
   that it needs to be done.

You don't seem to be able to even understand the point I was
raising.

		 After all, he couldn't follow an 
   equilibrium analysis of the sustainance and culture  of a hunter-
   gatherer society -- why should he be able to grasp a 
   coevolutionary stable state?  Let alone the accidents that 
   produce real ones.

Sorry Alan, the fact that I don't gasp in admiration at some 
of the crap you misrepresent does not imply a lack of
comprehension. I simply consider you so blinkered as to 
be incapable of comprehending the context in which you make your
arguments. 

   >Yup, still, speculation about the impossible can be fun ;-)
   >at least for those of us with a sense of humour...

   Or for those with no intellectual capacity to appreciate what  is 
   being  lost.  A  sense of joy at what evolution has  produced  is 
   understandable,  but  Sigurdsson is advocating a "sense of humor" 
   about  the destruction of the biosphere.  This  is  obscene.  

No it isn't. Lighten up a little.
If you are completely humourless, try glancing through some
social studies on the use of humour in human society,
it is not necessarily an expression of joy.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			 Lick Observatory     	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  I can take the killing, I can take the slaughter		*
*  But I don't talk to Sun reporters	 - B.B. 1983		*