The question isn't can it be done, it's should it be done, and I say no.

I'll have a proper read of this later, but one thing stood out to me:

 

Honestly, most attempts at changing DNA will result in cancer.

 

You know how when you write a program, sometimes it won't work the first time? Well you can just keep trying. When you rewrite biological code, the "syntax error" is tumors and cancers. So if at first you don't succeed, you die a slow, cancerous death.

Somewhere, a biologist has spontaneously burst into tears and/or laughter.

 

I'll have a proper read of this later, but one thing stood out to me:

 

Do feelings, memories and even behaviour get carried over with the Animal DNA?

Its possible for Feelings and Behaviour, but I can't think if it is possible to carry memories through Cells. If the Brain is made from DNA then surely the data stored in the mind is also stored (slightly) in the DNA. I am not exactly confident with this but it could be possible, we just don't know until it happens.

 

 

It was only recently discovered that brain cells aren't just present in the brain, but all over the body too. When people have organ donations from others, they sometimes experience weird changes in behaviour. This is now known to be a result of those brain cells being found everywhere rather than just the brain.

 

So, it stands to reason then that mixing a human with an animal will produce similar issues. Will a person starting oinking if they are given a pig's bladder? I doubt it, in fact I think we've already had organ donations from animals. But still... Not a nice thought.

 

Those occurrences often need a big, fat, [CITATION NEEDED]... at least the ones I've seen.  In some cases, it is not reasonable to believe it's not the result of a placebo effect, which can be quite powerful.  If you inject someone with something and tell them they should have a raised heart rate and start getting visual distortions soon, they often have those symptoms despite only being injected by saline.

 

We have already had organ donations from animals... sheep and pigs, mostly, iirc.  However, Ben appears to be talking about actual recodes of the human genetic code, not transplants of fully formed organs, which is different.

 

We have the technology to make such things as glowing humans (glowing ghouls from Fallout, anyone?), although it's only been done on small test mammals, as well as fish, and has the chance of going bad ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GloFish and http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0111_020111genmice.html ).  We probably will soon be able to do a lot more than that.

However, at the current stage of technology, we'd be modifying at the foetus level and even at the raw genetic material level... not on full grown creatures.  To modify full grown creatures, you'd use a highly modified version of HIV to recode things... and you'd still have to wait for cells to die and be replaced with new ones, leading to potentially harmful, deadly, or painful intermediary stages if your modifications are larger than just, say, coding a glow in the dark gene into cancer cells using a highly targeted delivery system.  This is also assuming you put in the right code snippet, there's no conflicts, and... the code makes sense... because we don't yet fully understand how the coding affects development.

 

This is also not something you could ever do at home, at least, not for at least 200 years.  It would require medical supervision, and a buttload of tests, and it's not like you could just code in so you replace human ears with mouse ears just for the heck of it.

yes

 

I'll have a proper read of this later, but one thing stood out to me:

 

Do feelings, memories and even behaviour get carried over with the Animal DNA?

Its possible for Feelings and Behaviour, but I can't think if it is possible to carry memories through Cells. If the Brain is made from DNA then surely the data stored in the mind is also stored (slightly) in the DNA. I am not exactly confident with this but it could be possible, we just don't know until it happens.

 

 

It was only recently discovered that brain cells aren't just present in the brain, but all over the body too. When people have organ donations from others, they sometimes experience weird changes in behaviour. This is now known to be a result of those brain cells being found everywhere rather than just the brain.

 

I could be completely wrong, but I thought the behavioral changes were because the organs contain hormones from the other person.

I can answer a few of those, studied bio in college.

There's no memories/behaviors stored in DNA. No Assassin's Creed stuff going on there  Other than hormones that flow around in the blood, all of your thoughts and personality are stored purely in the brain. Those are a LOT more complex than the DNA.

 

Also, even though we can easily modify DNA itself, we can't just modify living organisms because we can't replace the DNA in each of the trillions of cells. Other than the random mutations that cause things like cancer, your DNA stays the same through your whole life, and your body is fairly good at recognizing and attacking any cells with "foreign" DNA (which is why organ transplants go wrong sometimes). The HIV method may work eventually, but it's kinda sloppy -- there's no way yet to ensure that it replaces the targeted DNA in every cell of the body, and only does it 1 time for each cell.

 

GloFish and similar lab animals are actually a working example of this, though (and there's LOTS more). The scientists took a gene from jellyfish for a glowing protein (GFP) and inserted it into the fish DNA, then replaced the DNA of a fish embryo with the modified DNA. Other than needing a bit more energy to make the extra proteins, the fish are completely normal, since the GFP doesn't interfere with anything else. I've even done exactly the same thing with bacteria in 2 biology lab courses - they're just a lot easier to modify because they're single-celled, reproduce fast, and actually willingly assimilate foreign DNA, unlike pretty much any multi-celled organism.

 

As for hybrids . . . the only species that could possibly hybridize with humans are bonobos, chimpanzees, and maybe gorillas. Maybe. In nature, there are hybrids of species that are farther apart from each other than we humans are from bonobos, so there's a chance, but should it be tried? I'd say probably no. Their brains would not develop like ours (that's where most of the differences are between human genome and ape genomes). And in the case of Chimpanzees, they're *extremely* violent, I don't think we should add any more to that. A russian scientist actually tried this once, unsuccessfully.

Any other hybrid would definitely not be possible, for a lot of reasons. Different chromosome numbers would mean a hybrid cell can't even divide properly. Not having two copies of a gene (one from each parent) often makes it not function, and "equivalent" genes from different species aren't necessarily compatible.

 

If you want to put genes from one organism into a different organism, you're gonna have to modify them to be compatible. The main reason for that: the protein that attaches to and "activates" DNA is species-specific -- it won't work with genes from another species unless we manually replace the binding site of the gene (the promoter) with the correct one.

 

(Gah, wall of text...and that's maybe like a tenth of what I learned about this topic in college  Any more questions?)

Somewhere, a biologist has spontaneously burst into tears and/or laughter.

 

Somewhere, a chemist has spontaneously combusted.

Somewhere, a biologist has spontaneously burst into tears and/or laughter.

  Somewhere, a chemist has spontaneously combusted.

Somewhere, a tree has fallen in a forest. And yes, it does make a sound.

(preview of article in upcoming National Geographic magazine)

(preview of article in upcoming National Geographic magazine)

Actually, the NG magazine one would likely mis-emphisize the information or have logical issues.

 

The recent Nero article, for example, had major issues in its handling of the opinions of the interviewees, as their quotes did not match what the writer said they meant in several cases.  It also pulled several non-sequiturs.

How do you replace the Human DNA?
 

There can be two ways. Since I am not a Biologist or have a lot of understanding about Biology its very likely what I say isn't correct; Removing the Human DNA and placing the new DNA in it's place OR just place the Animal DNA into the Human and hope the DNA fits in place.

The first solution would probably result in more accurate placement but its likely the Human will collapse with new DNA that doesn't support the Human body

 

 

We already share a lot of DNA with other animals; the more recent the common ancestor; the more the our DNA is identical. So if you take a pig's DNA for a certain protein. You'll most likely find a similar strain in human DNA, in the same 'neighbourhood', and the only difference will be mutations that don't change the shape or function of the protein. Copy and paste the pig DNA over the human DNA, and bingo.
 

The second solution can go horribly wrong; The new DNA could not replace the Human but probably add to the DNA.

 

Maybe...

 

On a side note, the only practical way to replace a piece of DNA in all cells in the body is when the body consists of only one cell; so right after conception.

Can the Human become fully animal?

I highly doubt it; You could probably get away with 20%-80% of the Human DNA replaced with Animal DNA but any lower makes nearly zero difference and over could probably kill the person.

If you replace the DNA via the "Out with the old, in with the new" method (which is what I'll refer it to) its, again, likely the person will collapse, possibly even die, since the new DNA wouldn't hold up the Human body.

If you replace the DNA by just replacing it you can end up with a horrible result, possibly, I haven't tried it out before so I don't exactly know.

 

Humans are animals.

It's impossible to change the DNA of all the cells in a mature human body to pig DNA. If you to replace the DNA of a zygote (=a fertilized egg cell) with pig DNA, the result will be a miscarriage, the womb will probably reject the embryo within days of conception.

What if a Human and the Human/Animal Hybrid mate?
 

Its very likely the result (A.K.A The baby) will be a cross-breed of the two, again I don't know because I've never tried.

 

We've never succesfully tried crossbreeding with our closest relatives, the chimpanzees. Who knows...

Some closely related animals can still interbreed, despite having a different number of chromosmes, e.g. zebroids (zebra horse hybrids)

How fast does it take to change after the new DNA is implemented?

I'm not too sure on that; It could be a minute or two, it could take less or more than a year, it can be any time from what I know (which is pretty darn limited).

 

I'm not familiar with biology of LF.Xx.3273, but I'm not aware of a method to replace the entire genome of a human body once it is beyond the zygote stage. For terrestrial organisms this question is currently meaningless.

Is the process dangerous?

Since no one has done/tried it before (according to what I know or remember) no one knows.

 

For the experimenter? No. For the experimentee? Yes.

Can the Hybrid be turned back into a Human?
 

Probably not, when the DNA is replaced it is gone for good. Even if you took away the prereplaced DNA or even cloned it applying it might not work. The Human body grows, so putting back a part of you from a while back means the old DNA needs to catch up with the rest of the Body.

 

IF we can turn a human into a hybrid, we can probably just as easily do the opposite.

Will the Human/Animal Cell Growth times be synchronised?

Very unlikely; While Humans get older each year, growing and growing, Animals can age faster/slower than Humans. If being able to make a Human/Animal Hybrid was possible it might go horribly wrong if the Cell growth times are not correctly synchronised.

 

Growth rate isn't even synchronised in our own body...

Do feelings, memories and even behaviour get carried over with the Animal DNA?
 

Its possible for Feelings and Behaviour, but I can't think if it is possible to carry memories through Cells. If the Brain is made from DNA then surely the data stored in the mind is also stored (slightly) in the DNA. I am not exactly confident with this but it could be possible, we just don't know until it happens.

 

Some 'behaviors' are encoded in the genome (example: knee-jerk reflex, metabolism, biases.)

How do you replace the Human DNA?  

There can be two ways. Since I am not a Biologist or have a lot of understanding about Biology its very likely what I say isn't correct; Removing the Human DNA and placing the new DNA in it's place OR just place the Animal DNA into the Human and hope the DNA fits in place. The first solution would probably result in more accurate placement but its likely the Human will collapse with new DNA that doesn't support the Human body

  We already share a lot of DNA with other animals; the more recent the common ancestor; the more the our DNA is identical. So if you take a pig's DNA for a certain protein. You'll most likely find a similar strain in human DNA, in the same 'neighbourhood', and the only difference will be mutations that don't change the shape or function of the protein. Copy and paste the pig DNA over the human DNA, and bingo.

WRONG. Not this simple. Copying and pasting involves a specially tailored variant of HIV. In addition, even among similar things, there's a lot of variation in size and shape. Bonobos and chimpanzees are very close to us as far as percentage of similar DNA. Then come mice, and some types of bacterium. It's not quite the nice line taught in schoolyard neodarwinism (which is, in addition, ten years out of date when addopted).  

The second solution can go horribly wrong; The new DNA could not replace the Human but probably add to the DNA.

  Maybe...   On a side note, the only practical way to replace a piece of DNA in all cells in the body is when the body consists of only one cell; so right after conception. Correct, but you can also use an HIV variant to go through everything. It just takes time.

Can the Human become fully animal?

I highly doubt it; You could probably get away with 20%-80% of the Human DNA replaced with Animal DNA but any lower makes nearly zero difference and over could probably kill the person. If you replace the DNA via the "Out with the old, in with the new" method (which is what I'll refer it to) its, again, likely the person will collapse, possibly even die, since the new DNA wouldn't hold up the Human body. If you replace the DNA by just replacing it you can end up with a horrible result, possibly, I haven't tried it out before so I don't exactly know.

Humans are animals. It's impossible to change the DNA of all the cells in a mature human body to pig DNA. If you to replace the DNA of a zygote (=a fertilized egg cell) with pig DNA, the result will be a miscarriage, the womb will probably reject the embryo within days of conception. I'd disagree with the first one on one semantic level, namely, we are unique in our abstract information processing ability and I believe this makes it reasonable to seperate humans into their own category for some things. The second is correct, afaik.

What if a Human and the Human/Animal Hybrid mate?  

Its very likely the result (A.K.A The baby) will be a cross-breed of the two, again I don't know because I've never tried.

We've never succesfully tried crossbreeding with our closest relatives, the chimpanzees. Who knows... Some closely related animals can still interbreed, despite having a different number of chromosmes, e.g. zebroids (zebra horse hybrids) The crossbreed would likely be sterile (horse/donkey hybrids, most other hybrids). Also might have some odd or bad organ formation issues.

How fast does it take to change after the new DNA is implemented?

I'm not too sure on that; It could be a minute or two, it could take less or more than a year, it can be any time from what I know (which is pretty darn limited).

I'm not familiar with biology of LF.Xx.3273, but I'm not aware of a method to replace the entire genome of a human body once it is beyond the zygote stage. For terrestrial organisms this question is currently meaningless. once again, our old friend HIV can do it. It just takes time and could be very very painful. Or fatal. Remember, kids, don't play with HIV!

Is the process dangerous?

Since no one has done/tried it before (according to what I know or remember) no one knows.

For the experimenter? No. For the experimentee? Yes. Especially because I have a powerful rifle.

Can the Hybrid be turned back into a Human?  

Probably not, when the DNA is replaced it is gone for good. Even if you took away the prereplaced DNA or even cloned it applying it might not work. The Human body grows, so putting back a part of you from a while back means the old DNA needs to catch up with the rest of the Body.

IF we can turn a human into a hybrid, we can probably just as easily do the opposite. If we can only play with zygotes on this, then... no. If we can SAFELY transition fully grown creatures, then... maybe, but previous caveats on pain and total organ failure apply.

Will the Human/Animal Cell Growth times be synchronised?

Very unlikely; While Humans get older each year, growing and growing, Animals can age faster/slower than Humans. If being able to make a Human/Animal Hybrid was possible it might go horribly wrong if the Cell growth times are not correctly synchronised.

Growth rate isn't even synchronised in our own body... Correct, you renew your liver over seven years but renew your skin in far less time.

Do feelings, memories and even behaviour get carried over with the Animal DNA?  

Its possible for Feelings and Behaviour, but I can't think if it is possible to carry memories through Cells. If the Brain is made from DNA then surely the data stored in the mind is also stored (slightly) in the DNA. I am not exactly confident with this but it could be possible, we just don't know until it happens.

Some 'behaviors' are encoded in the genome (example: knee-jerk reflex, metabolism, biases.) Biases are not genetic, biases are a result of where you grow up, and your culture. I have a bias against eating dogs. This is largely cultural. I could probably eat it just fine. Metabolism is not a behavior, feeling, or memory. Reflexes are... not behaviors, feelings, or memory, either. They are involuntary actions that happen on a very low level, and most still work when unconcious (breathing, hearbeat).

I'd disagree with the first one on one semantic level, namely, we are unique in our abstract information processing ability and I believe this makes it reasonable to seperate humans into their own category for some things.

I believe the traditional category for man is "rational animal" (or, as one Greek philosopher facetiously put it, "hairless biped." )

 

Due to linguistic evolution, the term "animal" has come to be used where once the term "beast" (which has now taken on a more feral connotation) was.

 

I'd disagree with the first one on one semantic level, namely, we are unique in our abstract information processing ability and I believe this makes it reasonable to seperate humans into their own category for some things.

I believe the traditional category for man is "rational animal" (or, as one Greek philosopher facetiously put it, "hairless biped." )

 

Due to linguistic evolution, the term "animal" has come to be used where once the term "beast" (which has now taken on a more feral connotation) was.

 

I posit that being rational, and thus unique on this world, puts humans in a separate category from what would classically be called "brutes".

 

 

I'd disagree with the first one on one semantic level, namely, we are unique in our abstract information processing ability and I believe this makes it reasonable to seperate humans into their own category for some things.

I believe the traditional category for man is "rational animal" (or, as one Greek philosopher facetiously put it, "hairless biped." )

 

Due to linguistic evolution, the term "animal" has come to be used where once the term "beast" (which has now taken on a more feral connotation) was.

 

I posit that being rational, and thus unique on this world, puts humans in a separate category from what would classically be called "brutes".

 

I heartily agree.

However, there is an interesting side effect if you fully classify humans as no different than other animals.  It means that, logically, under a Neodarwinist system, we should not be worried about animals that go extinct as they are less fit to survive than we, and we should be doing far more to create an environment that is best for the survival of humans at the cost of species that may compete, else nature may deem us not fit to survive.

However, there is an interesting side effect if you fully classify humans as no different than other animals. It means that, logically, under a Neodarwinist system, we should not be worried about animals that go extinct as they are less fit to survive than we, and we should be doing far more to create an environment that is best for the survival of humans at the cost of species that may compete, else nature may deem us not fit to survive.

Indeed. Natural conservation is an extremely un-beastial kind of behavior.

 

I hope I didn't give the impression that I was embracing a Neodarwinist system.  I would be the last person to suggest that man is but a glorified beast.

 

Another school of thought, which was popular in the 20th Century, that rather annoys me, is the idea that Man is the only animal to prey on himself. An absurd idea, if you're at all familiar with how most animals operate. The whole Lion life-cycle is built on inter-special killing.

Why is this discussion still happening? Is it still directly related to the blog post? I'm getting a headache from this stuff.

Why is this discussion still happening? Is it still directly related to the blog post? I'm getting a headache from this stuff.

We're arguing semantics now

 

 

 

However, there is an interesting side effect if you fully classify humans as no different than other animals. It means that, logically, under a Neodarwinist system, we should not be worried about animals that go extinct as they are less fit to survive than we, and we should be doing far more to create an environment that is best for the survival of humans at the cost of species that may compete, else nature may deem us not fit to survive.

Indeed. Natural conservation is an extremely un-beastial kind of behavior.

 

I hope I didn't give the impression that I was embracing a Neodarwinist system.  I would be the last person to suggest that man is but a glorified beast.

 

Another school of thought, which was popular in the 20th Century, that rather annoys me, is the idea that Man is the only animal to prey on himself. An absurd idea, if you're at all familiar with how most animals operate. The whole Lion life-cycle is built on inter-special killing.

 

You did not give such an impression, but I believed the comments relevantish to the surrounding discussion on the proper classification of Man.

 

I do agree on your take on that second school of thought.  In fact, several of the insect species kill their mates after they finish.

TIL the ear on the mouse is not a real ear

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacanti_mouse

 

Today I also read about an experiment where we replaced a broken cdc2 gene in yeast with a functioning equivalent from the human genome. And a case where a mouse and a human baby both had bald spots in the same place, because they both had defects in the same gene.

 

 

 

We already share a lot of DNA with other animals; the more recent the common ancestor; the more the our DNA is identical. So if you take a pig's DNA for a certain protein. You'll most likely find a similar strain in human DNA, in the same 'neighbourhood', and the only difference will be mutations that don't change the shape or function of the protein. Copy and paste the pig DNA over the human DNA, and bingo.

 

WRONG. Not this simple. Copying and pasting involves a specially tailored variant of HIV. In addition, even among similar things, there's a lot of variation in size and shape. Bonobos and chimpanzees are very close to us as far as percentage of similar DNA. Then come mice, and some types of bacterium. It's not quite the nice line taught in schoolyard neodarwinism (which is, in addition, ten years out of date when addopted).

 

I simplified the copypasting part for simplicity .

Bonopos and chimps are very close to us in many other ways. In what sense are mice and some bacteria next in the sequence??

We classify forms of life by defining the characters common to every member in a group. Homo sapiens is an animal by this classification. If we were to classify organisms according to ability to process information, we'd classify politicians together with, say, potatoes. jk.

 

 

Can the Hybrid be turned back into a Human?
 

 

Probably not, when the DNA is replaced it is gone for good. Even if you took away the prereplaced DNA or even cloned it applying it might not work. The Human body grows, so putting back a part of you from a while back means the old DNA needs to catch up with the rest of the Body.

IF we can turn a human into a hybrid, we can probably just as easily do the opposite. If we can only play with zygotes on this, then... no.
If we can SAFELY transition fully grown creatures, then... maybe, but previous caveats on pain and total organ failure apply.

Yes, I meant the latter. If we solved the problem of going one way (adult human -> adult other life form) we can go the other way too. But there are problems, now that I think of it. The ability to use language is unique to humans, and we have to learn to use words. We don't necessarily have a solution to that, even if we can go from human -> animal.

 

Do feelings, memories and even behaviour get carried over with the Animal DNA?
 

 

Its possible for Feelings and Behaviour, but I can't think if it is possible to carry memories through Cells. If the Brain is made from DNA then surely the data stored in the mind is also stored (slightly) in the DNA. I am not exactly confident with this but it could be possible, we just don't know until it happens.

Some 'behaviors' are encoded in the genome (example: knee-jerk reflex, metabolism, biases.) Biases are not genetic, biases are a result of where you grow up, and your culture. I have a bias against eating dogs. This is largely cultural. I could probably eat it just fine.

Metabolism is not a behavior, feeling, or memory.
Reflexes are... not behaviors, feelings, or memory, either. They are involuntary actions that happen on a very low level, and most still work when unconcious (breathing, hearbeat).

 

The chemistry of our brain is at the root of some (but not all) cognitive biases, and genetics influence the way our brain is built. So some biases are genetic.

 

I use the word behavior to mean the response to internal or external stimuli. By that definition, metabolism and reflexes are behavior.

 

 

However, there is an interesting side effect if you fully classify humans as no different than other animals.  It means that, logically, under a Neodarwinist system, we should not be worried about animals that go extinct as they are less fit to survive than we, and we should be doing far more to create an environment that is best for the survival of humans at the cost of species that may compete, else nature may deem us not fit to survive.

Ehh, why?

TIL the ear on the mouse is not a real ear

http://en.wikipedia....i/Vacanti_mouse

 

Today I also read about an experiment where we replaced a broken cdc2 gene in yeast with a functioning equivalent from the human genome. And a case where a mouse and a human baby both had bald spots in the same place, because they both had defects in the same gene.

[CITATION NEEDED] on that second paragraph

 

 

We already share a lot of DNA with other animals; the more recent the common ancestor; the more the our DNA is identical. So if you take a pig's DNA for a certain protein. You'll most likely find a similar strain in human DNA, in the same 'neighbourhood', and the only difference will be mutations that don't change the shape or function of the protein. Copy and paste the pig DNA over the human DNA, and bingo.

WRONG. Not this simple. Copying and pasting involves a specially tailored variant of HIV. In addition, even among similar things, there's a lot of variation in size and shape. Bonobos and chimpanzees are very close to us as far as percentage of similar DNA. Then come mice, and some types of bacterium. It's not quite the nice line taught in schoolyard neodarwinism (which is, in addition, ten years out of date when addopted).

 

I simplified the copypasting part for simplicity .

Bonopos and chimps are very close to us in many other ways. In what sense are mice and some bacteria next in the sequence??

Percentage of DNA shared. Citation: http://www.thehumangenome.co.uk/THE_HUMAN_GENOME/Primer.html

Still looking for the one on bacteria -- it's not all bacteria, just a couple varieties. On average, bacteria has about a 7% match to human DNA, but this varies by species.

We classify forms of life by defining the characters common to every member in a group. Homo sapiens is an animal by this classification. If we were to classify organisms according to ability to process information, we'd classify politicians together with, say, potatoes. jk.

Not all animals are able to think rationally, and have the high-level processes humans do. In fact, humans are unique in this regard. While animals still communicate and process information, they do it at a much lower level. Nearly all humans have this difference from the animal kingdom, the exceptions being those with certain genetic errors, birth defects, and brain damages.

Can the Hybrid be turned back into a Human?

 

 

Probably not, when the DNA is replaced it is gone for good. Even if you took away the prereplaced DNA or even cloned it applying it might not work. The Human body grows, so putting back a part of you from a while back means the old DNA needs to catch up with the rest of the Body.

IF we can turn a human into a hybrid, we can probably just as easily do the opposite.

If we can only play with zygotes on this, then... no.

If we can SAFELY transition fully grown creatures, then... maybe, but previous caveats on pain and total organ failure apply.

Yes, I meant the latter. If we solved the problem of going one way (adult human -> adult other life form) we can go the other way too. But there are problems, now that I think of it. The ability to use language is unique to humans, and we have to learn to use words. We don't necessarily have a solution to that, even if we can go from human -> animal.

Depends on how you define language. Whales, bees, dolphins, and dogs all communicate. Whales use audio, bees use interpretive dance, dogs use a combination of sounds and body language.

 

Do feelings, memories and even behaviour get carried over with the Animal DNA?

 

 

Its possible for Feelings and Behaviour, but I can't think if it is possible to carry memories through Cells. If the Brain is made from DNA then surely the data stored in the mind is also stored (slightly) in the DNA. I am not exactly confident with this but it could be possible, we just don't know until it happens.

Some 'behaviors' are encoded in the genome (example: knee-jerk reflex, metabolism, biases.)

Biases are not genetic, biases are a result of where you grow up, and your culture. I have a bias against eating dogs. This is largely cultural. I could probably eat it just fine.

Metabolism is not a behavior, feeling, or memory.

Reflexes are... not behaviors, feelings, or memory, either. They are involuntary actions that happen on a very low level, and most still work when unconcious (breathing, hearbeat).

The chemistry of our brain is at the root of some (but not all) cognitive biases, and genetics influence the way our brain is built. So some biases are genetic.

 

I use the word behavior to mean the response to internal or external stimuli. By that definition, metabolism and reflexes are behavior.

This is not the definition of behavior the original poster was using. Thus, your argument is not correct within the pre-established definitions of the discussion. Don't forget to define terms

If by bias you mean voting republican or the North Korean Superiority Complex, this is not genetic. This is cultural, usually on a familial level.

 

 

However, there is an interesting side effect if you fully classify humans as no different than other animals.  It means that, logically, under a Neodarwinist system, we should not be worried about animals that go extinct as they are less fit to survive than we, and we should be doing far more to create an environment that is best for the survival of humans at the cost of species that may compete, else nature may deem us not fit to survive.

Ehh, why?

Core Neo-darwinist tenet:

Creatures most fit to survive survive to produce offspring, passing on their genetic code, which works to over time produce the most fit to survive examples of that species and eventually new species.

Humans modify their environment to make themselves more fit to survive to produce offspring to pass on their genetic code.

Because of this, animals that are threatened with lessening numbers are being threatened because another species, Humans, are the current most efficient mammal, the most capable of surviving. If said animals die out, it is because they did not adapt to the changing environment... which is pretty much how the Neodarwinist system works. They were not fit to survive.

If species die off because they were less fit to survive than we, who are we to argue with Mother Nature?

I see no way to start at the core Neodarwinist ideas and get from there to "We should artificially ensure other species are fit to survive at the cost of our own ability to survive", which happens some in my state from groups such as the Sierra Club.

source: http://www.pnas.org/content/88/23/10885.full.pdf+html

 

I had a full colour version of the pic on the second page, but I can't find it on the 'net.

 

Also did some google fu on the men and mice similarities, this is the only thing I could find:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25335-Percentage-of-genetic-similarity-between-humans-and-animals

 

 

I understand your point about neodarwinism now. I agree with you

source: http://www.pnas.org/...5.full.pdf html

 

I had a full colour version of the pic on the second page, but I can't find it on the 'net.

 

Also did some google fu on the men and mice similarities, this is the only thing I could find:

http://www.eupedia.c...ans-and-animals

 

 

I understand your point about neodarwinism now. I agree with you

The mice and men similarity is on one of the things I cited, the Human Genome Project link. All life on earth seems to mostly be made from the same codebase... which is one of the reasons I believe it was designed. Personal opinion and interpretation of the relevant info.