Now if you take a faulty gene out through genetic screening ... what fills up the space that was occupied by that gene? Isn't there a thing called causuality? Like cause and effect? And is it to simple to say the effect will be there is no longer a faulty gene? How many generations before that gap gets filled?
I know ... we can't know and any answer is speculation. Which is why the question is in philosophy :-)
2006-10-28 14:02:10 · 8 answers · asked by Part Time Cynic 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I am having faulty genes, thy split when I putting on them am.
I taking back to Tesco they am and they am giving full refundt,
Taek them back.
2006-10-28 14:13:35 · answer #1 · answered by "Call me Dave" 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Genes have variants. Most people will have a normal one whilst some have the faulty one. If you take the faulty gene out of the population by screening, then all you'd have left would be the normal variants.
How long it would take depends on the mutation. A dominant one (that expresses all the time if you inherit it) could hypothetically be eliminated within one or two generations if the faulty gene causes death before a person can reproduce. A recessive gene (one that expresses only of you get a faulty copy from both parents) would take a lot longer because many will be carriers and only have one copy of the faulty gene (of course there is the option of screening everyone and killing anyone with a faulty gene but we're assuming that's a bid no-no because we're not monsters).
Okay this oversimplifies things a bit because there are always new mutations occurring and there are whole issues on co-dominance and where faulty genes can be protective (e.g. sickle cell and thalassaemia genes protecting against malaria) but you get the idea.
2006-10-28 14:12:35 · answer #2 · answered by Cardinal Fang 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hopefully the healthy, artificial gene will replace the faulty gene, but gametes will be gametes. If extracting a faulty gene and replacing it has no bearing on the production of sex cells, that is, the faulty gene is passed on anyway, then either gene specialists need to find the mechanism (another gene) which causes this faulty replication, or you just fix the progeny like the parents.
2006-10-28 16:15:07 · answer #3 · answered by -.- 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dear Mr Alchemist,
You need have no fear whatsoever. So they reckon they will find a way to eliminate that genetic difference that so far has made us so interesting. They have no chance. We will resist such attempts always. We probably always have. The Russian revolution was probably a victory of lower genes over superior genes. The growth of Labour in the UK in the 30's and subsequent election to government in 1945 flew in the face of " survival of the fittest ". Now, should a fundamentalist christian or fundamentalist islamic or any type of regime try to tell me and other plebs how to live our lives, they will get a severe reaction. Kill all royalty, kill the upper classes, destroy all religion... if necessary. We are ready and waiting.
2006-10-28 14:39:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We've blown the 'Survival of the Fittest' bit by keeping people alive allowing those with defective genes to reproduce.
Any volunteers for euthanasia?
RoyS
2006-10-30 01:41:33 · answer #5 · answered by Roy S 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
don't they replace it with a healthy lab grown gene? or some kind of base that new gene can grow from.
Is gene splicing where they sow 1 leg of Levis up to another leg of wranglers?
2006-10-28 14:12:05 · answer #6 · answered by flibertyjib 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
prob the gap won,t get filled and when a child is born it will have a birth mark saying mind the gap on its chest.
2006-10-28 14:08:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
a brand new pair
2006-11-03 09:53:11 · answer #8 · answered by catweazle 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋