|Ray:
|Perhaps I don't understand properly, but it seems to me that one does not
|need to specify a "godhead" to see the need to construct an ethical
|framework in society and thus to identify ethical issues.  But I am not an
|ethicist.  Do you mind expanding here?

RV Comment.
I don't take this theological position myself, but note it for interest.
What I do believe is that evolution is purposive and teleological in the
sense that species and ecosystems are clearly behaving over time in ways
that will maximise their chances of survival.  The evolutionary process in
ecosystems, which does not involve the mixing of species, can therefore be
seen as having intrinsic value.  If the process has intrinsic value then the
products - the evolving genetic makeup of each species - is also of value,
not only in itself but also in its role as a component of an evolving
ecosystem.
The evolutionary process is one of the refinement of a complete gene
sequence through natural selection of very small random genetic changes.
Traditional plant breeding also uses this process and simply modifies the
criteria for survival (eg only wheat with large seeds is selected for
replanting).  Because the organism is an integrated whole its gene sequence
is also an integrated whole, not just a series of unrelated instructions;
the unit of evolution is the whole gene sequence. Because species evolve by
adapting to all other species, ie co-evolve, the gene sequences of different
species in an ecosystem co-evolve.  Traditional plant breeding by humans and
flower selection by bees are both examples of natural co-evolution.
In contrast, taking a section of an integrated gene sequence from one
species and inserting it into that of another species - the gene from
species A has not evolved to work in species B. There have been experiments
where the *gene for red pigmentation* of one plant species has been inserted
in another species.  Some plants of the second species were red, or striped,
or stunted, or had double flowers - because the new gene, and the gene slot
into which it was placed, was not solely for colour but was part of an
integrated gene sequence affecting many variables.  Claims by scientists
that they have found THE gene for height, for homosexuality or for
intelligence are nonsense - we know that if we insert these genes into a
cabbage or a fish they will not have the same effect (because it is not the
gene but the interaction of genes that matters), we know that other genes
also have these effect and we know that these genes also have other effects.
In the last century doctors drew maps of the brain and worked out the
precise function of each bit.  They did this by observing casualties that
had lost different parts of their brain.  We now laugh at this
oversimplification, but this is exactly what geneticists do today - they
remove genes from the sequence to see what happens assuming that each gene
has a single function.  Just as we now know that any thought involves many
parts of the brain and interacts with other thoughts so we are discovering
that each property of an organism involves many genes and that this property
interacts with many other properties.


Chris Perley

Just to back up these comments by Robert, RC Lewontin makes exactly these
points about interactions between genes and between genes and environment in
his book "The Doctrine of DNA: Biology as Ideology".  Science that is
deterministic may not "see" the interrelationships, and may not even be
looking for them.  He uses the example of the human genome project to map
human DNA as a little overblown in its optimism, and also motivated not by a
sense of discovery, but by commercial concerns - with a scent of eugenics
attached.






%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%