News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:First Human Embryos Edited in U.S by speby on Thursday July 27, 2017 @09:40AM (#14865113)
Thing is, we are naturally not diverse at all (in part because our nearest ancestors with whom which we, at one time, did have reproduction compatibility with, are no longer here): https://www.ashg.org/education/pdf/geneticvariation.pdf

Specifically, modern humans have, on average, less than 0.1% of differences in their DNA amongst each other: "How diverse are we? Perhaps the most widely cited statistic about human genetic diversity is that any two humans differ, on average, at about 1 in 1,000 DNA base pairs (0.1%). Human genetic diversity is substantially lower than that of many other species, including our nearest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee. Genetic diversity is a function of a population's "age" (i.e., the amount of time during which mutations accumulate to generate diversity) and its size. Our genetic homogeneity implies that anatomically modern humans arose relatively recently (perhaps 200,000 years ago) and that our population size was quite small at one time (perhaps 10,000 breeding individuals). To put the 0.1% genetic diversity estimate into perspective, it is useful to remember that humans have approximately 3 billion base pairs in a haploid cell. Thus, any pair of humans differs by approximately 3 million base pairs. These differences contain much useful information about the evolutionary history of our species. In addition, the small proportion of differences that occur within genes can lead to critical inferences about the effects of natural selection. "

Re:First Human Embryos Edited in U.S by plaidfuji on Thursday July 27, 2017 @11:01AM (#14865920)
This is definitely true, but all of these genes have been vetted by millions of years of evolution, so we know they're rock solid. The edits we're talking about will be happening on a time scale that won't be constrained by natural selection, so by the time a weakness is found in one of these new genes, it's likely that it will already be widely adopted. I guess what I'm saying is that it's hard to anticipate what natural selection will look like when we multiply the "mutation rate" by probably > 10 orders of magnitude.
Re:First Human Embryos Edited in U.S by logfromblammo on Thursday July 27, 2017 @03:33PM (#14868611)
Certain breeds of dog get hip dysplasia. Dalmations go deaf. Molosser breeds often have respiratory issues, particularly pugs. This has not stopped people from breeding dogs.

Natural selection will be out the window. It will be replaced entirely by intentional selection. We will certainly see new diseases rooted in human vanity and hubris, and they will become business opportunities for surgeons and pharmacists, just as our natural and lifestyle ailments have become moneymaking industries.

So the great-grandchildren of people that were gifted by their parents with then-fashionable gene mutations will have all new reasons to pay for health care.

And Sylvester McMonkey McBean simply unveils his star-off machine.

Re:First Human Embryos Edited in U.S by eli_gottlieb on Friday July 28, 2017 @09:53AM (#14874254)
>This is definitely true, but all of these genes have been vetted by millions of years of evolution, so we know they're rock solid.

Evolution does not vet for anything except population-level viability. Once upon a time, our population bottlenecked. The return of large-scale genetic diversity is normal for an animal species, especially one that has spread to practically every environment on the planet.

Also, evolution is not a prescriptive standard. Oy.

Re:First Human Embryos Edited in U.S by D-Coder on Thursday July 27, 2017 @07:50PM (#14870814)
"...all of these genes have been vetted by millions of years of evolution, so we know they're rock solid."

You haven't talked with my knees recently, have you.

Re:First Human Embryos Edited in U.S by SophosQ on Thursday July 27, 2017 @11:37AM (#14866261)
Our genetic homogeneity implies that anatomically modern humans arose relatively recently (perhaps 200,000 years ago) and that our population size was quite small at one time (perhaps 10,000 breeding individuals).

-Another strongly supported hypothesis is that there was an near-extinction event that wiped out all but a pocket of human settlements from which we descended. - The diversity in other species that are about as old as ours is significantly far greater than ours suggesting that it is more likely an event like an unusually strong ice-age period that could've worsened our genetic diversity.

Re:First Human Embryos Edited in U.S by freeflight on Thursday July 27, 2017 @01:29PM (#14867498)
That sounds really interesting, does this hypothesis have a name so I can read up on it a bit more?
Re:First Human Embryos Edited in U.S by SophosQ on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @01:19PM (#14912586)
As for what might explain the near-extinction humanity apparently once experienced, perhaps another kind of catastrophe, such as disease, hit the species. It may also be possible that such a disaster never happened in the first place — genetic research suggests modern humans descend from a single population of a few thousand survivors of a calamity, but another possible explanation is that modern humans descend from a few groups that left Africa at different times.

-It's unlikely that the Toba catastrophe was the root cause of the bottleneck as reasoned in this investigation:

https://www.livescience.com/29130-toba-supervolcano-effects....

- I wonder if the hypothesis of leaving Africa in small groups could be effectively tested.

Re:First Human Embryos Edited in U.S by dotancohen on Thursday July 27, 2017 @02:37PM (#14868115)
I'm not the OP, but the Toba catastrophe comes to mind. There were a few others.
Re:First Human Embryos Edited in U.S by Xeoncross on Thursday July 27, 2017 @11:46AM (#14866367)
0.1% difference is huge when talking about a ~6 billion character code. The OP is talking about the danger of moving to only a 0.001% difference (600M vs 6M).
Re:First Human Embryos Edited in U.S by Danihan on Thursday July 27, 2017 @03:47PM (#14868756)
That 0.1% is obviously enough to make a pretty huge difference when some people have 140 IQ and some have a 70 IQ.