Where are we now?
Human bodies (and genes) have adapted - to sometime before the Stone Age.
Our civilization is more advanced.
We want to improve civilization, so our mentality is even further advanced.
What does this tell us?
The human body and its genes are always obsolescent, lagging far behind our civilization.
And even `modern' civilization lags far behind our minds' hopes and wishes.
"We have no evidence that the modal form of human bodies or brains has changed at all in the past 100,000 years." - Stephen Jay Gould in "Life's Grandeur"
"People cannot be adapted to the present, or to the future; they can only be adapted to the past." - Matt Ridley
A few years ago `scientists' were claiming that human genes would be more complex and numerous than other animals.
Now the `human genome project' reveals what some suspected. There are not enough human genes - only around 25,000 (Dec. 2003 count) - to be a `blueprint' for humans; so it looks like genes simply initiate & define limited chemical / protein actions.
If organisms actually inherited all their characteristics via genes, then humans would be only simple worm-like creatures. Because the tiny roundworm (C. elegans) has about 20,000 genes!
Later research - even the rice-plant has more genes than we do!
Latest '04 research - even less human genes!
That seems to say that DNA cannot define a living human being. So the real messages must come via maternal interaction with egg, embryo and baby.
Maybe most mammals - including humans - have never needed to `write-down' their evolutionary changes. They are then links in a live chain - not dictated by DNA - some going back to very earliest ancestors.
In a mere 35 years of searching - to Aug '06 - over one hundred `organic' molecules, carbon based and so useful for starting Earth-type life, are now known to be `grown' in outer space. 8a That reference says that DNA precursors have also been detected in space, close to stars.
It's tempting to think that DNA, a relatively simple chemical pattern, acted as a symbiote with earliest Earth-life; earning its keep by doing some of the house-work for evolving cellular stuff. Even so, DNA now seems most useful to more primitive animals.
Amphibians and other multi-stage animals have long, complex DNA chains because eggs are away from mother's body, in unpredictable conditions, so alternative strategies must be written into DNA.
Far from being selfish, individual genes are almost suicidal in their readiness to change, either through damage / trauma 8 or by copying-error / mutation.
Such changes have a high probability of making the whole organism non-viable.
I.e. cancerous, malformed or simply non-functional - dead.
Forget the "blind watchmaker" - genes are more like blind gardeners, which can flip to a demolition gang at any small excuse!
When `scientists' impute `motive' force to genes they're being self serving 80 and deceiving, most often for greedy or political purposes.
Genes, the `blind gardeners', can have no design (or memory) in mind, and even (only) 25,000 individual genes can't hatch subversive plots because, although they're busily pushing in different directions, we are aware of those promptings and can override often dangerous urges.
You can `control' your genes. 80A
For thousands of years we humans have been purposely countermanding instructions from our genes - and we do that holistically: with our minds and bodies (the phenotype).
How? - The `blind gardeners' are continually sending mixed (& dangerous) messages to the mind/body, maybe pushing for food or sex or suggesting a murder - or a tumor.
By common consent we're reducing the numbers of murderers and rapists 81 - and we're now beginning to realize the mind/body has more power than all the genes.
It can `cure' itself from potentially lethal physiological or mental conditions. And indications say that isn't all! 82
Outcomes versus Mechanism
As we have seen 'evolution' is actually a series of outcomes - impossible to prevent or circumvent, or even forecast accurately. 83 & 84
This is most clear in the field of Social Evolution, an area that defines human beings.
Elite "breeding programs" have always failed; humans continue to improve. 81.
Evolution is not a process or mechanism, therefore it cannot be made use of.
Horace - "Wisely, God hides future outcomes in a mist of night" - Odes
What genes cannot do
Recent research has shown that most of the building of higher animals is due to environmental influences. The most important being those contributed by the mother during egglife and womblife - the earliest environment.
The basic brain circuits are mainly constructed after birth (during first month or so for a kitten) and then purely by reacting to the local environment.
That's basic vision, hearing and sensation circuitry which can be measured. 85 & 86 & 87
And continual environmental stimuli are responsible for our brain format, with its drastic rebuilds during adolescence 88 - and middle-age.
The reason : - Even if all DNA bases tried to build a brain - they couldn't do it!
There are more neural connections in the brain than bases in the whole of human DNA. The brain is too complex to be mapped by DNA.
So, the brain and other complexities are left to the laws of chemistry and physics - the 'hard' environment 86, and to peer examples - the 'soft' or social environment. 89
In many animals even more of the 'complexities' are created that way, with size, color, and even sex 800 (gender) being decided by temperature, chemical traces in surroundings or by peer example etc.
I.e. - purely determined by external stimuli - by the environment.
So there can't be a 'murder gene', nor a 'theft gene' nor a 'suicide gene' in humans. Those are physiological impossibilities because our brains, and our thinking are shaped by our environments. 87 & 88
Although always denied by politicians, demagogues, racists, other power-perverts and their pseudo-scientists, the sensible conclusion is that human characters are conceived equal; that we receive only limited body-type information through genes. Then all else is developed - in the womb and earliest childhood - by physical and social environments.
So the human character, while it may be slightly influenced by some of DNA's more unfortunate physical effects, derives its individuality from conception, embryo, birth, development and growth.
That is, from the `hard' and `soft' environments.
Later - evidence still accumulating:
01 Nov. 2013 UPDATE - Humans' body mass index (BMI - i.e. `fat' or `thin') score is due to `nurture' (family/social) more than `nature' (genes). 807
29 Oct. 2013 UPDATE - Most IQ test variations and differences (inc. Black versus White) are down to culture - NOT genes. 806
16 Oct. 2013 UPDATE - `Your behaviour, diet, habitat affect your children and grandchildren - more than your genes'. 805
14 Oct. 2013 UPDATE - IQ only 20% inherited - "For geneticists, the more we learn about DNA, the more important the environment appears." 804
02 Nov. 2010 UPDATE - More research confirming forecasts - `Diet changes brains and behaviour in bees'. 803
12 Oct. 2010 UPDATE - Research confirms forecasts - `Experience/society shapes our minds - Genes are ineffectual'. 802
What genes can do
We all have all the 'human genes'. But the physical expression of these potentialities may be limited - by lack of nutrition, lack of education, lack of opportunity - and by selfish actions of recent ancestors.
These, as we have seen 808, may actually deform brains and bodies of groups choosing a life of privilege.
More importantly, from 809 & 810, such selfishness seems to select, through environmental influences, for coldness and ugliness in later privileged offspring.
Old saying:- "the sins of the fathers . . ."
What genes did do, and may do in the future
Some genes are a record of ancient survival gambits suited to specific past environments.
Those gambits remain viable if expressed in loose genetic terms. I.e. general 'adaptability' seems to be paramount - lost only by privileged elites. 809
But genes may be temporarily unlucky in later environments. Such as the trick of avoiding extinction from ubiquitous malaria. This is now defined as a specific 'gene': the one for sickle-cell anemia. And in our present (maybe temporary) environment it is deemed by the experts 811 to be a 'bad' gene.
In the distant past those experts would have been wrong. They would have prevented the birth of many of us alive today.
For instance they would have killed-off Mozart, and Dr Johnson, and many other vital talents since they happened to be born with so-called 'bad genes' - congenital diseases.
And the 'experts' may be just as wrong now, or at any time in the future.
Genetics, medical interventions for the elite, cloning and human genome projects are promoted to engineer or circumvent evolution.
These projects are not intended for the mass of humanity. As a clear example: `diseases of the rich' consume the largest part of `public health' spending, both per capita and pro rata.
Cloning and genetic engineering would also seem to be for the benefit or `improvement' of privileged elites: Eugenics.
Why is so much effort & resource wasted on these projects? Because decisions on gov't spending and research are controlled by elites. 812
Elites have always sought some form of 'eugenics' option, even while pursuing more brutal final solutions for expected dominance.
However, eugenics programs have always been catastrophic 813 - for the elites. 808
Evolution is not a mechanism - it consists of perpetually occurring outcomes.
NOTE - Maybe check `Eugenics and Other Evils' by Gilbert Keith Chesterton - Amazon Review - DOWNLOAD
NOTE2 - Why the cloning `theory' was wrong.
Sexual beings are partly protected from copying error by using the technique of join - compare - don't use the bad bits. This is why 'cloning' is more dangerous than sexual reproduction.
First - because the technical interventions are lacking in innumerable hormonal, 'emotional' and nerve interactions associated with (and maybe necessary for) ideal initiation of human or animal fertilization & conception.
Second - because the intervention techniques introduce additional cell trauma, causing even more `copying errors' (mutations).
Third - because cloning uses only one copy and so cannot use comparison. Therefore it cannot prevent `copying error' as sexual reproduction does.
Late news - `Cloning may produce fatal genetic imbalances' 814A - May 2002
Later news - `Biochemical obstacle to cloning' 815 - Dec. 2003
Later news - `Dolly scientist abandons cloning' 816 - Nov. 2007
Later news - `Plant cuttings (clones) can have new mutations' 816A - Aug 2011
Homicide, Genocide and Suicide - Yes or No
There might be a question - `Can direct action circumvent Altruist Survivor principle?'
After all, homicide and other violence is committed or attempted every day.
So in the very short term the answer is perceived as - "Yes"
The thief, pedophile, rapist or murderer always thinks he'll evade any 'punishment'. 817
But, as we've seen, results of those behaviors tend to long term outcomes that we call human evolution - in line with the Altruist Survivor principle.
So the answer for 'homicide' is, in the medium and long-term - "No"
Genocide might seem to be different. If a very selfish 1% of the world population were to slaughter the rest of us, wouldn't that prevent the operation of the Altruist Survivor principle - for ever?
In the short-term again the answer is perceived as - "Yes"
But recall that most offspring (of those 60,000,000 'murderers') don't wish to be as cruel, ugly and greedy as their parents and grandparents.
Within a few generations, speeded by chance mutation, the murdered genetic patterns will be re-created, so defeating the aims of the murderers.
Then, as we have already seen, `murderers' again move into extinction. The genocide and the recovery would've been `one step back - two steps forward'.
So the answer for 'genocide' is, in the longer-term - "No"
Can't be ruled out, because elites' actions always tend to long-term `suicide through greed'. So, as their unconscious motivation is that they `might take us with them', we'll have to say "possible" - 818 & 802
Extinction / Evolution?
It's interesting to note that all species now alive are relatively `newly evolved'. The rest, the vast majority of all things that have lived on Earth, are extinct.
'Human' attributes of intelligence, empathy and full consciousness are potentially in all of us.
Which is why we are all 'equal' before the outcomes that we call 'evolution'.
Equally 'judged' - by outcomes - for our own individual actions.
For the least action of any individual inexorably influences all of the 819 inter-connected human race & its future, and - though perhaps to an unmeasurable extent - the fate of the whole Universe.
Human social evolution, like other forms of evolution, is the composite of ongoing results of unconscious decisions, taken by each of us when presented with life's options.
Poor prescient Nietzsche recognized this when he wrote - "Werde was du bist" - "we shall become what we must" - only failing, unlike Darwin at the last, 820 to perceive the direction of our travel
Even the most `insignificant' individuals, either human or otherwise, actually change the future of humanity, the world and the whole universe, by the conscious and unconscious decisions and actions taken throughout our lives.
What we each do continually shapes what we all become.
Our genes and bodies are obsolescent, lagging behind our civilization.
`Civilization' lags behind our minds and wishes. 821
Most of us know we must improve `civilization', so our mentality is even further advanced.