“Creating human beings by cloning would be barbaric”
“Creating human beings by cloning would be barbaric”
Where does man come from?
The modern man, who is physically our likeness, comes from Africa, but not from a single Eve. That biblical Eve or mitochondrial Eve that researchers call never existed. In the history of humanity the population has never been limited to a couple, they have been thousands.
And how does man arise?
Well, as we know, we come from monkeys, from not being human to being human little by little. The first to have the ability to walk on the two legs were those of the australopit, despite being a very small brain. Later, about two million years ago, appeared the first of our genus, the species Homo habilis, which was when it began to increase the size of the brain and then are the first useful stone and bone, simple tools. Homo erectus comes after Homo habilis, about 1,800,000 years ago.
Homo erectus spread from continent to continent, reaching Indonesia, Australia and China. From then until 300,000 to 500,000 years ago, until the creation of the Homo sapiens, the changes that occurred were very small. However, before the Homo sapiens were much more primitive than us, although the brain was as big as ours. However, his skeleton was different. Our modern species appeared in Africa about 100,000 years ago and from there spread all over the world representing the rest of the species.
Did this evolution occur slowly or abruptly after a few years of balance?
Both. In some cases evolution accelerates and in others it accelerates. However, what we know about the specifications does not give us any certainty that that was so. For example, from the time of the Australopithecus afarensis, from 4 million years ago to 2 million years ago, there do not seem to be major morphological changes, but if you look at the time interval between the Homo habilis and the Homo erectus, 200,000 years, the changes are evident: from the brain of half a kilo to the kilo happens to be of kilo, while in the first 2 million years.
Why these differences in evolution?
Since they began hunting our ancestors had to organize in groups for what had to be done tools. In order to make the tools they needed intelligence, because you have to imagine what kind of tool is needed and what to use, imagine the future. The more intelligence they had the ability to make better tools and use them more appropriately.
The more instruments they used, the more they saw the need to improve the tools and, at the same time, they developed the capacity. This process is called positive feedback: the smarter, the more tools, the more and the better tools, the easier it is to work between groups.
Therefore, does evolution respond to needs?
It is a way of saying. I would say that genetic changes, mutations that increased brain size and intelligence thrived. The smartest, who had those mutations, increased more. It is only a natural selection.
I think you would hear something about the origin of the Basques.
That nobody knows too much. My opinion? I believe that the Basques are a consequence of the remains of the first inhabitants of Europe. These first inhabitants arrived in Europe after the creation of modern humanity, founded 100,000 years ago in Africa and crossing the Middle East. Europe was colonized some 50,000 years ago. With the arrival of glaciations, especially the last and hardest, 18,000 years ago, the inhabitants of the North and Central Europe died or headed south.
When the temperature began to normalize, between 5,000 and 8,000 years ago, European colonization resumes. In the north of Spain, in the south of France, in some areas of Italy and in the Caucasus, there were descendants of those who descended on the glaciations and hid in the caves, the most primitive, which were not replaced by new colonizations. That is why language has no resemblance to other languages, since it is an instinctive language. Those who came to the second colonization brought Indo-European languages, foreign to the Basque language.
Going back to genes. The appearance, the disease is inherited… can the behavior be inherited?
Well, not all diseases are hereditary, but there are genes that facilitate the tendency to get a disease. As for attitude or behavior, the relationship is not so clear. In fact, genes can bring some characteristic, but their behavior, intelligence, nature, etc. are conditioned by the environment, education and relationship with society. This, of course, has an interesting reflection on the subject of cloning of people who today is so well known.
That was it. The other day I read some of his claims about human cloning.
The individual cannot be cloned, clone is the person's genome, genes. The resulting individual will be very different, with similar physical characteristics, but with completely different mental characteristics and behavior.
As you said, human cloning can be technically done, but ethically it would be barbaric.
It is crazy to use cloning as a social tactic to improve all humanity. In that context I was asked. Regarding the use of cloning in certain cases, the acceptable position is dominant in all Western countries, as President Clinton himself demonstrated in the United States: 5 years delay in the opinion of all spheres of society, not just scientists. More important is what politicians, governments, religious leaders and society itself have to say on this issue.
In principle it doesn't seem fair to me, but it is possible that I reach an agreement to clone someone's genome in a specific situation, I mean individual cases and there it doesn't seem bad to me. But from now on human creation by cloning or use as social policy would be barbaric. I remember the Happy World of Aldous Huxley.
So what would you use cloning?
Animals or agriculture. In agriculture they have been doing for a long time, when grapes are planted they are clonic, just like fruit trees. It can be used properly in livestock to produce certain homogeneities and characteristics.
As for organ transplantation, would it have any use?
Well, in the media they have also been said terrible. For example, there was talk of creating and growing a child, but only as a creative organ. When scientists talk about the role of cloning in organ transplants, they don't talk about it, they talk about obtaining organs in the laboratory culture. The technique has not yet developed, as it is not yet known as sending genes to make a certain part of the body.
When the technique is acquired, for example when a kidney is needed, instead of removing it from another, the cells that will form the kidney will be cloned, the same genotype as the one that needs it. We will know him in the future. I don't see any ethical problems for this technique, for example. What was said at first is another thing, since human genes are made by nature itself.
You mentioned the first word genome, what do you think of the Human Genome project?
That is very interesting, since it is an attempt to know in detail our genetic structure. The Human Genome project will bring us knowledge of all genes, so it is a project oriented to beneficial objectives and with good progress.
And the competition that has arisen?
Well, the competition projects want to complete with cruises. They say that to know 90% of the genome it takes two or three years. The idea is not bad, but it does not advance the final knowledge. With the construction of a simil they want to make a road map in Spain, but only explaining the main roads. They will not know the details, we will have a general plan, but the rest will not.
They can also help, right?
In English there is a phrase that says that God is in the details. Knowing the main sections without knowing the crosses, we will not go anywhere.
Where are we going? Are evolution and progress synonymous?
No, evolution means change, progress means improvement. Evolution itself does not lead to improvement. Anyway, to say if a thing has improved or is not totally subjective, for you everything can be back for me. For example, industrial and economic development for many people is not progress, even if we live better, have more resources, eat better... but for humanity this is an ethical and moral advance? Does it mean that we are advancing in coexistence?…
Does humanity advance or retreat alone? That is, is there life outside the Earth?
Intelligent life, like ours, with our ability to communicate… no. There is a group of experts with a contrary opinion, but normally it is not biologists who have studied evolution. For those who correctly understand evolution, the existence of other types of people in the Universe, with communication capacity... is not possible. That there is life in the universe? the odds are higher, as life can be created in many ways. As stars and planets are millions and millions, there may be some kind of life, such as carbon based.
NOTE (28-06-2018):
The University of California has ceded all its positions, responsibilities and honors to Francisco Ayala for sexual abuse, and has announced it through a note.
Buletina
Bidali zure helbide elektronikoa eta jaso asteroko buletina zure sarrera-ontzian