Let me be clear from the start that this is not a scientific assessment but i do wish someday someone could try to approve or disprove the issues i mention here at least for the sole purpose of knowing why we are like we are today and how did we become like this.
I have always been interested in genetics and computers and i believe that the genome is the computer of all living things. My assessment today starts from the simple truth that “the strength of a chain lies in it’s weakest link” witch i consider an universally valid statement more like an axiom.
The Genome (in the case of humans represented by DNA) was build over many thousands of years to become what it is today. It’s a inheritance from our ancestors while giving us much of our individuality (genotype), the other individual characteristics being the result of our phenotype.
I will answer to myself to some questions:
Why most of our Genotype information is not seen to be used ?
This is not true. Our Genotype it is used 100% in the build up that leads to who we are genetically. We do have dormant genes but that does not mean that they are not used. Dormant genes are genes that are there because they have a great possibility to be included into the basic foundations of our species. Those genes are not yet so important and do not have enough additional alternative genes so that can make a trait permanent.
How natural section over time affects the Genome composition ? Why some genes trigger important modifications to the end result (us) and some don’t ?
As generations pass genes will:
– disappear from our Genome completely – the mutation has a failure rate of more than let’s say 90%, subjects dying because of this before being able to reproduce
– become permanently dormant – the mutation has a lower failure rate of about 50% witch still allows gene to be functional in some individual and not functional in others
– alternative genes that result in basically the same structural modifications will be added to the Genome – this happens with the failure rate of the mutation is less than 10% – and results in the fact that a certain characteristic becomes a permanent one; this mechanism is easy to understand when we think that this is nature way to say that a certain characteristic must be present in all the individual of the species. The importance of a gene in this ‘mini’ characteristic chain is decreased by adding alternative genes to the gene pool so that mutation of one element does not permanently affects the end result anymore. This mechanism is our natural CRC (Cyclic Redundancy Check) algorithm creating a flexible structure that permits mutations (accepts random mutations that happen anyway) while minimizing the impact of those mutations in case of traits useful for the functioning thus survival of that species.
Knowing this ‘facts’ we can deduct that genes that trigger important modifications have something to do with the fact that those are newly acquired genes, only present in our Genome for few generations ago and have not been yet ‘selected’ as a permanent resident of our Genome.
How the previous realization can affect future knowledge of the Genome ?
As i see it now this perspective can help us determine and structure better the evolution of life. We will be able to see what wore the important mutations in chronological order that made us who we are today and made everything it is today as it is. The more alternative genes found the more older are the traits that they describe. On that basis i assume that visual traits (the way things look like they look) are the new additions to the Genome and are prone to radical changes much more than the inner workings of things (our organs, cells, etc).
Understanding better the Genome will help us advance genetics into finally creating new forms of life radically different from we have today and possible even different than carbon based ones as it is life today. I do not do any assumptions on ethics as this is a pure theoretical possibility in my mind.
This realization of the time distribution of Genome and it’s ‘CRC’ proprieties can explain even further why interbreeding favors one species to another, why the human ‘African’ genome is ‘stronger’ than ‘Asian’ genome that is stronger than ‘Caucasian’ genome and so forth and will give us a much better understanding of the future of our on Genome and species. I assume that ‘Africans’ have more alternative genes in quantitative therms (better ‘CRC’) for a specified trait thus the higher probability that the trait will survive better in offsprings when interbreeding with Caucasians.
If required i will try to develop on this ideas but for now this is is a draft that i am publishing here. Sincerely waiting for your comments 🙂
Also it might be possible that someone else did all this rationale and research prior to what i post here but i have no idea and i don’t even care too much. I have no background experience to approve or disprove this but i am surely not Mister Ponta (the number 1 plagiarist of Romania).