In my somewhat rural area, some farms house horses, and one, just down the street from my house, houses rescue horses, but no Harringtonhippus francisci. All the H. francisci are extinct now for unknown reasons. Did their demise come through the actions of the first North Americans? Bacteria? Viruses? Ecological change? And if there were people living contemporaneously with H. francisci at the time of the extinction, did none of them care to set up rescue farms? All life-forms have a tenuous hold on existence, a fact that conscious beings have difficulty ignoring. Were there no charitable people, none to intervene and save the ancient horse from extinction?
The tenuous hold on life applies to every life-form and to species. As we have seen, however, interventions by well-meaning humans have at least temporarily saved some species of whales and wolves from that ultimate fate. But are there enough well-meaning humans intervening to save our species? What if our hold on the planet becomes a bit shaky because someone who is “well-meaning” like chemist Floyd Romesberg of Scripps Research Institute runs experiments with DNA not on bacteria as he and fellow researchers do, but rather on human cells and unintentionally sends humanity the way of H. francisci?*
Extinct horse? Horses are still around, aren’t they? Apparently, the extinct H. francisci just couldn’t keep pace with other horse species. Recently named in honor of Richard Harington, a paleontologist who discovered in Lost Chicken Creek fossils of the “stilt-legged” horse, the defunct horse species once roamed western North America from Nevada to the Yukon, dying out about 17,000 years ago and leaving no distant evolutionary descendants for my neighbor to rescue.**
The seven remaining species of horses that still run over the planet include the domesticated horses on my neighbor’s farm, Przewalski’s horse, the donkey, zebras, kiangs, and the African wild asses. Some, like the zebras, are composed of an arguable three or four species, and some cross-bred horses have produced offspring called mules, hinnies, zeedonks, zonies, and zorses. Even if no new species evolves, there are still those horse species that have survived long after the last H. francisci went to the glue farm.
In the number of horse species lies some protection from extinction for the genus Equus. The more species in the genus, the better chance of its general survival. But what of the genus Homo? Humans coexisted with H. francisci, and we have survived the 17,000 years after the extinction. The loss of H. francisci provides us with a warning: Although genus Equus survives, its individual species have gone extinct. If we were to follow H. francisci to that glue farm, there would be no continuation of our genus. The End. Do we need a human rescue farm?
That you can’t see a living relative of H. francisci but that you can see horses confirms the tenuous existence of individual species and the less tenuous existence of a genus because of its number of species. All species face possible extinction. With regard to horses, one type, the stilt-legged ones, died out, but other horse species remain; the genus survives in its remaining species.
How do we compare? We all belong not only to the same genus, but also to the same species. And our species is the only member of the genus Homo.
A new species of genus Homo is probably not on the horizon. Yes, because of our widespread distribution, we might eventually produce a new species, but homogenization seems to be our destiny because of our frequent travel and migration. Where are our ancient relatives the Neandert(h)als? Locked inside our DNA? All of us, regardless of shape, stature, and color, belong to a single human species whose genetic variations don’t impede reproducing fertile offspring. Even the effects of thousands of years of separated gene pools don’t prohibit a Scandinavian and a member of an Australian indigenous tribe from reproducing.
Of course, we are increasingly more capable of making strange pairings because of our ability to edit a genome and affect a germline in processes that teeter at the edge of an ethical precipice. Given our history of “mad scientists,” there’s a remote chance that someone will attempt to produce a new kind of human. It’s been attempted on tragic and cruder levels. But generally, our species might be very much like H. francisci: An evolutionary dead end. And the “dead” part might be enhanced by our interference, by our well-intentioned “rescue farms” of altered DNA.
Without the ability to conduct paleontological research into its past or model its future, H. francisci and tens of billions of other species could not see vestiges of their beginning and prospects for their end. We’re obviously different. We have rather extensive—if still only incomplete—knowledge of our evolutionary past from fossil records. We also have the ability, if only imperfectly, to guess our future. Balancing past and future is the nature of our present. In looking ahead on the basis of what we know, we can imagine the scenarios of our own extinction and envision a time when no humans inhabit the planet.
Is there a possibility we might even alter our species, making variants that conceivably lead to a different human species? Just keep this in mind: As biology goes, species, NOT individuals, evolve. If you look at the history of humans attempting to alter humans, you’ll see an underlying motive of producing some “super” individual or individuals who will reproduce a race of “superhumans.” It’s that kind of thinking that introduced eugenics and all the tragic consequences of that movement, including numerous incidents of genocide. Human interference for the sake of “improving” the species has had, in many circumstances, very bad consequences for individuals grouped somewhat arbitrarily by nationality or “race.” Think Nazi Germany, for example. Think Rwanda. Think et cetera probably going back to human origins.
Some 3.8 billion years of DNA development on our planet has made life-forms very complex, and vestigial body parts and junk DNA are part of that complexity. Because gene interaction outstrips any current or foreseeable total control even with the aid of supercomputers, we cannot know the nature of a second generation of any combination of forced mutations or to mutations that evolve from such mutations. In trying to prevent our becoming yet another evolutionary dead end, we might make extinction happen. That notion has been the subject of numerous science fiction stories. So, with some considerable caution, Romesberg and colleagues conducted research that introduced unnatural bases into cells to make proteins. Now, let’s assign the most well-meaning of motives to the researchers at Scripps. But that still leaves the scary part: According to an online report by Ewen Callaway at Nature, the international weekly journal of science, “The achievement…shows that synthetic biology—a field focused on imbuing organisms with new traits—can accomplish its goals by reinventing the most basic facets of life…’What we’ve done is design a new part that functions right alongside the existing parts and can do everything they do.’”*
What being will wander over a future Lost Chicken Creek, discover a human bone or skull, and understand that it represents a species that was not only widespread on a continent, but also on every continent? Human DNA has an almost-four-billion-year history, and our own variants from Australopithecus to us were largely, if not totally, the product of unconscious interactions. Will consciousness improve the process? Will consciousness even remain on the planet? Having some success in technologies like CRISPR/Cas9 to edit genomes has probably encouraged or will encourage someone to make a “better” or even a “newer” species of synthetic human. Yet, there’s no guarantee that the product will be viable or “better.” Evolutionary dead ends are both inevitable and unpredictable, regardless of human hubris.
Maybe we should look at the horses. A number of different species of horses now roam Earth. In the past, a number of different species of horses roamed, also. There is no clear reason why some of them became extinct just as there is no clear reason why there were multiple horse species—or even hominin species—living contemporaneously. But certainly in the past no conscious entity attempted to alter DNA by introducing mechanisms for adding 100 or so extra amino acids to the 20 we now use.
What is the reason that there is a sole human species? And will that status have anything to do with our becoming another dead end? Once again, remember that species, NOT individuals, evolve biologically.
We keep confusing technological advances—even biotech ones—with improvement in the human condition. True, people in industrialized nations generally have longer lives on average, but that is largely a consequence of reducing infant and child mortality and improving water quality. But in the process of industrial development, we have also incorporated into our bodies chemical compounds that didn’t exist just a century ago and certainly not millennia ago. And now without knowing the full consequences of manipulating DNA, the very stuff that makes us what we are, we believe we are on the cusp of improving ourselves as though individuals could evolve. Should we continue our efforts without some ethical control? How would we agree on the underlying ethics? Some well-meaning researcher could find a cure for one malady while sending us into the Lost Chicken Creek of species’ history.
I guess the only one who will know our fate will be that last conscious human who looks around to find himself or herself alone amidst a herd of wild horses.
*Callaway, Ewen. ‘Alien’ DNA makes proteins in living cells for the first time. Nov. 29, 2017. Nature 551, 550–551 (30 November 2017) doi:10.1038/nature.2017.23040
http://www.nature.com/news/alien-dna-makes-proteins-in-living-cells-for-the-first-time-1.23040
** Peter D Heintzman, Grant D Zazula, Ross DE MacPhee, Eric Scott, James A Cahill, Brianna K McHorse, Joshua D Kapp, Mathias Stiller, Matthew J Wooller, Ludovic Orlando, John Southon, Duane G Froese, Beth Shapiro. A new genus of horse from Pleistocene North America. eLife, 2017; 6 DOI: 10.7554/eLife.29944
AND
University of California - Santa Cruz. "A horse is a horse, of course, of course -- except when it isn't: Analysis of ancient DNA reveals a previously unrecognized genus of extinct horses that once roamed North America." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 28 November 2017. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171128090948.htm
The tenuous hold on life applies to every life-form and to species. As we have seen, however, interventions by well-meaning humans have at least temporarily saved some species of whales and wolves from that ultimate fate. But are there enough well-meaning humans intervening to save our species? What if our hold on the planet becomes a bit shaky because someone who is “well-meaning” like chemist Floyd Romesberg of Scripps Research Institute runs experiments with DNA not on bacteria as he and fellow researchers do, but rather on human cells and unintentionally sends humanity the way of H. francisci?*
Extinct horse? Horses are still around, aren’t they? Apparently, the extinct H. francisci just couldn’t keep pace with other horse species. Recently named in honor of Richard Harington, a paleontologist who discovered in Lost Chicken Creek fossils of the “stilt-legged” horse, the defunct horse species once roamed western North America from Nevada to the Yukon, dying out about 17,000 years ago and leaving no distant evolutionary descendants for my neighbor to rescue.**
The seven remaining species of horses that still run over the planet include the domesticated horses on my neighbor’s farm, Przewalski’s horse, the donkey, zebras, kiangs, and the African wild asses. Some, like the zebras, are composed of an arguable three or four species, and some cross-bred horses have produced offspring called mules, hinnies, zeedonks, zonies, and zorses. Even if no new species evolves, there are still those horse species that have survived long after the last H. francisci went to the glue farm.
In the number of horse species lies some protection from extinction for the genus Equus. The more species in the genus, the better chance of its general survival. But what of the genus Homo? Humans coexisted with H. francisci, and we have survived the 17,000 years after the extinction. The loss of H. francisci provides us with a warning: Although genus Equus survives, its individual species have gone extinct. If we were to follow H. francisci to that glue farm, there would be no continuation of our genus. The End. Do we need a human rescue farm?
That you can’t see a living relative of H. francisci but that you can see horses confirms the tenuous existence of individual species and the less tenuous existence of a genus because of its number of species. All species face possible extinction. With regard to horses, one type, the stilt-legged ones, died out, but other horse species remain; the genus survives in its remaining species.
How do we compare? We all belong not only to the same genus, but also to the same species. And our species is the only member of the genus Homo.
A new species of genus Homo is probably not on the horizon. Yes, because of our widespread distribution, we might eventually produce a new species, but homogenization seems to be our destiny because of our frequent travel and migration. Where are our ancient relatives the Neandert(h)als? Locked inside our DNA? All of us, regardless of shape, stature, and color, belong to a single human species whose genetic variations don’t impede reproducing fertile offspring. Even the effects of thousands of years of separated gene pools don’t prohibit a Scandinavian and a member of an Australian indigenous tribe from reproducing.
Of course, we are increasingly more capable of making strange pairings because of our ability to edit a genome and affect a germline in processes that teeter at the edge of an ethical precipice. Given our history of “mad scientists,” there’s a remote chance that someone will attempt to produce a new kind of human. It’s been attempted on tragic and cruder levels. But generally, our species might be very much like H. francisci: An evolutionary dead end. And the “dead” part might be enhanced by our interference, by our well-intentioned “rescue farms” of altered DNA.
Without the ability to conduct paleontological research into its past or model its future, H. francisci and tens of billions of other species could not see vestiges of their beginning and prospects for their end. We’re obviously different. We have rather extensive—if still only incomplete—knowledge of our evolutionary past from fossil records. We also have the ability, if only imperfectly, to guess our future. Balancing past and future is the nature of our present. In looking ahead on the basis of what we know, we can imagine the scenarios of our own extinction and envision a time when no humans inhabit the planet.
Is there a possibility we might even alter our species, making variants that conceivably lead to a different human species? Just keep this in mind: As biology goes, species, NOT individuals, evolve. If you look at the history of humans attempting to alter humans, you’ll see an underlying motive of producing some “super” individual or individuals who will reproduce a race of “superhumans.” It’s that kind of thinking that introduced eugenics and all the tragic consequences of that movement, including numerous incidents of genocide. Human interference for the sake of “improving” the species has had, in many circumstances, very bad consequences for individuals grouped somewhat arbitrarily by nationality or “race.” Think Nazi Germany, for example. Think Rwanda. Think et cetera probably going back to human origins.
Some 3.8 billion years of DNA development on our planet has made life-forms very complex, and vestigial body parts and junk DNA are part of that complexity. Because gene interaction outstrips any current or foreseeable total control even with the aid of supercomputers, we cannot know the nature of a second generation of any combination of forced mutations or to mutations that evolve from such mutations. In trying to prevent our becoming yet another evolutionary dead end, we might make extinction happen. That notion has been the subject of numerous science fiction stories. So, with some considerable caution, Romesberg and colleagues conducted research that introduced unnatural bases into cells to make proteins. Now, let’s assign the most well-meaning of motives to the researchers at Scripps. But that still leaves the scary part: According to an online report by Ewen Callaway at Nature, the international weekly journal of science, “The achievement…shows that synthetic biology—a field focused on imbuing organisms with new traits—can accomplish its goals by reinventing the most basic facets of life…’What we’ve done is design a new part that functions right alongside the existing parts and can do everything they do.’”*
What being will wander over a future Lost Chicken Creek, discover a human bone or skull, and understand that it represents a species that was not only widespread on a continent, but also on every continent? Human DNA has an almost-four-billion-year history, and our own variants from Australopithecus to us were largely, if not totally, the product of unconscious interactions. Will consciousness improve the process? Will consciousness even remain on the planet? Having some success in technologies like CRISPR/Cas9 to edit genomes has probably encouraged or will encourage someone to make a “better” or even a “newer” species of synthetic human. Yet, there’s no guarantee that the product will be viable or “better.” Evolutionary dead ends are both inevitable and unpredictable, regardless of human hubris.
Maybe we should look at the horses. A number of different species of horses now roam Earth. In the past, a number of different species of horses roamed, also. There is no clear reason why some of them became extinct just as there is no clear reason why there were multiple horse species—or even hominin species—living contemporaneously. But certainly in the past no conscious entity attempted to alter DNA by introducing mechanisms for adding 100 or so extra amino acids to the 20 we now use.
What is the reason that there is a sole human species? And will that status have anything to do with our becoming another dead end? Once again, remember that species, NOT individuals, evolve biologically.
We keep confusing technological advances—even biotech ones—with improvement in the human condition. True, people in industrialized nations generally have longer lives on average, but that is largely a consequence of reducing infant and child mortality and improving water quality. But in the process of industrial development, we have also incorporated into our bodies chemical compounds that didn’t exist just a century ago and certainly not millennia ago. And now without knowing the full consequences of manipulating DNA, the very stuff that makes us what we are, we believe we are on the cusp of improving ourselves as though individuals could evolve. Should we continue our efforts without some ethical control? How would we agree on the underlying ethics? Some well-meaning researcher could find a cure for one malady while sending us into the Lost Chicken Creek of species’ history.
I guess the only one who will know our fate will be that last conscious human who looks around to find himself or herself alone amidst a herd of wild horses.
*Callaway, Ewen. ‘Alien’ DNA makes proteins in living cells for the first time. Nov. 29, 2017. Nature 551, 550–551 (30 November 2017) doi:10.1038/nature.2017.23040
http://www.nature.com/news/alien-dna-makes-proteins-in-living-cells-for-the-first-time-1.23040
** Peter D Heintzman, Grant D Zazula, Ross DE MacPhee, Eric Scott, James A Cahill, Brianna K McHorse, Joshua D Kapp, Mathias Stiller, Matthew J Wooller, Ludovic Orlando, John Southon, Duane G Froese, Beth Shapiro. A new genus of horse from Pleistocene North America. eLife, 2017; 6 DOI: 10.7554/eLife.29944
AND
University of California - Santa Cruz. "A horse is a horse, of course, of course -- except when it isn't: Analysis of ancient DNA reveals a previously unrecognized genus of extinct horses that once roamed North America." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 28 November 2017. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171128090948.htm
RSS Feed