'POPULATIONS' STUDIES
Population studies - particularly intergenerational - are powerful tools for identifying changes not visible in the genome. This seems to minimise the importance of genes in favor of environmental & behavioural factors/influences/stimuli.
(Here's a link to deCODE's population-based results The method is able to home-in on gene-variants that may exist in a population - with all the hereditary factors at play.)
examples of gene-variants in population-studies
Copyright arvel Comics 1972
Matching drugs (proteins usually) to gene-variants is a very precise science. Breeding genes is fairly arbitrary in terms of hereditary variables (as previously noted). By comparison, comparing samples over several generations in large populations invites highly sophisticated data-bases.
If something as complicated as the nervous-system breaks down there are likely to be multifacted 'causes'. As noted in ENDOCANNABINOIDS, the nervous-system is partially self-regulating. There are also bound to be environmental influences. Basically, precision in these types of severe degenerative disorders involves taking account of all possible causes. This is something population-sampling would tend to do.
click for blog
visual hereditary data
BIOTECH/BIOCHEM
How technological are genes as opposed to how chemical? Collagen is a celebrity-endorsed 'enhancement' which you have to say is pure chemistry. What you might ask the transhumanist guys is, 'Are you in favor of taking the chemistry out of genes (etc) & biasing enhancements towards biotech?' If you take a gender at their literature it sure reads as pure technology!
'BIO-FEMININE'
It may be true to say that the human figure can be enhanced chemically - though Red's 100% natural. The point is some things are human attributes & so have a biological origin (see CUTTING-EDGE page).
See blog for latest on how the body 'programs' genes as a response to the environment. In other words, how virtual are genes as a matter of course?
As noted, genes are distressingly similar & scientists are increasingly asking where are the species differences? These populations results point to genes being arbitrary or ambiguous 'data' unless matched to physique & more particularly human populations. The one being 'virtual' & the other real.
One has to recognize that if, say, you're breeding dogs or horses you're not 'breeding genes'. You're breeding characteristics. Obviously genes are expressed as a consequence, but the data is so super-precise (as eaxmple 3 above, say) that doesn't help a lot!
virus capsid-proteins
'Active' proteins are easier to 'work' with being that they ARE super-specific (see TECHNICAL PAGE), What research is able to do using new advanced imaging is view the visual hereditary factors in complicated protein-structures, relate different proteins & class viruses which otherwise would not be related. This makes the point that 'visual' information is what really counts - it's subtle in a way that genes aren't, at least visually.
