Do we have control over our DNA?

What if we could influence our DNA, change it's organization or makup. What if those changes were passed on to our offspring. When you think about it we really don't know how we think or reason or store and retrieve information. Why should we lmit ourselves to believing that we have no control over self-manipulation of DNA. Remember, what people said about car, planes, space travel and the wheel. Okay, we might not be sure they questioned the wheel.

But isn't it mutation in DNA that got us to where we are today? Could the next step in our evolution be the self-mutation? Could we pass on genes with cures for AIDS, cancers, blindness? Maybe we could mutate ourselves to have hollow bones and eventually fly. Unfortunately, it would likely take generations to see the results. The mind is a powerful thing to waste. Why do we only regularly use less than 2% of it.

> "What if we could influence our DNA, change it's organization or makup."

This is called "genetic engineering", and scientists do it to other organisms all the time. There is no practical reason why we can't do it to humans, only ethical reasons.

> "When you think about it we really don't know how we think or reason or store and retrieve information."

True. But intelligence has only a partial relationship to genetics: there is certainly a genetic component, but other factors certainly play a role too. This issue os complicated by the fact that we can't even define "intelligence" in a scientifically precise enough way to be able to study it (for example, think fo an autistic Savant who can calculate cube roots instantly in his head, but can't tie his shoelaces; is he more or less "intelligent" than you or me?)

> "Why should we lmit ourselves to believing that we have no control over self-manipulation of DNA."

We don't. The only reasons we don't are ethical reasons: do we have the right to determine what genes are "better"? Is being blonde and blue-eyed "better", and should we have any right to decide what genetic traits our children have?

> "But isn't it mutation in DNA that got us to where we are today?"

In combination with environmental selection, yes.

> "Could the next step in our evolution be the self-mutation? Could we pass on genes with cures for AIDS, cancers, blindness?"

Theoretically, yes. Except that *all* genes act in concert with other genes, and we don't neccessarily know what "side-effects" such manipulations would have. And, obviously, performing GM experiments on humans to find this out is ethically abhorrent.
The only gene manipulations likely to be performed will be ones to cure genetic disorders like musclular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, and similar diseases.

> "Maybe we could mutate ourselves to have hollow bones and eventually fly."

Sadly, our non-hollow bones are the least of our problems as far as man-powere flight goes. Our brains are also too large, and use up too much energy. In birds, it is the flight muscles which consume most energy; in us, it is our brains.
We couldn't eat enough energy to be able to both fly and reason.
Also, we are just too big, physically. The largest flying bird is the Andean Condor, which can weigh up to 15kg; the average human weighs about 80kg. And, sadly, this is not due to the bones - just overall size.

> "Unfortunately, it would likely take generations to see the results."

Not if we used GM. That's the beauty of GM - it only takes *one* generation to see the results.

> "The mind is a powerful thing to waste. Why do we only regularly use less than 2% of it."

We don't.
At any one time, only around 10% of the neurons in your brain are firing (any more and you're having an epileptic seizure), but averaged over time, you *do* use 100% of your brain.

i think WE are ALSO NOT manipulating our DNA because every factor (i think) can manipulate our DNA, for example, the pollution, can also manipulate or affect our genes .

It is very dangerous to tamper with the human genome. Nature has carved us this way. In our genes are the tools needed to survive all kinds of nasty stuff that we have survived in the past. Study sickle cell anemia. Here is a genetic disease that we might have decided to engineer away if we had the technology, but we would have also engineered away resistance to malaria. You can argue that getting rid of sickle cell anemia is more important than resistance to malaria in our modern world. I would tend to agree, but we can't guarantee that our modern world will exist forever. We may need that gene one day. I am all for studying genetics and treating diseases using what we learn, but modifying the human germ cells make me very nervous.

1. Although tremendous scientif