Why are humans not considered good organisms for genetic studies?
352215
Humans are not the most studied organism as far as genetics go.  That's probably the mouse or fruit fly.  Humans are crappy subjects.  For one, our DNA mixes alot, we mate w/ whoever we want to.  Good genetic organisms are genetically identical from one indiv. to the next.  For two, our generation time is 20 years or so (the time between birth and having first kid).  And we only pop out 1 or 2 a year.  Good genetic organisms like mice can pop out 8 every 8 weeks or so (6 or 5 weeks if they are pushing it). Better, flies lifecycle is 1-2 weeks, and they generate thousands of offspring.  Further, we can't manipulate our genome, it's not ethical to do so.  Also, although we can communicate with each other, we haev to follow all sorts of protocols, we can't just inject people with whatever we want.  Human research is extremely slow and extremely expensive, for these reasons mainly.  Nobody wants to kill a patient during a clinical trial, many trials have been halted due to this.    Population studies on humans is very complicated and huge family trees are reqd to generate useful data.  I think these are the main reasons, dunno if i missed any.
259928
little or no genetic variation, which is considered a detriment to the organism. It also means that it only take one to tango, so if the population is spread out, the species can still propogate itself. There was this great study done with minnows. They lived ina stream that would dry up into little pools every season. The fish were asexual in the dry season and sexual when they could find a mate.
837090
Naming organisms is a very tricky business. It would be nice if everything could be classified precisely as one thing or another, but in reality there is a lot of grey area. The naming system has a hierarchy which helps somewhat. For example, a human is definitely an animal and not a plant, so we can easily place humans in the animal kingdom. Then there are more granular classifications; for example, humans are mammals. In general, mammals have hair and warm blood and some other common characteristics. But already, there are some mammals that don't have all the characteristics. Yet we still classify them as mammals, because scientists have studied the variations and determined that these organisms do in fact come from the same evolutionary branch as mammals. Taxonomy is not an exact science, because evolution plays out in very diverse ways and it's not always clear how to label things. But by studying the variation in organisms, we find relationships, we see how structures change over time, and it gives us insight into the history of the organisms and how we should identify and name them.
580832
Firstly, genetically modifying a human is *very* difficult. Scientists had just finished mapping the human genome, and there're are a lot of genes that they don't understand. Without fully understanding how each gene works, it is difficult and dangerous to alter it this drastically. Even if we can successfully incorporate the animal genes into human genes, we don't know if there is going to be any bad side effects.\nSecondly, the human and animal genomes are quite different. Scientists may know which genes can make birds fly, but they won't know where to insert these genes into the human genome.\nThirdly, genetics is still an extremely touchy subject. Many people can't even accept test-tube babies. Genetically modifying the human body? Those scientists would be condemned by millions of people, won't get government fundings, get hate mails etc. Now who would want to risk something like that?
542289
Most science today has very exact measurements and descriptions. Such is not yet the case in the science of the brain and human behavior. Having more names helps a little as the science progresses and newly tested drugs are useful. Mental illness is a disorder and lives are screwed up and personal pain is acute. Remember only seventy-five years ago Eugenics considered all mental illness hereditary and patients were sterilized and some killed. Our social practices are the slowly changing and still produce a percentage of failures. Those free of depression in our society don't want to lose their advantage in their groups. Historically different utopias have been tried and failed. We all collectively come back to this social system. The only real help ever has been from the christian concepts. Even that is constantly adapting to meet our institutional forms in society. Therefore analyzing the profession seems to be accurate from one view of life. But without a better solution being introduced the complaints hold only a small value.
728695
It's called genotype by environment interaction and it's one of the most important principles of genetics.  You really can't say what genetics are "best" without considering the environment and vice versa.  So in short, neither is better, they work together.
56353
It is good for a species to utilise varied gene pools (non close relatives) when reproducing in order to continually evolve and strengthen their DNA.  However, it doesn't hurt a particular person to mate with a relative (only if they have kids).
386898
I had a bus driver that laughed at the fact humans are animals. Biblically, she said that humans are superior and can not be classified as animals, I believe that is ridiculous, since there not much that is different in us from animals. Of course we are more intelligent, but that is only because we define what intelligence is. Jelly fish or lions probably think that they are superior, so that is also relative. Another point that people may consider is that we have "souls," but that is only based on certain religions. In Hinduism, every living entity has a soul, therefore according to Hinduism both humans and animals have souls. The term human can be used just as a classification of the type of organism in the animal kingdom.
1147104
because humans are animals\n\n...not plants
1110569
No. Our genes are way to close to chimpazees etc to be by accident.
304671
It is very questionable that humans are evolving, at least in terms of largescale selections.  Where we are today with technology, rather than nature selecting the most fit of us, oftentimes we alter nature to allow everyone to live.  This obviously isnt true in all cases, but we are at least tampering and slowing down human evolution
114541
*Shrugging my furry shoulders* Humans as a species are not monogumous; unlike wolves and certain birds of prey. IE nature did not evolve them to mate for life. \n\nThat is a religious concept that has become accepted by most...\n\nWhy chase others is a lil more complex, (just tossing out a couple of opinions here as I doubt anyone knows the real answer)\n\n1. Humans main biological programming is continuation of the species through propagation. (My personal belief) Which means spreading their genes to as many as they can.\n\n2. Trophies, it is an ego stroke to be with as many as one can. IE The more women you are with the higher on the male machoism scale you gain.
845462
I think you have to balance science and technology to stop them from interacting in a adverse way with our human development! You must remember that a lot of research and development is done under the commercial umbrella designed for profits and profits only! So the 'true' benefits to mankind are rather stunted under this system! A lot of laboratories are struggling! Under funded, and short of equipment that is needed to bring experiments to a successful conclusion for the betterment of mankind! Government departments are to blame for a lot of the problems besetting these research fields! All the time they are kept underfunded, Scientific research will suffer! Have a good day!
642684
By definition, there cannot be a "smarter race" amongs humans, and that is because races DO NOT EXIST in the human species. The differences in the genetic makeup of individuals amongst the human species is just SO small that people cannot be truly classified under "Races", like for example with dogs. It is said that there is a chance that you are genetically more similar to a black person than you might be to another white person. And it is also thought that most "Racial" traits are but adaptation to different environments. Thus, it could be inferred that if Black people stayed on a cold weather, without much son for long enough time, their descendants would eventually be whiter with each passing generation.
613503
because humans aren't lizards
615086
All genetical disease in homo sapiens:\n-cystic fibrosis.\n-Ataxia talangiectasia.\n-type II Diabetis melitus.\n-phenylketonuria.\n-goiter. (hyperthypoidism)\n-All types of cancer. (caused by a DNA adduct that affect normal genomic replication)\n\nmutations occures everywhere, and many think that mutation can lead to the creation of new species.\nlike those silly that said: human is the cause of chimpanze development.\na study is made about this dilemma, they found that for all mutation to occur (and they will occure in a probabily less that 0.0002%) they need more than 6,000,000 trilion years to accomplish this transformation.\nSo of course this is not true since it's exceeds the age of earth. maybe they are mutated in some where else and they are sent to earth after it's development by an ultra-lightspeed voyager. :-D
109239
The reason why people have problems with this concept is simply because they fail to understand the difference between a BIOLOGICAL reality and a CULTURAL reality.\n\nLook, if we wanted to we could group people by shirt colour couldn’t we? People with blue, green or purple shirts in one group, red yellow and orange in another and blacks, whites and greys making a third group? Do you agree that we could do that? We could then choose as a SOCIETY to teat those groups differently. We can tax them at different rates, throw them in prison whatever we like. \n\nWhat we have here is an example of a CULTURAL reality. The division of people by shirt colour is indisputably real. It indisputably has real effects on the real lives of real people. By any standard you like it is real. But do you also accept that such a division by shirt colour is not based in BIOLOGY? Do you accept that there is no common genetic thread amongst all the people in the green shirt group? Do you accept that it is perfectly possible for two people who are very closely related BIOLOGICALLY to be placed in totally separate shirt groups?\n\nWell, race is no different in any way at all. We have traditionally grouped people according to certain racial features. Those features were chosen at random, they are just as random as shirt colour. And they tell us no more about the person than shirt colour does. \n\nThat is what we mean when we state that race has no BIOLOGICAL reality. Black people are not closely related to one another. A random black person has a greater chance of being related to a White person or an Asian person than to another Black person. A White person has the same chance of being related to a black person as to another White. The only common feature held by Black people is the feature that we used to define them in the first place: black skin. That’s it.\n\nSo to answer your question, yes race is real. Nobody has ever denied that race is very, very real. How could you anyone possibly deny that race is real?  But race is CULTURALLY and HISTORICALLY real. It is not BIOLOGICALLY real.\n\n>>>>> Is the difference in skin colour and hair texture down to mutations\n\nIf you go back far enough, yes. But what  you need to realise that it isn’t just one mutation. There is no common skin colour gene found amongst all black people or all white people.  Heck, there isn’t even a common skin colour found amongst all the people we define as Black or White. That is precisely why race has no biological meaning.