What was the first gene that was created?

Thank you very much. That site is exactly what I was looking for I will be on there for a wile

Hehe

You know I cant help but to think that my dad had something to do with some videos on that site. Its my understanding that he was working on something similar in Utah the last decade of his life

Hey I got a question. By clorinating water and killing the germs around us. Doesnt a gene have an off swich for when something is not needed. So Isnt isolating ourselfs from germs ........... I dont know stay with me now..... Isnt that like a disaster on the making? I mean arent we basicaly destroying our natural defences for the generations to come? I dont know It was bouncing that around my the conference room? What do you think?

Well I saw another documentary that said "Viruses are one of the major driven forces of evolution". I dont know it makes sense to me. Am I wrong? Any imput at all Sowy dang conference rooms I will work on my patience

Ohh well I suppose that Question would be too revolutionary for todays society.

I read something about this also. The idea was the viruses contributed to moving genes around and affected the amount of variation available to evolution. I'm not sure of the details though.

Yays Thank you for replying. I was beguining to think I was nuts (thats a pun). Yes its scary to think if some our genes passed down from millions of years of evolution. Being shut off when an old disease happens to resurface. I understand how the Germ paranoia came to be these last 100 years. But we must look at our own evolution and take steps to insure our defenses dont get shut down. Does that make sense?

I think the bulk of viral gene insertion is assumed to have happened way back in the early days of life when single cells were dividing and replicating, not so much once more complex organisms were reproducing through sexual reproduction. It's much less likely for viruses to affect sperm and egg than it is to affect the division of a single cell.

All of this is of course different from the resistance developed by humans to various diseases, or the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. That's an entirely different process.

Ok so some of our bio defences its not something thats learned and passed thru the generations? Whew well that makes me feel better But what about when the Europeans came to the Americas. And there was all these people that died because of disease. Was the europeans resistance developed after humans migrated thru the land bridge to the americas?

Yes, pretty much. Europe went through several plagues which North America was not exposed to. I'm sure smallpox was one of them.

Overall exposure to disease is an important factor, too. There were many, many domestic animals in Eurasia by 1500, while there very few domestic animals in North and South America. A lot of the disesases common to Europeans (and Asians) came from domestic animals. The people of the Americas did not have resistances to these diseases. There were other important factos, too. A great many of the Spanish conquistadores had fought with Cordoba in northern Italy before going to the New World. They had been exposed to malaria. Those who were debilitated by the disease generally did not go out to the "new world." Those who were resistant did, and they brought the disease with them.

It was not an entirely one way street, either. Yaws, caused by a spirochete, was common in the Americas. On the other hand, syphilis, which was relatively new to Europeans, is also caused by a spirochete, and Europeans had not developed a resistance. The people of the Americas had had literally centuries to develop a resistance to yaws, and were therefore, largely immune to syphillis (the spirochetes which cause yaws and syphillis are two different species, but come from the same genus--Treponema).

The lack of domestic animals amond the aboriginal Americans meant that they were far more vulnerable to a disease such as influenza, which is an avian disease, to which Europeans and Asians have been exposed for thousands of years. Other disease of domestic livestock also devastated the Americans, while having much less effect on Europeans.

So does my assuption that clorinating our water and avoiding germs. As being a 'Bad thing' hold any merit to it?

Not to my knowledge. Public drinking water should be chlorinated to avoid ingesting germs.

Hehe well my question does not come from a individual basis. It comes as looking at the human race race as whole. The question is 'does seperating humans from other living spices such as virus and germs'. Not in a 10 year time scale. But in generations. Is it in long haul benefitial. Or harmfull to us?