The Codes That Bind Us, and Set Us Apart

A question for me is, "Why do I dislike so many people close to me by DNA, and why do I like a lot of people not close to me by DNA? Can genetics explain this?

The lack of variation would seem to point us toward a single Creator setting all of this in place, for better or worse. What stuns me is how all of the genetic threads from one person would, if stretched out, reach from Pluto to he Sun.

Well now, isn't this rich. Anne Wojcicki, founder of the company that has done more to violate your privacy by auctioning off your deepest, darkest health secrets to the highest bidder, now waxes poetic in this charming paean to -- what else -- diversity illustrated by three generations of the Arevalo family of Queens. Kumbaya! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo9AH4vG2wA

My mom didn’t need a degree in biology to always tell us as kids “Nobody is better than you and you are no better than others”

Wojcicki: "Every living being is made from some combination of four chemicals: adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine (or AGCTs), ..." That's just plain false. DNA does not contain iron or cobalt, while hemoglobin and vitamin B12, respectively, do. Wojcicki: "Move back even farther — billions of years — and our DNA makes it possible for us to identify the origins of life on earth." No one has "identif[ied] the origins of life on earth", and it's not clear that it will ever be possible to do so, since bio-molecules degrade over time due to heat, pressure, and various biological processes. For more about the difficulties in finding evidence of ancient life on Earth, see: "Cradle of Life: The Discovery of Earth's Earliest Fossils" by J. William Schopf.

The important humanism of this essay is not especially insightful, but it does promote interest in genetic testing, which serves the purposes of the author’s business. There’s nothing “simple” about life. There is no “simple reworking” of the chemicals of DNA. Not only has it “evolved over millions of years,” but the unknown logic of the regulatory genome (i.e., what controls epigenesis of cell and organ formation, morphology, and phenotypic difference) has evolved too, incomprehensibly. So, “we” who “think and advance” have an evo-devo individuality that is CONCEALED by inquiry that is geneticistic and understanding that promotes geneticism. We “image, innovate and create” due to a decades-long individuation of which geneticism has no conception. Geneticism has no wisdom as to WHY “we have a responsibility” in the face of so much moral irresponsibility by so many vicious persons, warmongering parties, and warlord-like regimes marketing themselves in the name of its subject subjects. Indeed, we must “step up and own [moral] responsibility.” But sweet afterthoughts by the business of geneticism is not helpful, as human suffering is the tone of every days' news.

Note to readers: this is an ad for 23andMe, a service which is misleading at best, fraudulent at worst, and which raises serious privacy concerns.

Hello to other NYT readers and an NYT Tyler guide editor: “In fact, humans share about 60 percent of their DNA with a banana, 80 percent with a mouse and 96 percent with a chimp.” Fascinating! I wish this columnist and others would link such claims to their sources to spare us the time of searching the web ourselves or just assuming the claim is accurate because, after all the Bible (not that one; the NYT) told me so.

When the haplogroup of the right honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.

Straight question: If all species are so closely related, and we are not that different from anything else living, why are we so concerned about global warming and other disasters that could wipe out the human race? I mean, it doesn't really matter what continues, does it? Genes are genes, genes are selfish, and AGCT is AGCT ... I am sure if the earth was 30 deg C hotter, something would survive and most likely thrive in the new conditions ...that's how evolution works. Why are we so concerned that our non-special species survives? Why are we trying to move in the direction of denying those future species existence? Where, in this inclusive view of life, is it written that the Earth’s average temperature, and other conditions, must be within the narrow limits allowing continued human life?

Since computers are binary systems, I guess we are mere quadnary systems, with humans running the most complex operating system ever ... evolved. The main difference we have with animals is that our brain and intelligence is so advance and complex that it should 'know better' yet still does stupid - making us smart and dumb as a parasite. In religion, the definition of DNA is Do Not Ask. I wonder if life on alien worlds are based on a form of DNA with three or five or more letters or if four is universal - and what type of life forms result. Maybe five letters would not evolve because the fifth letter acts as an error correcting bit, if you will. All evolution seems to be is a series of DNA errors that result in changes where a one in a billion mistake turns out to be a benefit dominating the existing DNA or lesser mistakes - survival of the best mistake.

I have had my DNA tested twice. First when it was a newly acquired science, and then from MyHeritage.com, Like the gentleman said, everyday I get more people I am "related" to. (2nd cousin 4th removed) My question is if we share less than 0.1% of our DNA, are we really cousins, or is it just a fluke that they have the same pattern in their DNA as I do?

Perhaps the difference between the banana and human should clue us in as to what might cause a qualitative difference in the expression of our genetic code. The trillions of bacteria that live in us perhaps? All that innovative uniqueness may just boil down to the intelligent flora we carry. So how about we look at the similarities in the flora of a banana and a human? Can we engineer an intelligent banana? We sure seem to have naturally and successfully engineered remarkably silly humans.....

Well stated essay. We do need to take responsibility for our impact on the planet; particularly our role in causing climate change. The NY Times is a major contributor to global warming. By forcing millions of trees to be cut down for newspaper, and then sending much of that paper to be burnt, the Times, and other newspapers, are hurting our planet. It is time for the NY Times to take responsibility. End the print edition and become a internet only publication.

The ability to think and reason abstractly and to communicate and learn and pass on learned information is quite new in the evolution of life. Life generally evolves with the sole purpose of reproducing itself. Attributes occur from time to time which are really just side effects of the evolution process. There is no reason to believe that the capacity for abstract thought beyond the ability to increase the possibility of reproduction was a selected for result. But it happened as a byproduct of the general ability to see patterns and thus increase the chance to reproduce, and as a result a species was created which could not only prosper, but actually has the ability to destroy all or most forms of life on the planet. We are simply an accident.

Wow, humans are 60% banana! There are days when that percentage seems even greater! We think pretty highly of our species, but we are just another great ape...one that has no ecological niche to call home, so we must always modify habitats to suit our needs.

Anne writes, "We must also recognize, however, that humans differ from all other living creatures in a fundamental way: Humans have the ability to imagine, innovate and create." Other species (crows, dogs, whales, octopi...) have these abilities and more. Humans will not be effective stewards of the world until we transcend the ancient arrogance of Human Exceptionalism.

A very poetical article that seems to have been written to please the leftist radical Democrats and rub against the grain the right-wing Born-again Christians and other non-believers in evolution. There is little that can be said about the effects on human beliefs and character of the complex DNA molecules made of the permutations of only four nucleic acids, AGCT. We are still a long way away from babies eugenically made to order, and shall hopefully remain so ...

I look at the current state of affairs, with the current fascists in control of our country with their cruel intent, and I think it is unlikely that our future is dependent upon getting these people to understand that we are genetically related to eagles and bananas. They know that science is real but they can't help but try to destroy the world all the same. A certain segment of humanity are intent on destroying themselves and everyone else. It's an attempt at a world wide Jones Town. Traits like that might be what defines us as human since that trait does not exist in any other form of life.

What makes us human? Hands down I would say consciousness, higher brain function over all other forms of life. This higher consciousness however is a double-edged sword. On one hand it increasingly allows us by art and science to discriminate acutely, recognize the most outstanding exemplars of our species to point that we probably over all other forms of life can calculate environment changes ahead of their arrival and can set up society so that the most outstanding examples of our species can prosper and lead to more highly evolved examples of ourselves, but on the other hand this consciousness makes us all too aware of our own deaths and incredibly envious, jealous, desperate to have longer lifespans, to be remembered long after our deaths, to constantly ask why it is that this or that person other than ourselves is so special and why we should defer to anyone or anything at all in the first place. Our consciousness, species capacity to open yawning gulfs of past and to be aware of a passing present and to plan for a future, promises to lead to our being able to take our evolution into our own hands, but this same consciousness also leads us to ask, unlike all the other life forms ask, why anything at all is better than exactly what we are now and why anything should presume to supplant or surpass us, anything even if it's a more highly evolved form of our own species. We increase knowledge of how to sacrifice ourselves, but often choose to save only ourselves.

DNA is a worthy and useful object of study, but concerning our humanity it has little to say. It is what we make of the world, not what we are made of, that defines our humanity.

The study and understanding of DNA should be a basic part of the curriculum from kindergarten on. When every human being understands that we all share a common ancestry, life on earth will be very, very different.

Wonderful! Now, can we stop putting race at the center of everything?

“Rather than fixating on the differences, I focus on the similarities. ” This drives me insane. She spends the whole article pointing out minute details then says we are all the same. That is ridiculous. More importantly, these people that study genes will always search for differences to justify their views as to what is good vs bad. Good blood vs bad blood. They are the new “racists”. Soon there will be “atomists”.

Seemed to me the point of the article is that us humans have yet another potent power over our environment -- genomics -- and we should employ our best attributes and skills when applying it. It doesn't seem she was making any point one way or other on the origin of our potent powers.

Again, more critical imprecision on the subject of our DNA from the newspapers, that is more unhelpful than helpful in communicating information to non-scientists about the subject. -We may share more than 99% DNA with the chimpanzee, thus making slight differences monumental ones. This is because of the enormous potency of recently evolved DNA. Therefore, we can’t rely upon the ‘slim percentage difference’ argument as a crutch in modern race descriptions very easily since this difference is also less than 1%. -Precisely when the modern human races evolved is less important than that they evolved, again because of the potency of more modern DNA. -A complete picture of DNA evolution is not currently within our grasp, and may require centuries further scientific work. All genetics must be shown to be consistent with other fact-based areas of known science, including archeology.

“Every living thing arose from essentially the same genetic foundation. So what makes us human?” ...yesterday and tomorrow....

Humans are like technology innovations. Bursting with possibility and fraught with the potential for evil. How do we want to live? How do we want to be? It is still a choice. Can society survive the very different choices being expressed now? To be continued.

There really is little to disagree with here, which makes it all the more odd that it appears on the Opinion page. Please don't tell me that the statement "our genetic code defines the membership in homo sapiens" is also subject to "alternative fact" arguments, in this day and age of distrust of any scientific expertise! It feels more like an advert for 23andMe, if anything. Perhaps they are worried that the news that the Golden State Killer was identified using commercial genetic testing results of his relatives might hurt their revenue stream?

This, I think, could be the basis for a new religion: that we are all related one to another. Only when we recognize that I’m related to you and we’re both related to eagles, kangaroos and dung beetles can we ever hope to heal ourselves and our small planet. Actually, maybe that’s the basis of an old religion: do unto others as you would have others do unto you. And the “you” in that message is every living creature.

I spent most of my professional life studying DNA in one form or another. It was a blast. However, re: "Move back even farther — billions of years — and our DNA makes it possible for us to identify the origins of life on earth." Unfortunately for the hyper-curious, that's not quite true. DNA does make it possible to identify relationships among all extant (and recently extinct, if specimens are available) life on Earth, and it can be used to create, on paper at least, a hypothetical "ancestor of every currently living thing" that is consistent with those relationships. But DNA can't answer the Big Question: How did the hypothetical ancestral life form originate -- what did *it* come from? And that's okay: It's good to have mysteries, and that one is likely to be around for a while.

There are some fine books out now on this topic such as: Who We Are and How We Got Here Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past By Reich, David. Humans could do nothing more important for the survival of the species than learn about inconnectuivity and interdependence along with the fact that, no, we are not that unique.

I'm not looking forward to the day when DNA information collection is mandatory. Other breakthroughs may lead to determining predispositions for health and beliefs. The upside, may make abortions conditional. If the child is type O, the universal donor, it would be beneficial if more people could donate. A genetic disposition for "conservative" or "MAGA" values may warrant early termination. Children predisposed to be gay will be welcomed into the world and guided to the arts. And specifically steered away from religion. When individual genetic codes can be specifically tailored, there won't be a need for white people and toxic masculinity can be washed out. The downside would mean, only people of color will go to prison. And, Affirmative action may have to be concluded. Somehow, making the gene pool less diverse sounds like a bad idea.

Anne Wojcicki's exuberant endorsement of AGCT fits squarely in the materialist tradition that matter is all that matters. Molecules cannot explain love or holiness. For a contrasting view, see Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord blew into his nostrils a living soul and the human became a living creature." Ancient commentaries understood 'living soul' as 'a speaking spirit.' A passion for language in all of its manifestations-- including writing Opinion pieces and letters to the NYT -- is the essence of the human being.

I would hope that someone that sells DNA testing for a living would know that the similarity of our DNA structure within and between species tells us absolutely nothing about how different or similar we are biologically. The Chimp DNA example is one of those bizarre talking points that have emerged during the past decade that mean nothing but make us sound wise. Let's look at Chimp vs. human intelligence: Humans, to be human, don't need to have evolved unique genes that code for novel types of neurons or neurotransmitters, or a more complex hippocampus (with resulting improvements in memory), or a more complex frontal cortex (from which we gain the ability to postpone gratification). Instead, our braininess as a species arises from having humongous numbers of just a few types of neurons and from the exponentially greater number of interactions between them. The difference is sheer quantity: Qualitative distinctions emerge from large numbers in species and between species.

In over 2,500 years of technological innovation our finest creations are not robots or communication satellites but the systems of mathematical and symbolic logic we use to construct scientific theories. Pride in these “children” of our ingenuity makes us see everything in the universe which corresponds to such complex systems of code as what is “really real.” Nature is a code to be “cracked.” This includes DNA. One essential side effect of this way of looking at the world and at the people and living things in it is that it yields results (i.e. “cracked code”) which are immediately available for technological innovation and biomedical engineering, and so feeds back in an endless loop of invention and discovery which, unfortunately, circles around the phenomenon of life and misses it entirely, focusing instead on a creature of its own devising—a new Frankenstein monster, if you will, created in our own thoughtless self-image. If this isn’t the definition of solipsism, I don’t know what is.

No matter how advance science becomes, there are still so many people who think that some god created the world. And, thanks to these same people, the world is such a mess!

We need to recognize that we are in an interdependent web of living entities and that includes our planet and the creatures and plants that live here. When we don't take care of each other and our environment we damage the web of life. We can't change our DNA but we can change our morality. That;s why we have minds and the power to reason. We are very different through out the world. We tend tend, as humans, to focus on the differences instead of the ways we can accept each other and learn from each other. What a better life we would live.

I think one of the most shocking revelations in my life occurred when I got my DNA results (alas, not from 23 and Me, but a competitor), and I watched over days and months as the list of my "cousins" increased from a few hundred to over a thousand. A *thousand*. (this includes 3rd, 4th, and beyond--and it goes up every day, as more folks test themselves). And that's a small, self-selecting group who have the money and interest to test! It does wonders for your perspective. You begin looking at people on the street and thinking--we *are* cousins. All of us. Maybe some closer than others, yes, but we are, all of us, related. It makes compassion and relating with others easier, and we certainly need more compassion these days.

What you write and say is all good and true, Anne Wojcicki, and it all makes eminent sense to those with a curious, open, educated mind. But unfortunately for humans, they are also a fearful, emotional and reactionary bunch, often suppressing their neurotransmissions in deference to fear, mindless tribalism and the worst animal instincts of humanity. We are really just entering the modern age, but billions of humans still cling their antediluvian and medieval ways, afraid to fully embrace science, modernity, and the simple truth that religion is a manmade invention that provides fake life insurance, mental blinders and cruel misogyny for the fearful masses. DNA and genomics are wonderful things; if only we could fully map and sequence the parts of the human brain that make it vulnerable to political self-destruction, cultured stupidity, religious fantasies and sociopathic greed and selfishness. “The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” - Carl Sagan Humans can do better than we have, and we will only do that by working together ....not against each other. Let's hope we use our brains....it's our only hope.

The DNA evidence points to a single cell from which all living things are descended. It brings into view a continuous living thing that produces many living entities which while of limited lives each has continued to exist in all it’s variations for billions of years and will persist far into the future.