《A Short History of Nearly Everything》第135章

even　when　dna　includes　instructions　for　making　genes—when　it　codes　for　them；　asscientists　put　it—it　is　not　necessarily　with　the　smooth　functioning　of　the　organism　in　mind。
one　of　the　monest　genes　we　have　is　for　a　protein　called　reverse　transcriptase；　which　hasno　known　beneficial　function　in　human　beings　at　all。　the　one　thing　itdoes　do　is　make　itpossible　for　retroviruses；　such　as　the　aids　virus；　to　slip　unnoticed　into　the　human　system。
in　other　words；　our　bodies　devote　considerable　energies　to　producing　a　protein　that　doesnothing　that　is　beneficial　and　sometimes　clobbers　us。　our　bodies　have　no　choice　but　to　do　sobecause　the　genes　order　it。　we　are　vessels　for　their　whims。　altogether；　almost　half　of　humangenes—the　largest　proportion　yet　found　in　any　organism—don’t　do　anything　at　all；　as　far　aswe　can　tell；　except　reproduce　themselves。
all　organisms　are　in　some　sense　slaves　to　their　genes。　that’s　why　salmon　and　spiders　andother　types　of　creatures　more　or　less　beyond　counting　are　prepared　to　die　in　the　process　ofmating。　the　desire　to　breed；　to　disperse　one’s　genes；　is　the　most　powerful　impulse　in　nature。
as　sherwin　b。　nuland　has　put　it：　“empires　fall；　ids　explode；　great　symphonies　are　written；and　behind　all　of　it　is　a　single　instinct　that　demands　satisfaction。”　from　an　evolutionary　pointof　view；　sex　is　really　just　a　reward　mechanism　to　encourage　us　to　pass　on　our　genetic　material。
scientists　had　only　barely　absorbed　the　surprising　news　that　most　of　our　dna　doesn’t　doanything　when　even　more　unexpected　findings　began　to　turn　up。　first　in　germany　and　then　inswitzerland　researchers　performed　some　rather　bizarre　experiments　that　produced　curiouslyunbizarre　outes。　in　one　they　took　the　gene　that　controlled　the　development　of　a　mouse’seye　and　inserted　it　into　the　larva　of　a　fruit　fly。　the　thought　was　that　it　might　producesomething　interestingly　grotesque。　in　fact；　the　mouse…eye　gene　not　only　made　a　viable　eye　inthe　fruit　fly；　it　made　a　fly’s　eye。　here　were　two　creatures　that　hadn’t　shared　a　monancestor　for　500　million　years；　yet　could　swap　genetic　material　as　if　they　were　sisters。
the　story　was　the　same　wherever　researchers　looked。　they　found　that　they　could　inserthuman　dna　into　certain　cells　of　flies；　and　the　flies　would　accept　it　as　if　it　were　their　own。
2junk　dna　does　have　a　use。　it　is　the　portion　employed　in　dna　fingerprinting。　its　practicality　for　this　purposewas　discovered　accidentally　by　alec　jeffreys；　a　scientist　at　the　university　of　leicester　in　england。　in　1986jeffreys　was　studying　dna　sequences　for　genetic　markers　associated　with　heritable　diseases　when　he　wasapproached　by　the　police　and　asked　if　he　could　help　connect　a　suspect　to　two　murders。　he　realized　his　techniqueought　to　work　perfectly　for　solving　criminal　cases…and　so　it　proved。　a　young　baker　with　the　improbable　name　ofcolin　pitchfork　was　sentenced　to　two　life　terms　in　prison　for　the　murders。
over　60　percent　of　human　genes；　it　turns　out；　are　fundamentally　the　same　as　those　found　infruit　flies。　at　least　90　percent　correlate　at　some　level　to　those　found　in　mice。　（we　even　havethe　same　genes　for　making　a　tail；　if　only　they　would　switch　on。）　in　field　after　field；researchers　found　that　whatever　organism　they　were　working　on—whether　nematode　wormsor　human　beings—they　were　often　studying　essentially　the　same　genes。　life；　it　appeared；　wasdrawn　up　from　a　single　set　of　blueprints。
further　probings　revealed　the　existence　of　a　clutch　of　master　control　genes；　each　directingthe　development　of　a　section　of　the　body；　which　were　dubbed　homeotic　（from　a　greek　wordmeaning　“similar”）　or　hox　genes。　hox　genes　answered　the　long…bewildering　question　of　howbillions　of　embryonic　cells；　all　arising　from　a　single　fertilized　egg　and　carrying　identicaldna；　know　where　to　go　and　what　to　do—that　this　one　should　bee　a　liver　cell；　this　one　astretchy　neuron；　this　one　a　bubble　of　blood；　this　one　part　of　the　shimmer　on　a　beating　wing。　itis　the　hox　genes　that　instruct　them；　and　they　do　it　for　all　organisms　in　much　the　same　way。
interestingly；　the　amount　of　genetic　material　and　how　it　is　organized　doesn’t　necessarily；　oreven　generally；　reflect　the　level　of　sophistication　of　the　creature　that　contains　it。　we　haveforty…six　chromosomes；　but　some　ferns　have　more　than　six　hundred。　the　lungfish；　one　of　theleast　evolved　of　all　plex　animals；　has　forty　times　as　much　dna　as　we　have。　even　themon　newt　is　more　genetically　splendorous　than　we　are；　by　a　factor　of　five。
clearly　it　is　not　the　number　of　genes　you　have；　but　what　you　do　with　them。　this　is　a　verygood　thing　because　the　number　of　genes　in　humans　has　taken　a　big　hit　lately。　until　recently　itwas　thought　that　humans　had　at　least　100；000　genes；　possibly　a　good　many　more；　but　thatnumber　was　drastically　reduced　by　the　first　results　of　the　human　genome　project；　whichsuggested　a　figure　more　like　35；000　or　40；000　genes—about　the　same　number　as　are　found　ingrass。　that　came　as　both　a　surprise　and　a　disappointment。
it　won’t　have　escaped　your　attention　that　genes　have　been　monly　implicated　in　anynumber　of　human　frailties。　exultant　scientists　have　at　various　times　declared　themselves　tohave　found　the　genes　responsible　for　obesity；　schizophrenia；　homosexuality；　criminality；violence；　alcoholism；　even　shoplifting　and　homelessness。　perhaps　the　apogee　（or　nadir）　of　thisfaith　in　biodeterminism　was　a　study　published　in　the　journal　science　in　1980　contending　thatwomen　are　genetically　inferior　at　mathematics。　in　fact；　we　now　know；　almost　nothing　aboutyou　is　so　acmodatingly　simple。
this　is　clearly　a　pity　in　one　important　sense；　for　if　you　had　individual　genes　that　determinedheight　or　propensity　to　diabetes　or　to　baldness　or　any　other　distinguishing　trait；　then　it　wouldbe　easy—paratively　easy　anyway—to　isolate　and　tinker　with　them。　unfortunately；　thirty…five　thousand　genes　functioning　independently　is　not　nearly　enough　to　produce　the　kind　ofphysical　plexity　that　makes　a　satisfactory　human　being。　genes　clearly　therefore　mustcooperate。　a　few　disorders—hemophilia；　parkinson’s　disease；　huntington’s　disease；　andcystic　fibrosis；　for　example—are　caused　by　lone　dysfunctional　genes；　but　as　a　rule　disruptivegenes　are　weeded　out　by　natu