I had a very interesting thought today, and I want to share it with you. This isn’t based on any scientific evidence, nor am I suggesting that I am right. But perhaps others are thinking the same thing. That Genetic Defects are a part of the evolutionary process and that perhaps they are there to help reduce the number of defects.

I never said it was politically correct. I’m also not forcing you to read on. This is my hypothesis.

Genetic Defects form part of the basic evolutionary process. In all animals, a defect passed down from generation to generation through their genetic make up would result in decreased population. This would be due to more illness within the group. Without intervention, this would over time reduce their numbers substantially to a point where the defect may die out.

What does this all mean?

Well what if the genetic issues that we have today are there to help make the species a stronger group? It could be that these illnesses are meant to reduce the likelihood that it will be passed down to another generation. This could be due to some members of a generation passing away before being about to reproduce, or not having the ability to reproduce. Slowly, those with the genetic issue become fewer and fewer. This seems like evolution at work.

So by studying genetics are we short-circuiting the evolutionary process? Perhaps when people have their children scanned and decide not to continue the pregnancy due to a defect, we are in fact assisting evolution. Perhaps by being able to keep people who have this defects alive and healthy longer we are increasing the time it would take for the defect to disappear naturally. It’s a very controversial subject and trust me when I say I don’t really know where I stand on this.

If we are in fact shortcutting the process, should we be allowed to choose whether we only do it for good reasons? Who decides what the definition of good reason is anyway? How can we really be sure whether we are doing the right or wrong thing when it comes to evolution? Some will say religion, and I think that is important to touch on.

When we are looking at the scientific process, and trying to determine whether it is the ‘right’ thing to do, why are religious moral values trotted out. Surely the last thing that a good scientist is going to do is wonder whether the Spaghetti Monster would want him to do it. So why is it when we start talking about genetic research and stem cell technology do we start looking at the religious moral code to determine where we as a people stand on these issues?

Perhaps it shouldn’t be up to the people. Perhaps it needs to be left up to science to determine which is the right thing to do. Perhaps we need to study these issues so that we can understand them better and make the correct choices for the benefit of all, not the benefit of a few. We don’t need guidance from above to understand that we need to take all the evidence we can and determine bad from good, wrong from right using a sound process.

Using just religious arguments is not using sound evidence and a sound process.