I grow GMO's, and the benefits are pretty impressive. I use less than 10% of the pesticides on them that I use on standard crops.
I keep hearing about this stuff and I fail to see why people are so against it. I get that there are concerns that are valid, but most of them are just rubbish. I'm guessing people like to make money from people ignorant on the matter. It seems like an awful lot of people think organic = good for you. It's sad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Gamelord. Pixelmon Server Owner. Server IP: pixelmonprisma.mc-server.net | Server Discord:https://discord.gg/HkK855b
It probably will, let's be honest. Some countries might stop it, but it'll happen somewhere. Honestly, I don't care about it too much, but I understand that designer babies are a bad thing
But would I put up with designer babies to cure every genetic disease ever discovered? Hell yes.
Designer babies will not become as frequent as people think. The reason for this is because the genetic diversity of the species has to maintained, but if people start to select their preferred genes, then you could see a situation where babies are designed with many of the exact same genes that a society considers favorable.
The other issue is that not every genetic disorder is a bad thing, nor does it necessarily happen for no reason. If you look back at my first post, I mentioned the issue regarding hybrid species reproduction. One possible trait to prevent a weaker species from breeding on is that they are born sterile (mules are the best example of this trait). Also, some genetic disorders, such as sickle cell anemia, results in deformed red blood cells that cause an issue with the cells ability to carry oxygen rich blood throughout the body. However, this genetic disorder also prevents Malaria that you get from mosquito bites. Interestingly enough, this genetic disorder is quite frequent amongst African's living within Malaria stricken areas.
So just because a genetic disorder can result in a potential disability, it does not mean that there is not a biological reason for it, and it would be foolish of us to assume otherwise.
So just because a genetic disorder can result in a potential disability, it does not mean that there is not a biological reason for it, and it would be foolish of us to assume otherwise.
^
As for the topic, I'm fine with GMO's to an extent. As Killin said, there is a limit to what we should modify. However, hardier corn, more nutritious food, and faster growing produce will prove invaluable as the population grows.
Designer babies will not become as frequent as people think. The reason for this is because the genetic diversity of the species has to maintained, but if people start to select their preferred genes, then you could see a situation where babies are designed with many of the exact same genes that a society considers favorable.
Variation in a species' appearance isn't all that important in regards to evolution or survival of the fittest (for humans at least).
The other issue is that not every genetic disorder is a bad thing,
Did I say that? Variation comes from mutation. You know that I was talking about actual diseases, right? Not disorder. Changing my words doesn't make your point stronger.
nor does it necessarily happen for no reason.
Mutation is one of the most random things in science, it absolutely happens for no reason. Whether or not that mutation becomes widespread is another matter.
If you look back at my first post, I mentioned the issue regarding hybrid species reproduction. One possible trait to prevent a weaker species from breeding on is that they are born sterile (mules are the best example of this trait). Also, some genetic disorders, such as sickle cell anemia, results in deformed red blood cells that cause an issue with the cells ability to carry oxygen rich blood throughout the body. However, this genetic disorder also prevents Malaria that you get from mosquito bites. Interestingly enough, this genetic disorder is quite frequent amongst African's living within Malaria stricken areas.
That doesn't mean there was a reason why the mutation happened. That is just survival of the fittest. Funnily enough though, Malaria stricken areas in Africa won't be getting to create designer babies, so this really isn't a problem, is it?
So just because a genetic disorder can result in a potential disability, it does not mean that there is not a biological reason for it, and it would be foolish of us to assume otherwise.
No, this statement is foolish. If a child is born with a mutation which is harmful to it, we cannot simply say "there might be a good reason". There is no good reason, it is random. Genetics just don't work that way. Out of curiosity, have you studied this at all?
It seems like you're twisting what I'm saying a bit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Gamelord. Pixelmon Server Owner. Server IP: pixelmonprisma.mc-server.net | Server Discord:https://discord.gg/HkK855b
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
5/15/2014
Posts:
351
Member Details
Variation in a species' appearance isn't all that important in regards to evolution or survival of the fittest (for humans at least).
It's important in every species. Humans throughout the entire world vary in appearance because that is the environment in which they are best adapted to survive in. What would happen if a ton of people selected specific features that they considered favorable, but some type of disaster occurs that poses a problem for people with a modified appearance? A lot of people could potentially die because they are no longer adapted and the genetic diversity has been reduced.
Did I say that? Variation comes from mutation. You know that I was talking about actual diseases, right? Not disorder. Changing my words doesn't make your point stronger.
Using the word "Disorder" was merely an error on my part. Also, the terms "Disorder" and "Disease" can be used interchangeably with this topic. So it's not hard to see how the misunderstanding occurred because your original post is actually quite vague, given that you merely state that you want to cure every genetic disease ever discovered. I find this statement you made somewhat offensive. You make it sound like I intentionally changed the wording of your previous post just so I can validate my own argument.
Mutation is one of the most random things in science, it absolutely happens for no reason. Whether or not that mutation becomes widespread is another matter.
You failed to understand what was being said here, although I will admit that my explanation may have been at fault for this. what I was talking about is the fact that when a beneficial mutation occurs, the organism will be better equipped to survive than the others of it's kind and it will therefore survive and reproduce more easily and become more dominant than the others, therefore sending the future of the species in a specific evolutionary direction.
That doesn't mean there was a reason why the mutation happened. That is just survival of the fittest. Funnily enough though, Malaria stricken areas in Africa won't be getting to create designer babies, so this really isn't a problem, is it?
Actually when it comes to breeding two different species together that is exactly why they are born sterile. The simple fact is that there is no point in two species producing an inferior offspring because it takes time and resources, nor does it contribute to the survival of the species. So to prevent two species that are too different from one another reproducing, biological barriers are put in place. In regards to your Africa comment, there is no way to know the future circumstances of the region, nor does it negate the fact that some genetic disorders/diseases could potentially have a positive secondary effect.
No, this statement is foolish. If a child is born with a mutation which is harmful to it, we cannot simply say "there might be a good reason". There is no good reason, it is random. Genetics just don't work that way. Out of curiosity, have you studied this at all?
It seems like you're twisting what I'm saying a bit.
Incorrect. If a child is born with a random disease/disorder, there is no way to know every side effect that the new disease/disorder may have. Sure it's okay to cure diseases/disorders that have been around a while and have no other purpose but to cause suffering. However, just like my Africa example, the Sickle cell anemia has a bad effect for oxygen supply throughout the body, but what was unforeseen was the fact that it prevents Malaria. This means that somewhere down the evolutionary line, an organism with the disease/disorder was obviously better equipped to survive the Malaria ridden environment and produced enough offspring to send the evolutionary direction down that way.
Oh and as a matter of fact I have studied this stuff, and no, I'm not making any effort whatsoever to twist the meaning of your arguments. To be honest I don't appreciate how you have essentially accused me of misrepresenting your original argument in an effort to validate my own. Then you finish by hinting that I may be purposely twisting your words around. I do have better things to do than find a single word in random posts and change it to something else, and to be frank about it, I really don't care if you think I was out just to get you. I participated in this thread because I found it interesting and I felt that I had something to contribute. If some of my information is not quite accurate, then that's the way it is. I still have more studies ahead of me on this topic. So I am more than willing to admit I am wrong if proven so.
It's important in every species. Humans throughout the entire world vary in appearance because that is the environment in which they are best adapted to survive in. What would happen if a ton of people selected specific features that they considered favorable, but some type of disaster occurs that poses a problem for people with a modified appearance? A lot of people could potentially die because they are no longer adapted and the genetic diversity has been reduced.
Yes, a natural disaster will surely occur which will drive our brown-haired population extinct. I love how you provided an example so that statement actually makes sense.
Using the word "Disorder" was merely an error on my part. Also, the terms "Disorder" and "Disease" can be used interchangeably with this topic. So it's not hard to see how the misunderstanding occurred because your original post is actually quite vague, given that you merely state that you want to cure every genetic disease ever discovered. I find this statement you made somewhat offensive. You make it sound like I intentionally changed the wording of your previous post just so I can validate my own argument.
I don't think they can. I also don't care as to whether or not you are offended at me pointing out the way you changed my wording. Mistake or not, you did it. Argue with what somebody says, not what you think they said.
You failed to understand what was being said here, although I will admit that my explanation may have been at fault for this. what I was talking about is the fact that when a beneficial mutation occurs, the organism will be better equipped to survive than the others of it's kind and it will therefore survive and reproduce more easily and become more dominant than the others, therefore sending the future of the species in a specific evolutionary direction.
I understand that. Luckily for us, curing down syndrome will not send us down a terrible evolutionary direction. So luckily for me, my point still stands.
Actually when it comes to breeding two different species together that is exactly why they are born sterile. The simple fact is that there is no point in two species producing an inferior offspring because it takes time and resources, nor does it contribute to the survival of the species. So to prevent two species that are too different from one another reproducing, biological barriers are put in place. In regards to your Africa comment, there is no way to know the future circumstances of the region, nor does it negate the fact that some genetic disorders/diseases could potentially have a positive secondary effect.
You're reasoning as to why cross breeds are infertile is purely incorrect, completely made up and not even worth mentioning again
Also, you're really nitpicking at this, aren't you? No thanks, I think if my child was born with cystic fibrosis, I'd have it gone before checking if it has a positive secondary effect. Are you truly convinced that not eliminating diseases proven to be harmful is the best way? Would you keep your child's down syndrome just in case? Because that's what you're suggesting the world does. Just in case.
Incorrect. If a child is born with a random disease/disorder, there is no way to know every side effect that the new disease/disorder may have. Sure it's okay to cure diseases/disorders that have been around a while and have no other purpose but to cause suffering. However, just like my Africa example, the Sickle cell anemia has a bad effect for oxygen supply throughout the body, but what was unforeseen was the fact that it prevents Malaria. This means that somewhere down the evolutionary line, an organism with the disease/disorder was obviously better equipped to survive the Malaria ridden environment and produced enough offspring to send the evolutionary direction down that way.
Of for the love of... YES. And I guarentee you we will not be eliminating any 'diseases' which are actually beneficial to us, because those diseases would have probably been naturally selected for. Just like in Africa.
Oh and as a matter of fact I have studied this stuff,
Good job, I was only asking. To continue asking, how far? I'd like to know if I'm talking to an actual scientist here, which I doubt.
and no, I'm not making any effort whatsoever to twist the meaning of your arguments. To be honest I don't appreciate how you have essentially accused me of misrepresenting your original argument in an effort to validate my own. Then you finish by hinting that I may be purposely twisting your words around. I do have better things to do than find a single word in random posts and change it to something else, and to be frank about it, I really don't care if you think I was out just to get you. I participated in this thread because I found it interesting and I felt that I had something to contribute. If some of my information is not quite accurate, then that's the way it is. I still have more studies ahead of me on this topic. So I am more than willing to admit I am wrong if proven so.
You do care because you're debating the matter with me. Do you need to waste your time writing this out? You did change my wording, that is your fault and I can interpret it however I please. This is the debating equivalent of you shooting somebody and me getting mad at you. If you then tell me that person was about to blow up a nuke to destroy the whole world, I'll be fine with what you did. But you can't then say "So why did you even get mad in the first place? I'm offended!"
But, yes, Mr./Mrs./Ms. Killin, mutations can be beneficial. But since when does curing, (to use Gamelord's example,) cystic fibrosis have harmful effects? I'd rather be able to breathe freely than hack up mucus every minute because curing me has a small chance of doing something worse.
But, yes, Mr./Mrs./Ms. Killin, mutations can be beneficial. But since when does curing, (to use Gamelord's example,) cystic fibrosis have harmful effects? I'd rather be able to breathe freely than hack up mucus every minute because curing me has a small chance of doing something worse.
Basically this. We're obviously only going to change obvious faults when we're able to identify them, not your technically-a-mutation blue eyes. I was obviously talking about actually harmful genetic diseases, not every single genetic mutation. We would know if we were curing something that could be beneficial, like sickle cell anaemia in parts of Africa.
One of the main issues with your argument, Killing, which I neglected to mention before is that mutations we would want to actually avoid curing are not there for a reason because they have not been naturally selected for, they just popped up again. It would only be there 'for a reason' if it was dominant. There is most likely no secret benefit of cystic fibrosis (mainly because sufferers die very young anyway).
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
5/15/2014
Posts:
351
Member Details
Yes, a natural disaster will surely occur which will drive our brown-haired population extinct. I love how you provided an example so that statement actually makes sense.
Your argument is based on the idea that humans have technology. Genetics do not work based on what technology we have. The fact is that you have no way to know what the future will bring, nor do we necessarily know which features that we posses will help us survive. This should be obvious given the fact that the appearance of human's varies greatly throughout the entire world.
I don't think they can. I also don't care as to whether or not you are offended at me pointing out the way you changed my wording. Mistake or not, you did it. Argue with what somebody says, not what you think they said.
disease is something that you get, a disorder is something you inherit. In essence they both mean that something is not quite right with a person. Using the word offended was merely an error on my part when I wrote this. The more appropriate word I should have used was "Rude". Also I never realized that making a simple error on a single word was such a big crime, especially given the fact that your post was technically incomplete if you wish to argue over the minor differences between disease and disorder.
I understand that. Luckily for us, curing down syndrome will not send us down a terrible evolutionary direction. So luckily for me, my point still stands.
Already stated that I agree with curing debilitating diseases with no proven benefit in my previous post.
You're reasoning as to why cross breeds are infertile is purely incorrect, completely made up and not even worth mentioning again
Also, you're really nitpicking at this, aren't you? No thanks, I think if my child was born with cystic fibrosis, I'd have it gone before checking if it has a positive secondary effect. Are you truly convinced that not eliminating diseases proven to be harmful is the best way? Would you keep your child's down syndrome just in case? Because that's what you're suggesting the world does. Just in case.
The goal of any species is to produce genetically fit offspring of it's own kind. The simple fact is that mating with another species is completely counterproductive to this goal for a variety of reason, and genetics has biological barriers in place to prevent this from occurring. I don't know how much more I can dumb this down for you.
Of for the love of... YES. And I guarentee you we will not be eliminating any 'diseases' which are actually beneficial to us, because those diseases would have probably been naturally selected for. Just like in Africa.
You have no way to know this. Unless it has been around long enough that we have already determined the effects, there is simply no way to know every impact that a new genetic disease/disorder may bring. It may just be outright debilitating and need to be eliminated, or it could have some unforeseen effect that can be harmful or beneficial. Even the sickle cell anemia benefit was not known about at first.
Good job, I was only asking. To continue asking, how far? I'd like to know if I'm talking to an actual scientist here, which I doubt.
I don't know what you are trying to figure out here, especially since I stated in my previous post that I still had studies ahead of me. So I would think it's obvious that I am still a student. To be honest your lack of understanding on the topic really shows, given the fact that you cannot seem to understand breeding barriers, nor comprehend the possible effects of altering any gene.
You do care because you're debating the matter with me. Do you need to waste your time writing this out? You did change my wording, that is your fault and I can interpret it however I please. This is the debating equivalent of you shooting somebody and me getting mad at you. If you then tell me that person was about to blow up a nuke to destroy the whole world, I'll be fine with what you did. But you can't then say "So why did you even get mad in the first place? I'm offended!"
This is a very immature response. The fact is that a misunderstanding and error had occurred and instead of simply correcting my error you chose to make an unsubstantiated claim that makes it sound like I was out to get you. Also, using silly examples does not justify your needless hostility towards my original post. Learn how to post in a civilized manner instead of needlessly starting an argument.
Anyway, I won't be responding to this thread anymore. I do not come to post here with the goal of needlessly arguing over something as simple as a single word, and I won't be responding to your immature postings any longer.
Basically this. We're obviously only going to change obvious faults when we're able to identify them, not your technically-a-mutation blue eyes. I was obviously talking about actually harmful genetic diseases, not every single genetic mutation. We would know if we were curing something that could be beneficial, like sickle cell anaemia in parts of Africa.
One of the main issues with your argument, Killing, which I neglected to mention before is that mutations we would want to actually avoid curing are not there for a reason because they have not been naturally selected for, they just popped up again. It would only be there 'for a reason' if it was dominant. There is most likely no secret benefit of cystic fibrosis (mainly because sufferers die very young anyway).
This is one of the few posts where I agree with you.
But, yes, Mr./Mrs./Ms. Killin, mutations can be beneficial. But since when does curing, (to use Gamelord's example,) cystic fibrosis have harmful effects? I'd rather be able to breathe freely than hack up mucus every minute because curing me has a small chance of doing something worse.
It depends on the circumstances, but I am in favor of curing diseases/disorders that have absolutely no proven benefit. however it would be very ignorant of us to just assume that every disease/disorder that pops up should be eliminated because they may have unforeseen positive side effects.
I don't entirely know, but maybe the misunderstanding on my opinion here was that I simply did not explain my position very well, but I will leave that up to you guys to determine. I hope that at this point a few more things have been cleared up. =-)
Your argument is based on the idea that humans have technology. Genetics do not work based on what technology we have. The fact is that you have no way to know what the future will bring, nor do we necessarily know which features that we posses will help us survive. This should be obvious given the fact tha the appearance of human's varies greatly throughout the entire world.
Yes, that is sort of the point of this whole discussion. I gave my opinion on how I would feel if this was a thing, and you started debating me on the matter. Why is this relevant? You're kind of grasping at straws now.
disease is something that you get, a disorder is something you inherit. In essence they both mean that something is not quite right with a person. Using the word offended was merely an error on my part when I wrote this. The more appropriate word I should have used was "Rude". Also I never realized that making a simple error on a single word was such a big crime, especially given the fact that your post was technically incomplete if you wish to argue over the minor differences between disease and disorder.
Are you going to keep bringing up how upset you are that I accused you of changing my wording? Argue the point if you like, but it doesn't matter. "Sorry I changed your wording" would suffice, you don't need to justify yourself doing it.
Already stated that I agree with curing debilitating diseases with no proven benefit in my previous post.
So why are you arguing with me again? Isn't this exactly what I said?
The goal of any species is to produce genetically fit offspring of it's own kind. The simple fact is that mating with another species is completely counterproductive to this goal for a variety of reason, and genetics has biological barriers in place to prevent this from occurring. I don't know how much more I can dumb this down for you.
Do you actually know any science at all? This isn't how natural selection, survival of the fittest nor evolution as a whole work at all. There is no overarching force which decides that all of these animals will be so different that they cannot produce fertile offspring. It doesn't work that way. The offspring is infertile because different species have different numbers of chromosomes, which was caused completely randomly. You are under the illusion that evolution always improves things. Sometimes things just don't change. Humans have many flaws which remain unchanged by evolution. It is the same here. The species happened to have different chromosome pair counts because they are completely different and just randomly happened to be that way. It just wasn't a disadvantage.
Like, just spend 5 minutes Googling this stuff. You don't need to dumb it down for me. For somebody intent on pointing out what a big fat meanie I am, you're sure condescending.
You have no way to know this. Unless it has been around long enough that we have already determined the effects, there is simply no way to know every impact that a new genetic disease/disorder may bring. It may just be outright debilitating and need to be eliminated, or it could have some unforeseen effect that can be harmful or beneficial. Even the sickle cell anemia benefit was not known about at first.
If a disorder pops up and it causes death, a missing limb, or so on, we aren't waiting to find out. Humans are getting on just fine right now without whatever superpower that gene could give us. I'm talking about debilitating diseases, I don't know what you think I'm talking about.
I don't know what you are trying to figure out here, especially since I stated in my previous post that I still had studies ahead of me. So I would think it's obvious that I am still a student. To be honest your lack of understanding on the topic really shows, given the fact that you cannot seem to understand breeding barriers, nor comprehend the possible effects of altering any gene.
Nice ad hominem bro, where's your next argument?
This is a very immature response. The fact is that a misunderstanding and error had occurred and instead of simply correcting my error you chose to make an unsubstantiated claim that makes it sound like I was out to get you. Also, using silly examples does not justify your needless hostility towards my original post. Learn how to post in a civilized manner instead of needlessly starting an argument.
Yes, I was being needlessly hostile by being disappointed that you changed by wording, that makes perfect sense. Stop bringing up useless tripe to make me look like the scum of the Earth and actually argue your point, please.
Anyway, I won't be responding to this thread anymore. I do not come to post here with the goal of needlessly arguing over something as simple as a single word.
Yes you did, you argued over something just as simple as that - me pointing it out. I pointed it out and asked you not to do that, because it is an obvious logical fallacy, really. You're making a big deal out of it.
This is one of the few posts where I agree with you.
I don't know what your point is and why it is different to mine, somehow. You have just started arguing with me. We don't seem to have a different opinion, you are just posting questionable science and pretending that I think we should destroy every mutation which ever comes up. Which isn't what I was saying at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Gamelord. Pixelmon Server Owner. Server IP: pixelmonprisma.mc-server.net | Server Discord:https://discord.gg/HkK855b
Yes, that is sort of the point of this whole discussion. I gave my opinion on how I would feel if this was a thing, and you started debating me on the matter. Why is this relevant? You're kind of grasping at straws now.
Are you going to keep bringing up how upset you are that I accused you of changing my wording? Argue the point if you like, but it doesn't matter. "Sorry I changed your wording" would suffice, you don't need to justify yourself doing it.
So why are you arguing with me again? Isn't this exactly what I said?
Do you actually know any science at all? This isn't how natural selection, survival of the fittest nor evolution as a whole work at all. There is no overarching force which decides that all of these animals will be so different that they cannot produce fertile offspring. It doesn't work that way. The offspring is infertile because different species have different numbers of chromosomes, which was caused completely randomly. You are under the illusion that evolution always improves things. Sometimes things just don't change. Humans have many flaws which remain unchanged by evolution. It is the same here. The species happened to have different chromosome pair counts because they are completely different and just randomly happened to be that way. It just wasn't a disadvantage.
Like, just spend 5 minutes Googling this stuff. You don't need to dumb it down for me. For somebody intent on pointing out what a big fat meanie I am, you're sure condescending.
If a disorder pops up and it causes death, a missing limb, or so on, we aren't waiting to find out. Humans are getting on just fine right now without whatever superpower that gene could give us. I'm talking about debilitating diseases, I don't know what you think I'm talking about.
Nice ad hominem bro, where's your next argument?
Yes, I was being needlessly hostile by being disappointed that you changed by wording, that makes perfect sense. Stop bringing up useless tripe to make me look like the scum of the Earth and actually argue your point, please.
Yes you did, you argued over something just as simple as that - me pointing it out. I pointed it out and asked you not to do that, because it is an obvious logical fallacy, really. You're making a big deal out of it.
I don't know what your point is and why it is different to mine, somehow. You have just started arguing with me. We don't seem to have a different opinion, you are just posting questionable science and pretending that I think we should destroy every mutation which ever comes up. Which isn't what I was saying at all.
I think we have a winner, folks.
Also, this somehow strayed to discussing how the other person is a jerk. Do go on. Or not.
GMOs are good for the reasons that we are being told, but when have corporations told us the entire truth about a controversial topic? I don't see a problem with increasing yields or producing more seeds, but when we start getting into having our food make its own poison to kill parasites (that out bodies haven't already been eating) and having our food grow too fast to actually have nutritional value, that's when it gets bad.
I keep hearing about this stuff and I fail to see why people are so against it. I get that there are concerns that are valid, but most of them are just rubbish. I'm guessing people like to make money from people ignorant on the matter. It seems like an awful lot of people think organic = good for you. It's sad.
Designer babies will not become as frequent as people think. The reason for this is because the genetic diversity of the species has to maintained, but if people start to select their preferred genes, then you could see a situation where babies are designed with many of the exact same genes that a society considers favorable.
The other issue is that not every genetic disorder is a bad thing, nor does it necessarily happen for no reason. If you look back at my first post, I mentioned the issue regarding hybrid species reproduction. One possible trait to prevent a weaker species from breeding on is that they are born sterile (mules are the best example of this trait). Also, some genetic disorders, such as sickle cell anemia, results in deformed red blood cells that cause an issue with the cells ability to carry oxygen rich blood throughout the body. However, this genetic disorder also prevents Malaria that you get from mosquito bites. Interestingly enough, this genetic disorder is quite frequent amongst African's living within Malaria stricken areas.
So just because a genetic disorder can result in a potential disability, it does not mean that there is not a biological reason for it, and it would be foolish of us to assume otherwise.
^
As for the topic, I'm fine with GMO's to an extent. As Killin said, there is a limit to what we should modify. However, hardier corn, more nutritious food, and faster growing produce will prove invaluable as the population grows.
WeListen Forums.
Variation in a species' appearance isn't all that important in regards to evolution or survival of the fittest (for humans at least).
Did I say that? Variation comes from mutation. You know that I was talking about actual diseases, right? Not disorder. Changing my words doesn't make your point stronger.
Mutation is one of the most random things in science, it absolutely happens for no reason. Whether or not that mutation becomes widespread is another matter.
That doesn't mean there was a reason why the mutation happened. That is just survival of the fittest. Funnily enough though, Malaria stricken areas in Africa won't be getting to create designer babies, so this really isn't a problem, is it?
No, this statement is foolish. If a child is born with a mutation which is harmful to it, we cannot simply say "there might be a good reason". There is no good reason, it is random. Genetics just don't work that way. Out of curiosity, have you studied this at all?
It seems like you're twisting what I'm saying a bit.
It's important in every species. Humans throughout the entire world vary in appearance because that is the environment in which they are best adapted to survive in. What would happen if a ton of people selected specific features that they considered favorable, but some type of disaster occurs that poses a problem for people with a modified appearance? A lot of people could potentially die because they are no longer adapted and the genetic diversity has been reduced.
Using the word "Disorder" was merely an error on my part. Also, the terms "Disorder" and "Disease" can be used interchangeably with this topic. So it's not hard to see how the misunderstanding occurred because your original post is actually quite vague, given that you merely state that you want to cure every genetic disease ever discovered. I find this statement you made somewhat offensive. You make it sound like I intentionally changed the wording of your previous post just so I can validate my own argument.
You failed to understand what was being said here, although I will admit that my explanation may have been at fault for this. what I was talking about is the fact that when a beneficial mutation occurs, the organism will be better equipped to survive than the others of it's kind and it will therefore survive and reproduce more easily and become more dominant than the others, therefore sending the future of the species in a specific evolutionary direction.
Actually when it comes to breeding two different species together that is exactly why they are born sterile. The simple fact is that there is no point in two species producing an inferior offspring because it takes time and resources, nor does it contribute to the survival of the species. So to prevent two species that are too different from one another reproducing, biological barriers are put in place. In regards to your Africa comment, there is no way to know the future circumstances of the region, nor does it negate the fact that some genetic disorders/diseases could potentially have a positive secondary effect.
Incorrect. If a child is born with a random disease/disorder, there is no way to know every side effect that the new disease/disorder may have. Sure it's okay to cure diseases/disorders that have been around a while and have no other purpose but to cause suffering. However, just like my Africa example, the Sickle cell anemia has a bad effect for oxygen supply throughout the body, but what was unforeseen was the fact that it prevents Malaria. This means that somewhere down the evolutionary line, an organism with the disease/disorder was obviously better equipped to survive the Malaria ridden environment and produced enough offspring to send the evolutionary direction down that way.
Oh and as a matter of fact I have studied this stuff, and no, I'm not making any effort whatsoever to twist the meaning of your arguments. To be honest I don't appreciate how you have essentially accused me of misrepresenting your original argument in an effort to validate my own. Then you finish by hinting that I may be purposely twisting your words around. I do have better things to do than find a single word in random posts and change it to something else, and to be frank about it, I really don't care if you think I was out just to get you. I participated in this thread because I found it interesting and I felt that I had something to contribute. If some of my information is not quite accurate, then that's the way it is. I still have more studies ahead of me on this topic. So I am more than willing to admit I am wrong if proven so.
It's important in every species. Humans throughout the entire world vary in appearance because that is the environment in which they are best adapted to survive in. What would happen if a ton of people selected specific features that they considered favorable, but some type of disaster occurs that poses a problem for people with a modified appearance? A lot of people could potentially die because they are no longer adapted and the genetic diversity has been reduced.
Yes, a natural disaster will surely occur which will drive our brown-haired population extinct. I love how you provided an example so that statement actually makes sense.
I don't think they can. I also don't care as to whether or not you are offended at me pointing out the way you changed my wording. Mistake or not, you did it. Argue with what somebody says, not what you think they said.
I understand that. Luckily for us, curing down syndrome will not send us down a terrible evolutionary direction. So luckily for me, my point still stands.
You're reasoning as to why cross breeds are infertile is purely incorrect, completely made up and not even worth mentioning again
Also, you're really nitpicking at this, aren't you? No thanks, I think if my child was born with cystic fibrosis, I'd have it gone before checking if it has a positive secondary effect. Are you truly convinced that not eliminating diseases proven to be harmful is the best way? Would you keep your child's down syndrome just in case? Because that's what you're suggesting the world does. Just in case.
Of for the love of... YES. And I guarentee you we will not be eliminating any 'diseases' which are actually beneficial to us, because those diseases would have probably been naturally selected for. Just like in Africa.
Good job, I was only asking. To continue asking, how far? I'd like to know if I'm talking to an actual scientist here, which I doubt.
You do care because you're debating the matter with me. Do you need to waste your time writing this out? You did change my wording, that is your fault and I can interpret it however I please. This is the debating equivalent of you shooting somebody and me getting mad at you. If you then tell me that person was about to blow up a nuke to destroy the whole world, I'll be fine with what you did. But you can't then say "So why did you even get mad in the first place? I'm offended!"
Aww, Gamelord beat me to the punch.
But, yes, Mr./Mrs./Ms. Killin, mutations can be beneficial. But since when does curing, (to use Gamelord's example,) cystic fibrosis have harmful effects? I'd rather be able to breathe freely than hack up mucus every minute because curing me has a small chance of doing something worse.
WeListen Forums.
Basically this. We're obviously only going to change obvious faults when we're able to identify them, not your technically-a-mutation blue eyes. I was obviously talking about actually harmful genetic diseases, not every single genetic mutation. We would know if we were curing something that could be beneficial, like sickle cell anaemia in parts of Africa.
One of the main issues with your argument, Killing, which I neglected to mention before is that mutations we would want to actually avoid curing are not there for a reason because they have not been naturally selected for, they just popped up again. It would only be there 'for a reason' if it was dominant. There is most likely no secret benefit of cystic fibrosis (mainly because sufferers die very young anyway).
Your argument is based on the idea that humans have technology. Genetics do not work based on what technology we have. The fact is that you have no way to know what the future will bring, nor do we necessarily know which features that we posses will help us survive. This should be obvious given the fact that the appearance of human's varies greatly throughout the entire world.
disease is something that you get, a disorder is something you inherit. In essence they both mean that something is not quite right with a person. Using the word offended was merely an error on my part when I wrote this. The more appropriate word I should have used was "Rude". Also I never realized that making a simple error on a single word was such a big crime, especially given the fact that your post was technically incomplete if you wish to argue over the minor differences between disease and disorder.
Already stated that I agree with curing debilitating diseases with no proven benefit in my previous post.
The goal of any species is to produce genetically fit offspring of it's own kind. The simple fact is that mating with another species is completely counterproductive to this goal for a variety of reason, and genetics has biological barriers in place to prevent this from occurring. I don't know how much more I can dumb this down for you.
You have no way to know this. Unless it has been around long enough that we have already determined the effects, there is simply no way to know every impact that a new genetic disease/disorder may bring. It may just be outright debilitating and need to be eliminated, or it could have some unforeseen effect that can be harmful or beneficial. Even the sickle cell anemia benefit was not known about at first.
I don't know what you are trying to figure out here, especially since I stated in my previous post that I still had studies ahead of me. So I would think it's obvious that I am still a student. To be honest your lack of understanding on the topic really shows, given the fact that you cannot seem to understand breeding barriers, nor comprehend the possible effects of altering any gene.
This is a very immature response. The fact is that a misunderstanding and error had occurred and instead of simply correcting my error you chose to make an unsubstantiated claim that makes it sound like I was out to get you. Also, using silly examples does not justify your needless hostility towards my original post. Learn how to post in a civilized manner instead of needlessly starting an argument.
Anyway, I won't be responding to this thread anymore. I do not come to post here with the goal of needlessly arguing over something as simple as a single word, and I won't be responding to your immature postings any longer.
This is one of the few posts where I agree with you.
It depends on the circumstances, but I am in favor of curing diseases/disorders that have absolutely no proven benefit. however it would be very ignorant of us to just assume that every disease/disorder that pops up should be eliminated because they may have unforeseen positive side effects.
I don't entirely know, but maybe the misunderstanding on my opinion here was that I simply did not explain my position very well, but I will leave that up to you guys to determine. I hope that at this point a few more things have been cleared up. =-)
Yes, that is sort of the point of this whole discussion. I gave my opinion on how I would feel if this was a thing, and you started debating me on the matter. Why is this relevant? You're kind of grasping at straws now.
Are you going to keep bringing up how upset you are that I accused you of changing my wording? Argue the point if you like, but it doesn't matter. "Sorry I changed your wording" would suffice, you don't need to justify yourself doing it.
So why are you arguing with me again? Isn't this exactly what I said?
Do you actually know any science at all? This isn't how natural selection, survival of the fittest nor evolution as a whole work at all. There is no overarching force which decides that all of these animals will be so different that they cannot produce fertile offspring. It doesn't work that way. The offspring is infertile because different species have different numbers of chromosomes, which was caused completely randomly. You are under the illusion that evolution always improves things. Sometimes things just don't change. Humans have many flaws which remain unchanged by evolution. It is the same here. The species happened to have different chromosome pair counts because they are completely different and just randomly happened to be that way. It just wasn't a disadvantage.
Like, just spend 5 minutes Googling this stuff. You don't need to dumb it down for me. For somebody intent on pointing out what a big fat meanie I am, you're sure condescending.
If a disorder pops up and it causes death, a missing limb, or so on, we aren't waiting to find out. Humans are getting on just fine right now without whatever superpower that gene could give us. I'm talking about debilitating diseases, I don't know what you think I'm talking about.
Nice ad hominem bro, where's your next argument?
Yes, I was being needlessly hostile by being disappointed that you changed by wording, that makes perfect sense. Stop bringing up useless tripe to make me look like the scum of the Earth and actually argue your point, please.
Yes you did, you argued over something just as simple as that - me pointing it out. I pointed it out and asked you not to do that, because it is an obvious logical fallacy, really. You're making a big deal out of it.
I don't know what your point is and why it is different to mine, somehow. You have just started arguing with me. We don't seem to have a different opinion, you are just posting questionable science and pretending that I think we should destroy every mutation which ever comes up. Which isn't what I was saying at all.
I think we have a winner, folks.
Also, this somehow strayed to discussing how the other person is a jerk. Do go on. Or not.
GMOs are good for the reasons that we are being told, but when have corporations told us the entire truth about a controversial topic? I don't see a problem with increasing yields or producing more seeds, but when we start getting into having our food make its own poison to kill parasites (that out bodies haven't already been eating) and having our food grow too fast to actually have nutritional value, that's when it gets bad.
Let's do some math.
1/3 = 0.333...
1/3 * 3 = 1
0.333... * 3 = 0.999...
1 = 0.999...
1 - 0.999... = 0.999... - 0.999...
0.0...1 = 0
0.0...1 * 10... = 0 * 10...
1 = 0
You are correct. Who I feel caused that is irrelevant. If he posts again, I will not bring it up or respond to it.