MonteZuma Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 Blah blah blah yadda yadda yaddaThanks for sharing. Some comments: * You laugh a lot. Thats good. I like to make people happy too. * I don't care what you think of my opinion. * You would like to see some proof of the size of my member, wouldn't you? Haha. Sorry. I don't do requests. Haha . You dirty !@#$%^&*. * If you want to get ahead in life you need to look past avatars. Search for a deeper wisdom. * I think you've lost the plot. * Try to say something about the topic in your next post. It really isn't that hard when you put your mind to it.
MonteZuma Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 Of course nature does this as well through evolution but we are coming to a new era with the ability to select and manipulate entire genomes.Nature makes a lot of mistakes too. A two-headed tortoise or an albino are every day examples. But nature also makes mistakes that lead to extinction. The dodo was obviously not evolved to deal with hungry sailors. Humans can make the samekind of mistakes. I don't think humans will ever be able to simulate or improve the diversity that we have in nature. We might well make mistakes that make us more vulnerable. Natural diversity is one of the keys to success as a species. Im all for this, for everything from removing a genetic weakness from a population of animals nearing extinction to save them (if we have destroyed most of them instead of a mostly natural degridation) to gene therapy.Perhaps. But the risk is that you go too far and give the species some kind of unfair advantage. To save a species, it is probably always much better to focus research and investment on protecting habitats than on manipulating genes. If every man is born equil then every person should have the right to live their full life expectancy.If everyone is born equal then there is a chance that some virus or whatever could wipe out the entire human race. Species' populations need to have a few freaks that are able to overcome stuff that normal members of the population can't. The problem as i said comes from the rouge scientists that want to make cllones, design babies, enhance humans and so on. (personally if somones going to do that they shouldnt be allowed in university).That is why universities have ethics committees. I think corporations are a bigger potential problem than universities. In the future, I suspect that the technology will advance o a stage where rogue individuals could be a problem too. Further to this i thing gene patenting is a stupid idea, just people tring to profit because they idemntified a gene first and can make money from seeing if you have it, soesnt seem to benifit the scientific community much really considering that information can be used in much more productive ways then a profit toolI agree in principle. But in reality, isn't it the prospect of a payout the carrot that drives research in this field? The research is expensive and the risks of failure are high. The payout at the end needs to be high to warrant the risk and the cost. To have your profits stolen by someone using your technology would deter R&D investment. I don't know what should be done about that. Maybe S!@#$%^&* has some ideas? -
SamHughes Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 Im all for this, for everything from removing a genetic weakness from a population of animals nearing extinction to save them (if we have destroyed most of them instead of a mostly natural degridation) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "We had to destroy the village to save it." What's the purpose of saving a species if it's not even the same species? Furthermore, what ethical reason is there to prevent a species from going extinct?
MonteZuma Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 "We had to destroy the village to save it." What's the purpose of saving a species if it's not even the same species? Furthermore, what ethical reason is there to prevent a species from going extinct?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Good points. In relation to the last question, I think the popular ethical justification for saving a species is that all species have an intrinsic value. The scientific justification is that a species might play an important and unknown role in an ecosystem. The medical justification is that they may help us find new medical treatments. And then there is the intergenerational equity argument. Why shouldn't future generations enjoy the same level of diversity that we all enjoy today. I think I could go along with all of those arguments and probably a few more. I like pandas coz they are cute and funny is probably a good enough reason too.
Sass Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 lol Montezuma, you're losing. You will really need something stronger than what third graders would have thought up. Come on, you can dooooo it. Fight like no lefty has fought before. Fight like the koala! Baka! rofl Anyway, about the topic, Sam - can you or anyone on this earth be the decision maker for who or what gets life and who or what doesn't? Most of us are in awe just trying to figure out how it started let alone removing that which had been created.
Aileron Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 *Moderator warning: Try to avoid the personal insults and respect the difference of opinion. This isn't the lounge.* Dav, communicating via internet and pointing out how humans have supposedly destroyed our environment contradicts itself. Tarzan might be able to pull an arguement on those lines, but... Genetic manipulation is about manipulating nature, which really isn't wrong, people and even animals have to do it to survive. Genetic manipulation of near extinct species doesn't really make sense...you can't manipulate nature to preserve it. Genetic manipulation of domesticates is acceptible. The species that we farm today are already unnatural from thousands of years of breeding. Non-genetically manipulated corn is just as unnatrual as genetically manipulated stuff. That case with the seed being spread on a farmer's field and the gene owner suing him for it isn't really a genetic issue. It is due to a fault in either our legal system for creating the injustice or our media for presenting only part of the information to the public. The question of gene ownership is a legal and economic issue. The lawyers and accountants will probably find a way to screw everyone else, so it doesn't matter what should be done.
MonteZuma Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 *Moderator warning: Try to avoid the personal insults and respect the difference of opinion. This isn't the lounge.*S!@#$%^&*. Refer to my previous post. ...communicating via internet and pointing out how humans have supposedly destroyed our environment contradicts itself. Tarzan might be able to pull an arguement on those lines, but...I used to think this, but now I think it is ok to acknowledge that you are part of the problem. Society needs a course correction. You can't really expect an individual to drop out of society to prove a point. Genetic manipulation of domesticates is acceptible. The species that we farm today are already unnatural from thousands of years of breeding. Non-genetically manipulated corn is just as unnatrual as genetically manipulated stuff.I think the main difference is that conventionally bred crops or animals do not have any advantage in the wild. An escaped hog will probably die. If it breeds, the animal will eventually revert back to its natural state. The same sort of thing would happen with corn. With GM, we can potentially produce crops or animals that have an advantage in the wild and will not revert back to a natural state. That is where we can really mess up ecosystems. I'd liken in to the release of exotic species. Sometimes they die out, but sometimes they cause an ecological disaster. That case with the seed being spread on a farmer's field and the gene owner suing him for it isn't really a genetic issue. It is due to a fault in either our legal system for creating the injustice or our media for presenting only part of the information to the public.I agree. But this is why we need to regulate - now. The question of gene ownership is a legal and economic issue. The lawyers and accountants will probably find a way to screw everyone else, so it doesn't matter what should be done.I think that this is too fatalistic. I think we can manage and reduce many of these potential problems.
Dav Posted February 17, 2005 Author Report Posted February 17, 2005 Genetic manipulation of near extinct species doesn't really make sense...you can't manipulate nature to preserve it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If a population is driven down to a small enough group genertic errors start to ac!@#$%^&*liate and destroy them.
Aileron Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 Monte, no way in heck... Genetic manipulation will just make domesticated animals slower, stupider, more docile, and bigger. Generally, the more profitable the animal, the less capable it is of survivng in the wild. A genetically manipulated cow in the wild will likely get killed FASTER than a regular cow. Take the example of a stairwell. No matter how many floors you go down, you won't reach the roof. Genetic manipulation will simply take animals in the opposite direction they need to go to survive in the wild and take over ecosystems.
Phyran Posted February 19, 2005 Report Posted February 19, 2005 currently most wheat today are clones of themselves, they have no genetic variability...think of what will happen if a disease of some sort happens to be deadly to the wheat "clones". besides...there are natural clones in nature...identical twins...i dont see why ppl should be freak out and upset of their clone (its your brother or sister) unless its in one of those movies where the clone kills the original and replace him/her
Aileron Posted February 20, 2005 Report Posted February 20, 2005 First off, the way cloning works requires that we destroy an existing egg, so cloners sacrifice a new combination for an existing one. There is no advantage to having two of the same person when you could have two completely seperate people. Also, though this may be a technical issue at the moment, your age is a part of your DNA, due to errors occuring when your DNA spliting off to make proteins, then reforming again. Repeat 90 billion times and errors start popping up. The clone, will start off with DNA that is the same age as the donor. Thus, if you clone a 40 year old man, the clone will be biologically 58 when he reaches 18. Its just a useless science.
Dav Posted February 20, 2005 Author Report Posted February 20, 2005 First off, the way cloning works requires that we destroy an existing egg, so cloners sacrifice a new combination for an existing one. There is no advantage to having two of the same person when you could have two completely seperate people.agreed, cloning to make a copy od one self is stupidity however the stem cell potential is huge when thay know enough to get the ideas working. Also, though this may be a technical issue at the moment, your age is a part of your DNA, due to errors occuring when your DNA spliting off to make proteins, then reforming again. Repeat 90 billion times and errors start popping up. The clone, will start off with DNA that is the same age as the donor. Thus, if you clone a 40 year old man, the clone will be biologically 58 when he reaches 18.Accually its the DNA replication that causes the errors not translation of mRNA to make protien. Our cells are not perfect at copying the DNA which is why we get cancer. Kinda a trade off for evolution really... Its just a useless science.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>understanding how these things work alone is huge in the world of science.
Sass Posted February 22, 2005 Report Posted February 22, 2005 Imagine if we clone you Dav! lol, then we get double keyboard mania! lolol....just hope the new you gets a larger hypothalumus. jk
Paine Posted February 23, 2005 Report Posted February 23, 2005 I'd love to have a debate with myself, would be fun.
Dav Posted February 24, 2005 Author Report Posted February 24, 2005 hmmm, fun for me, i have to debate this in my biochemistry seminar tomorrow, except they put me on the againt side! !@#$%^&*it anyway any good points that come up ill be sure to post,
Aileron Posted February 27, 2005 Report Posted February 27, 2005 I'd kill the clone if anybody cloned me.
Phyran Posted March 3, 2005 Report Posted March 3, 2005 I'd kill the clone if anybody cloned me.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> thats like killing yer twin brother...in fact that IS killing yer twin brother. I think the main difference is that conventionally bred crops or animals do not have any advantage in the wild. An escaped hog will probably die. If it breeds, the animal will eventually revert back to its natural state. The same sort of thing would happen with corn. With GM, we can potentially produce crops or animals that have an advantage in the wild and will not revert back to a natural state. That is where we can really mess up ecosystems. I'd liken in to the release of exotic species. Sometimes they die out, but sometimes they cause an ecological disaster. Look to the Galapalagos Islands, Domesticated Animals turned Feral and PWNED the local native species. Pigs DONT DIE they PWN turtle eggs - they are now one of the biggest threats to giant tortoises because they eat the eggs as fast as tortoises can lay them. Here is a rule: Any species that came from a larger landm!@#$%^&* aka larger Biom!@#$%^&* has better compe!@#$%^&*ion ability and greater genetic variability than one from a smaller biom!@#$%^&*. THIS IS why australia is trying to protect its dying native species because they suck against the bigger continents' species. So when you enter the airport they tell you to throw away all your fruits and food, and they look at your shoes to make sure you dont carry any seeds and they WILL sterilize them if they see some.
Manus Celer Dei Posted March 4, 2005 Report Posted March 4, 2005 You think Aus has a problem with biosecurity? think of us poor Kiwis, our landm!@#$%^&* has been isolated for million years. We have very few native species that aren't endangered in some way unfortunately
Dav Posted March 4, 2005 Author Report Posted March 4, 2005 you introduce any animal not naturally from that area, if it is adapted to survive it will disrupt the balance and thrive. American grey squrills have almost wiped out red squriles in the UK.
MonteZuma Posted March 7, 2005 Report Posted March 7, 2005 Yeah. No country or land mass whatever the size, is protected from the impact of introduced species. Australian plants have established themselves as weeds in the US, Africa and Europe, despite their larger size. I don't think it is size that is the issue. I think it is isolation.
Dav Posted March 7, 2005 Author Report Posted March 7, 2005 cirtainly the isolation, not many species are able to enter or exit australia without human !@#$%^&*istance.
MasterDrake Posted March 8, 2005 Report Posted March 8, 2005 O snaps firsts we take out your squirrels then your next!
Phyran Posted March 8, 2005 Report Posted March 8, 2005 Yeah. No country or land mass whatever the size, is protected from the impact of introduced species. Australian plants have established themselves as weeds in the US, Africa and Europe, despite their larger size. I don't think it is size that is the issue. I think it is isolation.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> thats an exception, genetic variability is key and btw if you have 2 copies of the delta 32 gene mutation in your DNA, you are practically immune to black death and AIDS
MonteZuma Posted March 8, 2005 Report Posted March 8, 2005 thats an exception, genetic variability is keyGenetic variability is important, but it isn't the key. And depending on what indicator you use, Australia is more biodiverse than most of Europe. What makes small Australian mammals vulnerable is that they haven't seen a fox or anything like a fox. If they had, they would have become extinct in prehistoric times. If Australia was connected to Eurasia in the time before European settlement, there might be less species extinctions today, but there might also be less biodiversity.
Recommended Posts