Bioalchemist wrote:
don't fix what isn't broken is not the worst argument ever. that's a bit extreme. and saying he doesn't understand genetics? what does that have to do with it...so what if they have located the genes causing the genetic defects...have they developed a way to alter those genes and make them more disirable without any side effects? what is the success rate of the mutation into something more disarable?
It's not about mutating. We know what's wrong and we know what it should become. You'd simply replace DNA rather than to mutate it. If done correctly (at the right acids etc.) there's no chance things go wrong.
GrandmasterD wrote:
It's not about mutating. We know what's wrong and we know what it should become. You'd simply replace DNA rather than to mutate it. If done correctly (at the right acids etc.) there's no chance things go wrong.
a mutation is a change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element. replacing a gene with a different gene is mutation. so yes you are correct. but so am I.
GrandmasterD wrote:
You'd simply replace DNA rather than to mutate it.
this = mutation
edit: and your second point about if done correctly there is no chance things go wrong...hmmmm have you performed experiments before? not trying to downgrade you really...but science is not perfect and sometimes what you expect to get is not what you get at all...not to mention mutation in complex organisms is extremely difficult to achieve due to the advanced proofreading I have pointed out before....**** even in simple organisms such as E.Coli. mutations are not always successful and many times you get other results you did not expect such as double or triple mutations.
Thanks to jhoijhoi for my signature!
You need to log in before commenting.
@lifebaka: First of all, that's the worst argument ever. "Don't fix what's not broken" is like an excuse to not do anything. Second, just because you do not understand genetics doesn't mean scientist don't. Lot's of genetic defects are already located (chromosome, locus, etc.)
@jhoijhoi: I'm pretty sure he meant that things can be broken easily rather than are broken by definitiion.
Personally I see no problem in this, in chance it will allow us to almost eradicate certain genetic defects and create a stronger human race. If you use this for "designing" your own baby or fixing genetic defects such as Down's Syndrome or Huntington's Disease. As jhoi pointed out, disabilities do not define people.
Saying that nature should do what it always does means that we should pretty much ignore the brains we have and not use them. Which means, go extinct.
don't fix what isn't broken is not the worst argument ever. that's a bit extreme. and saying he doesn't understand genetics? what does that have to do with it...so what if they have located the genes causing the genetic defects...have they developed a way to alter those genes and make them more disirable without any side effects? what is the success rate of the mutation into something more disarable?
yes i don't think lifebaka meant that IVF = broken..besides IVF is not genetic engineering...as no genes are being altered...simply the space that sperm+egg are combined is not in the womb.
@jhoijhoi you have a very strong spirit I am glad you can see that even things we call disabilities can actually lead to other avenues to success and innovation.
i don't think saying nature should do what is always has done ignores our brains..it is simply that nature has been doing it a lot longer than we have been studying it and therefore is probably better at conceiving life than we are.
again i am not against curing genetic disease but we tend to move quicker than we should leading to more unseen consequences than advantages.