Oh nos... Humans fixing god's mistakes... Where will it end?

keano_afc

God doesnt make mistakes.

uck51js9zml2yt

MrPudding wrote: »

Jeeze get over it. I don't believe in the existence of gods, I do believe in the existence of sarcasm.

Not sure if it is evolution to blame or simply mutation. I suppose evolution have "allowed" the mutation to survive, so maybe it is to blame...

MrP

So if evolution allowed them and its the evolution of the fittest, why are we wanting to get rid of what evolution wanted?

Sarcasm is over rated!

darkdubh

MrPudding wrote: »

This could be a massively important step in the treatment of all kinds of diseases. Of course, it could all go a bit 28 Days Later...

Thoughts?

MrP

Dogs mistakes?

MrPudding

Gordon Tasteless Cilantro wrote: »

So if evolution allowed them and its the evolution of the fittest, why are we wanting to get rid of what evolution wanted?

Sarcasm is over rated!

I am going to assume you are actually interested in a response...

Evolution does not "want" anything. Because of the advances we have made, diseases that may once have been fatal, are now no longer fatal. Take the guy in this story, a few decades ago the disease has has would have killed him, but now there is medication that can, somewhat, reduce the effect and lethality, of the disease.

Survival of the fittest does not apply quite so much to humans now, because we have advance to the point where we can prevent a lot fo the deaths that would occur if thing were left to nature, and natural selection.

MrP

Ipso

keano_afc wrote: »

God doesnt make mistakes.

Leitrim!

beefburrito

MrPudding wrote: »

I am going to assume you are actually interested in a response...

Evolution does not "want" anything. Because of the advances we have made, diseases that may once have been fatal, are now no longer fatal. Take the guy in this story, a few decades ago the disease has has would have killed him, but now there is medication that can, somewhat, reduce the effect and lethality, of the disease.

Survival of the fittest does not apply quite so much to humans now, because we have advance to the point where we can prevent a lot fo the deaths that would occur if thing were left to nature, and natural selection.

MrP

You're wrong Mr P

Survival of the fittest doe's still apply in today's world.
Metaphorically speaking you're on the right track but in the mainstream it's the people who can afford the best treatment who are more liable for survival.

I don't know why you brought your God into this, that's kind of lame and outdated, maybe that applies to the forum over yonder....

That dark dreary place I frequently get banned or infractions in for being myself lol

Anyhow messing with DNA can be dangerous...

Have you watched gremlins ?

Odhinn

MrPudding wrote: »

Yes, this was actually mentioned in the article. Some previous attempts randomly inserted the new gene, leading to unforeseen side effects. This particular method allows a precise cut and paste.

This could be amazing.

MrP

It won't be. You've seen the movies, you know the script. Man meddles = Teh Satan = death and destruction for all concerned.

Sin City

the_pen_turner wrote: »

It is very hard to argue against some one wanting to keep their mother,father , sibling or child alive and healthy for as long as possible.
I know I would give anything for my grand mother to be alive for another year

But look at the bigger picture.
The earth is already hugely over populated and getting more so .
The last thing we need is to keep people alive longer.
All the while Wars Or famines etc happen to keep the numbers down

Only the rich will be able to afford it so most of us will die off normally

MrPudding

beefburrito wrote: »

You're wrong Mr P

Survival of the fittest doe's still apply in today's world.
Metaphorically speaking you're on the right track but in the mainstream it's the people who can afford the best treatment who are more liable for survival.

I don't know why you brought your God into this, that's kind of lame and outdated, maybe that applies to the forum over yonder....

That dark dreary place I frequently get banned or infractions in for being myself lol

Anyhow messing with DNA can be dangerous...

Have you watched gremlins ?

With respect to your point about god, read my sig.

It isn't really survival of the fittest or natural selection though, is it... Perhaps sexual or economic selection would be a more appropriate phrase.

MrP

uck51js9zml2yt

beefburrito wrote: »

You're wrong Mr P

Survival of the fittest doe's still apply in today's world.
Metaphorically speaking you're on the right track but in the mainstream it's the people who can afford the best treatment who are more liable for survival.

I don't know why you brought your God into this, that's kind of lame and outdated, maybe that applies to the forum over yonder....

That dark dreary place I frequently get banned or infractions in for being myself lol

Anyhow messing with DNA can be dangerous...

Have you watched gremlins ?

I watched Chimera back in the late 80's. Mix of animal/human DNA. If they were thinking about these things 30 years ago they've become reality now...just look at star trek. Mobile phones, AI's...

Hector Bellend

Any chance of a 12 inch mickey?

beefburrito

Hector Bellend wrote: »

Any chance of a 12 inch mickey?

Depends really, There's a Disney shop off Grafton Street....
Plenty of Mickey's there....
All sizes.

beefburrito

MrPudding wrote: »

With respect to your point about god, read my sig.

It isn't really survival of the fittest or natural selection though, is it... Perhaps sexual or economic selection would be a more appropriate phrase.

MrP

That's more appropriate MrP

I'll put that feather in my hat

server down

beefburrito wrote: »

That's more appropriate MrP

I'll put that feather in my hat

It’s how many kids you have. Not whether you personally survive.

MrPudding

server down wrote: »

It’s how many kids you have. Not whether you personally survive.

Well, it kind of is if you personally survive. Specifically, if you personally survive long enough to have kids...

MrP

server down

MrPudding wrote: »

Well, it kind of is if you personally survive. Specifically, if you personally survive long enough to have kids...

MrP

Yes, obviously. But you can be a Junkie and die at 30 having produced 4 kids and that beats the millionaire who lives to 90 who has had 2 kids.

MrPudding

server down wrote: »

Yes, obviously. But you can be a Junkie and die at 30 having produced 4 kids and that beats the millionaire who lives to 90 who has had 2 kids.

Of course. Do you think there is a genetic element to being a junkie or being a millionaire?

MrP

Wheeliebin30

Evolution, survival of the fittest.

Nature has a way of controlling population growth etc for its own good.

We continue to ignore it and try fight it.

It wont end well, probably with our extinction.

suicide_circus

Modern medicine keeps us alive long after our brains have turned to mush and the the thing that makes us who we are has gone.

One eyed Jack

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Evolution, survival of the fittest.

Nature has a way of controlling population growth etc for its own good.

We continue to ignore it and try fight it.

It wont end well, probably with our extinction.

Evolution is more down to just pure luck than any intent of nature (particularly as nature doesn't possess any characteristics, let alone intent!). Here's an article from 2014 that suggests reasons why homo sapiens may have diverged from neanderthals and other species, but it didn't happen without it's downsides, from our modern perspective at least (I'm not convinced about "evolutionary psychology") -

How are we different and what gave us the advantage over extinct types of humans like the Neanderthals?

There was a more recent paper I read (which I can't for the life of me find now) in which researchers used computer modelling to create the conditions to test their hypothesis that it was indeed down to just luck as to why homo sapiens evolved and neanderthals became extinct, and they discovered it really could have gone either way! Neanderthals may have survived today and homo sapiens have been the extinct species!

One of the things about technologies like this is that they are incredibly expensive, so for many of us even in the Western world, it will never become a 'standard' treatment, it will always be fringe medical science rather than anything Star Trekky where we'll be able to jump in a biochamber and have our DNA resequenced and refreshed like taking a morning shower (it's not immortality, but it's as close as!), so there's no need to go all Chicken Licken on that score.

What experimental treatments like this do however, is simply give us a greater understanding of human biology, which allows us to develop better treatments that can be applied to already existing and unforeseen as yet conditions. It gives us a significant advantage over nature in that it allows us to determine the course of our biology within our own lifetimes rather than competing against nature and evolution which takes place over millennia, certainly not overnight, or over the course of a couple of centuries, as you might be suggesting.

Gene editing isn't particularly new, but what was different about this technique is it's accuracy, like putting a scope on a blunderbuss, thereby actually reducing the risk of humans actually developing eyes in the back of their heads and all that other kind of freaky Twilight Zone/Black Mirror shìt :pac:

A Battered Mars Bar

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

We;re all going to live to be 200 years old. There's plenty of resources and the next generation will be overjoyed at funding our pensions.

Be grand.

Retire at 180?

server down

MrPudding wrote: »

Of course. Do you think there is a genetic element to being a junkie or being a millionaire?

MrP

No I don’t. However privileges of birth don’t have to be genetic.

Back to the point about fitness. There’s no survival of the fittest, or survival of the economically successful influencing human evolution these days.

MrPudding

server down wrote: »

No I don’t. However privileges of birth don’t have to be genetic.

No they don't, which is why your junkie/millionaire example seemed a little out of place.

server down wrote: »

Back to the point about fitness. There’s no survival of the fittest, or survival of the economically successful influencing human evolution these days.

I kind of agree with this, but don't think it is completely true. There certainly is still survival of the fittest. Any living organism that has not advanced to the point where it can fix or mitigate disadvantages cause by genetic mutation during reproduction, or simply does not have access to those fixes or mitigation, will, to a greater or lessor extent, still be subject to some "fittest" selection.

MrP

Kivaro

One eyed Jack wrote: »

....... it was indeed down to just luck as to why homo sapiens evolved and neanderthals became extinct, and they discovered it really could have gone either way! Neanderthals may have survived today and homo sapiens have been the extinct species!

You may find that this is actually the case in some Irish urban areas.

nozzferrahhtoo

beefburrito wrote: »

Survival of the fittest doe's still apply in today's world.
Metaphorically speaking you're on the right track but in the mainstream it's the people who can afford the best treatment who are more liable for survival.

Individually yes. But "survival of the fittest" is not a term invented for individuals. It describes the long term fecundity of their genes and future generations. And quite often the poorer classes are more prone to reproducing more (also the premise of that awful, but hopefully not prophetic, film "idiocracy").

Interestingly though I have read studies suggesting that people who reproduced LESS in the 1900s have more surviving decedents today than people who were pumping out the children. So number of off spring is merely a FACTOR in over all genetic fecundity, rather than an indicator.

But biologically we knew that already. Some species pump out 100s or 1000s of off spring at short intervals (was just studying the male sea horse recently who can give birth to 1000s in the morning and be pregnant again by supper time) and only a few individuals survive and reproduce.

nozzferrahhtoo

Gordon Tasteless Cilantro wrote: »

Odd thread title since God doesn't exist( in your book).

Not odd at all, it is called artistic license and people do it all the time. Like the old "God does not play dice with the universe" thing.

There are however mild forms of autism and schizophrenia were the patient is unable, or at least finds it very hard to, recognize metaphor.

Gordon Tasteless Cilantro wrote: »

So if evolution allowed them and its the evolution of the fittest, why are we wanting to get rid of what evolution wanted?

Sarcasm is over rated!

Depends how well sarcasm is done. It can be quite powerful when used as a rhetorical tool well.

But no, evolution does not "want" anything, nor is there any argument for us to pander to it now whether it did "want" it or not. Evolution is entirely free of narrative. We are not, and where the two do not meet we can prevail.

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

We;re all going to live to be 200 years old. There's plenty of resources and the next generation will be overjoyed at funding our pensions.

Be grand.

Ah don't fret yourself over that. Your brain is in the firing line for one or many of the dementia's

c_man

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Gordon Tasteless Cilantro wrote:

Odd thread title since God doesn't exist( in your book).

Not odd at all, it is called artistic license and people do it all the time. Like the old "God does not play dice with the universe" thing.

There are however mild forms of autism and schizophrenia were the patient is unable, or at least finds it very hard to, recognize metaphor.

What an utterly pathetic post.

RobertKK

People who lack intelligence need this before they are allowed to breed.

nozzferrahhtoo

c_man wrote: »

What an utterly pathetic post.

Self referential much? Or have you a point to make any time soon?