Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Genetically Enhanced Humans

13»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 62 ✭✭gothicus


    While I did think it was obvious that you'd also deny that people are born
    gay despite the fact most reputable mental health organizations would claim
    otherwise I'm always cautious & like to test the waters before I wade in ;)
    I didn't want to assume something so ridiculous but there you go.



    The key word here, it's your anecdotal comments & personal beliefs versus
    hundreds of studies on the issues of addiction & homosexuality.
    I guess your anecdotal evidence is enough to convince us that all these
    scientists are in fact doing their jobs wrong & that the evidence they've
    found in favour of the conclusion that there is a significant genetic
    predisposition to addiction is explainable in every single case by some
    mystery phenomenon. +1 on the elitist perception of homosexual people
    too btw :cool: I haven't actually read anyone on this website, to my
    recollection, that's actually said something like "their attraction to the
    same sex merely arises from a state of confusion due to possibly having
    poor life relationships
    " & been serious, I dare you to go to the LGBT
    forum and ask the people there about their confused & poor lives,
    but in a nice, serious & honest way so that they know you're not
    spamming but genuinely believe this seeing as it appears you do, I'm sure
    every 'excuse' they give will just be a cover but it's worth a shot just
    in case you might be wrong, though I don't mean to insinuate that at all.

    Reputable health organizations, like the HSE? or other organisations that make new medicine for errrrr profit i mean the benifit of mankind! ok if you think they are reputable I will leave you in your fantasy world. Yes I am mainly using my own personal beliefs and experiences as a basis for argument, perhaps my lack of faith in doctors pushes me more towards having a sceptical view of medical jargon. I firmly belive a person is not born gay for many reasons but the most poignant one been sexual maturity does not happen until puberty. If you can show me were the GAY GENE is in the human body I will stand corrected?!


    PS

    Ive no need to go onto the gay forums as I would no doubt be classed a homophobic heretic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    gothicus
    Most people will not experience drugs until the teen age years.
    gothicus
    the most poignant one been sexual maturity does not happen until puberty
    Are you claiming that genetic effects have to happen from an early age?

    Many genes do not show their effect early in life. Male baldness is an inherited characteristic and you only get that after puberty for example.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    gothicus wrote: »
    People are born free, its the enviroment around them that is the only influence.
    gothicus wrote: »
    ive already stated (it doesnt even need to be stated!) that all humans take a lot from there parents.
    I can't quite understand your position on the nature/nurture debate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    gothicus wrote: »
    it may sound obivious but ive dont believe a person can be born gay, the clear genitic make up of a man and a women confirms this. its hard to pin point how a person becomes gay but I would tend to believe their attraction to the same sex merely arises from a state of confusion due to possibly having poor life relationships.

    Your argument is convincing.

    What do you mean the 'clear genitic' make up confirms that a person can't be born gay?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    gothicus wrote: »
    If you can show me were the GAY GENE is in the human body I will stand corrected?!
    gothicus wrote: »
    it may sound obivious but ive dont believe a person can be born gay, the clear genitic make up of a man and a women confirms this. its hard to pin point how a person becomes gay but I would tend to believe their attraction to the same sex merely arises from a state of confusion due to possibly having poor life relationships.

    You don't know the first thing about genetics. You can't even spell the word. You've clearly never read an actual book on the topic, at most I'd say you're basing your views on pop culture and the ignorant opinions of your mates in the pub. You're one more small minded person who is happy to spout ignorant opinions about something you frankly just do not understand.

    "show me were the GAY GENE is in the human body" seriously? lol, you've a five years old's comprehension of this topic. I literally know children who understand more about this than you.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    I'm going to give Gothicus the benefit of the doubt here going by his posts and presume he is just misunderstanding what people are saying.

    Man nobody is claiming that if somebodies parents were, for instance, addicted to cocaine at some stage in their life then their children will be doomed to some unavoidable fatalistic destiny of cocaine addiction. Also no one is saying that the environment has nothing to do with it, everyone here I'm sure will, and some already have, say that environment plays a very important part. But there is a huge amount of evidence to suggest that the tendency toward addiction has a genetic factor.

    For example there is a gene called CYP2A6. This gene has been studied extensively in many different countries and by many different organisations for a variety of different reasons. Googling "CYP2A6" which is a very specific phrase, will give half a million results on google if you want to have a look through some of it. This is the main enzyme for oxidating nicotine. Nicotine is what is primarily responsible tobacco addiction. It is a known and undisputed fact that the state of this gene controls how much nicotine will get to your brain with each lungful of smoke. It is also an undisputed fact that this gene is different in different people. Now just think about that for a minute.

    Now say two kids in school, two adoptive brothers, they have grown up together as babies, did everything together, had extremely similar environments. Now they are in school and feeling a bit rebellious as kids do and so they decide to buy a few packs of smokes to impress the cool kids. They smoke all the smokes.

    Now brother A and brother B have different versions of the CYP2A6 gene. So by the time brother A has smoked all his smokes almost all the nicotine has made it's way to his brain. But brother B due to his variant of the gene has smoked all his smokes but barely any nicotine has made it through. This means brother A will have gotten the buzz, he will have felt pretty good after smoking and due to the fact he has absorbed a lot of nicotine, addiction will have set in. He will be craving more smokes tomorrow. But brother B will have got no buzz off the smokes, he will have just felt nauseous and because little nicotine will have gotten through he will not have become addicted, he will not be craving them tomorrow.

    Now CYP2A6 is a gene. The above is what this gene does. This gene is different in different people. Will you except that this gene could have a part to play in who will be more likely to become addicted to tobacco? Not the only part to play, environment can have a part too. But will you except this gene also plays a part?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 62 ✭✭gothicus


    cavedave wrote: »
    Are you claiming that genetic effects have to happen from an early age?

    Many genes do not show their effect early in life. Male baldness is an inherited characteristic and you only get that after puberty for example.

    No not at all, the question here was 'can someone be born gay?' People do not become sexualy active until puberty, so I cannot agree that someone was born gay. The question only arises when a person becomes aware of their own sexuality. I would argue that been homosexual is another one of lifes fables which the persons either chooses to be or may have thrust upon them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 62 ✭✭gothicus


    robindch wrote: »
    I can't quite understand your position on the nature/nurture debate.


    we are all born the same flesh and blood but end up different due to our experiences.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 62 ✭✭gothicus


    liamw wrote: »
    Your argument is convincing.

    What do you mean the 'clear genitic' make up confirms that a person can't be born gay?

    Clear genitic make up is who you are when you are born, there is nothing to suggest, as far as i am concerened, that suggests that person X is gay becasue he has the 'a gay gene', that is pure myth. I can reason the possibilites that in the birth process, that the old X and Y chromosomes may be displaced from time to time but thats only common knowledge.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 62 ✭✭gothicus


    Zillah wrote: »
    You don't know the first thing about genetics. You can't even spell the word. You've clearly never read an actual book on the topic, at most I'd say you're basing your views on pop culture and the ignorant opinions of your mates in the pub. You're one more small minded person who is happy to spout ignorant opinions about something you frankly just do not understand.

    "show me were the GAY GENE is in the human body" seriously? lol, you've a five years old's comprehension of this topic. I literally know children who understand more about this than you.

    I am no doctor of genetics, never said I was, perhaps you are? that does not mean I dont know the first thing about it. The fact your labelling me with your childish jibes as ignorant does not make me wish to continue posting to someone who cannot make an argument except to use put downs and the possible link to some doctors page about genetics that you googled. Grow up. I take what I read, dissect it and form my own opinion as best I can.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 62 ✭✭gothicus


    strobe wrote: »
    I'm going to give Gothicus the benefit of the doubt here going by his posts and presume he is just misunderstanding what people are saying.

    Man nobody is claiming that if somebodies parents were, for instance, addicted to cocaine at some stage in their life then their children will be doomed to some unavoidable fatalistic destiny of cocaine addiction. Also no one is saying that the environment has nothing to do with it, everyone here I'm sure will, and some already have, say that environment plays a very important part. But there is a huge amount of evidence to suggest that the tendency toward addiction has a genetic factor.

    For example there is a gene called CYP2A6. This gene has been studied extensively in many different countries and by many different organisations for a variety of different reasons. Googling "CYP2A6" which is a very specific phrase, will give half a million results on google if you want to have a look through some of it. This is the main enzyme for oxidating nicotine. Nicotine is what is primarily responsible tobacco addiction. It is a known and undisputed fact that the state of this gene controls how much nicotine will get to your brain with each lungful of smoke. It is also an undisputed fact that this gene is different in different people. Now just think about that for a minute.

    Now say two kids in school, two adoptive brothers, they have grown up together as babies, did everything together, had extremely similar environments. Now they are in school and feeling a bit rebellious as kids do and so they decide to buy a few packs of smokes to impress the cool kids. They smoke all the smokes.

    Now brother A and brother B have different versions of the CYP2A6 gene. So by the time brother A has smoked all his smokes almost all the nicotine has made it's way to his brain. But brother B due to his variant of the gene has smoked all his smokes but barely any nicotine has made it through. This means brother A will have gotten the buzz, he will have felt pretty good after smoking and due to the fact he has absorbed a lot of nicotine, addiction will have set in. He will be craving more smokes tomorrow. But brother B will have got no buzz off the smokes, he will have just felt nauseous and because little nicotine will have gotten through he will not have become addicted, he will not be craving them tomorrow.

    Now CYP2A6 is a gene. The above is what this gene does. This gene is different in different people. Will you except that this gene could have a part to play in who will be more likely to become addicted to tobacco? Not the only part to play, environment can have a part too. But will you except this gene also plays a part?

    Of course, it very plausible, and the example you have shown I can relate to. No doubt there are physical things inside of us that differ from one person to the next which make us individually do things another would not. I do find it hard though to zone in on a particular ‘gene’ and say that that is the sole reason why this person will become an addicted smoker or not. Far greater is the conditioning we go through in life which will make one person do one thing while another may not but altering a specific gene is not the answer to improving some sort of quality of life or pre-changing their future opinions of things like alcohol sex and drugs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    gothicus wrote: »
    Of course, it very plausible, and the example you have shown I can relate to. No doubt there are physical things inside of us that differ from one person to the next which make us individually do things another would not. I do find it hard though to zone in on a particular ‘gene’ and say that that is the sole reason why this person will become an addicted smoker or not. Far greater is the conditioning we go through in life which will make one person do one thing while another may not but altering a specific gene is not the answer to improving some sort of quality of life or pre-changing their future opinions of things like alcohol sex and drugs.

    K grand. But you except that genetics can play a part in addiction, yes?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    gothicus wrote: »
    we are all born the same flesh and blood but end up different due to our experiences.
    If this is your belief -- and what you've written suggests to me that your beliefs are strongly Freudian, aka entirely nurture/political-side vs nature -- then I suggest that you read up on basic behavioral genetics so that you can get a handle on what people are talking about.

    Or have a read of something like the following web page:

    http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml

    .


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    gothicus wrote: »
    altering a specific gene is not the answer to improving some sort of quality of life
    You might find reading up on Gene Therapy interesting too:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    gothicus wrote: »
    that does not mean I dont know the first thing about it

    Well you don't. You don't seem to even understand what a gene is, which makes it pretty damn ironic that you're in here telling people much better informed than you how genetics works.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,092 ✭✭✭CiaranMT




    Posted already in the Funny thread but it seems apt here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    gothicus wrote: »
    No not at all, the question here was 'can someone be born gay?' People do not become sexualy active until puberty, so I cannot agree that someone was born gay. The question only arises when a person becomes aware of their own sexuality. I would argue that been homosexual is another one of lifes fables which the persons either chooses to be or may have thrust upon them.

    So people are born with no sexual predilections? Where do they come from then? If people dont have a genetic drive to reproduce, then why do they at all?
    gothicus wrote: »
    we are all born the same flesh and blood but end up different due to our experiences.

    So everyones genes are the same when they are born? Individuality arises purely from enviromental differences?
    gothicus wrote: »
    Clear genitic make up is who you are when you are born, there is nothing to suggest, as far as i am concerened, that suggests that person X is gay becasue he has the 'a gay gene', that is pure myth.

    Again, are everyoines genes identical when they are born? Why is it that you are the only one offering the myth of "x gene makes someone x"? Everyone else has only described the case of "x gene makes someone more likely to be x"
    gothicus wrote: »
    I can reason the possibilites that in the birth process, that the old X and Y chromosomes may be displaced from time to time but thats only common knowledge.

    Er, what?
    gothicus wrote: »
    I am no doctor of genetics, never said I was, perhaps you are? that does not mean I dont know the first thing about it.

    Your complete ignorance of what genes influence betrays your complete lack of understanding of genetics.
    gothicus wrote: »
    The fact your labelling me with your childish jibes as ignorant does not make me wish to continue posting to someone who cannot make an argument except to use put downs and the possible link to some doctors page about genetics that you googled. Grow up. I take what I read, dissect it and form my own opinion as best I can.

    And being completely ignorant of the subject doesn't make you pause in your mutilation of the information?
    gothicus wrote: »
    Of course, it very plausible, and the example you have shown I can relate to. No doubt there are physical things inside of us that differ from one person to the next which make us individually do things another would not. I do find it hard though to zone in on a particular ‘gene’ and say that that is the sole reason why this person will become an addicted smoker or not.

    The only one offering this hypothesis is you. We are all talking of genes increasing the likelyhood of addiction, no one has said any particular gene guarantees it.
    gothicus wrote: »
    Far greater is the conditioning we go through in life which will make one person do one thing while another may not but altering a specific gene is not the answer to improving some sort of quality of life or pre-changing their future opinions of things like alcohol sex and drugs.

    Why? Genes define how we react to our enviroment, altering them changes how we react to the enviroment. We may not be able to stop people cold turkey, but there is no reason why we couldn't reduce the chemical dependence someone has for some addictive substance, thereby improving their quality of life. Do you have any evidence that conditioning far outweighs genetics in terms of peoples actions? Surely peoples susceptiblity to conditioning is (partially) dependent on genetics?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,092 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    Gothicus,

    I'm going to presume you are a heterosexual male here for this question.

    What made you choose to be straight?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 62 ✭✭gothicus


    CiaranMT wrote: »
    Gothicus,

    I'm going to presume you are a heterosexual malehere for this question.

    What made you choose to be straight?


    sorry to dig this therad back up but ima noobie to boards and a slow poster!!

    yeah i am a heterosexual male, I didnt choose to be straight, I guess I was just created properly, hope that doesnt sound to offensive to any homosexuals reading this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 62 ✭✭gothicus


    So people are born with no sexual predilections? Where do they come from then? If people dont have a genetic drive to reproduce, then why do they at all?
    I was say only hetrosexual predilections which become changed over the course of ones life.
    So everyones genes are the same when they are born? Individuality arises purely from enviromental differences?

    im no master on the subject of genes but clearly we all not born all the same.





    Your complete ignorance of what genes influence betrays your complete lack of understanding of genetics.

    true, but i dont believe a person can be born homosexual because of the way they were created.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 62 ✭✭gothicus


    robindch wrote: »
    You might find reading up on Gene Therapy interesting too:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy

    thanks for the links. my argument on this thread merely came from the side that we should not tamper with the natural creation process to produce some sort of superhuman beings.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,553 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    gothicus wrote: »
    I didnt choose to be straight, I guess I was just created properly
    gothicus wrote: »
    i dont believe a person can be born homosexual because of the way they were created.
    Leaving aside the mildly offensive intimations (which you are going to discontinue or face consequences) the above is a complete logical FAIL.

    Choose your next words carefully or this thread will be closed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,092 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    gothicus wrote: »
    sorry to dig this therad back up but ima noobie to boards and a slow poster!!

    yeah i am a heterosexual male, I didnt choose to be straight, I guess I was just created properly, hope that doesnt sound to offensive to any homosexuals reading this.

    That makes no sense, going by your previous logic, as Dades points out above. Heterosexual people don't choose to be so, but homosexual people do?

    Also, your last paragraph is borderline flaming, it's totally offensive. And that's coming from a heterosexual male.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    gothicus wrote: »
    I was say only hetrosexual predilections which become changed over the course of ones life.

    This doesn't gel with what you said earlier: People do not become sexualy active until puberty, so I cannot agree that someone was born gay.
    How is it only homosexual prediliction that is influenced after birth and not heterosexual too? Do you not agree that heterosexual preferences are not determined by our enviroments and experiences too (favour blondes over brunettes, athletic over curvacious etc)? What biological or psychological method do you suppose turns people gay? Where did the first gay people come from?
    gothicus wrote: »
    im no master on the subject of genes but clearly we all not born all the same.

    But then what does "we are all born the same flesh and blood but end up different due to our experiences" mean? Were you not saying that biologically, we are all the same, but enviromentally we are different? What do you think we are, biologically speaking, if not opur genes? If our genes dont influence us in terms of our flesh and blood, what do you think they are for?
    gothicus wrote: »
    true, but i dont believe a person can be born homosexual because of the way they were created.

    What do you mean "because of the way they were created"? Created by who?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    gothicus wrote: »
    thanks for the links. my argument on this thread merely came from the side that we should not tamper with the natural creation process to produce some sort of superhuman beings.

    Might we not be considered superhuman beings compared to our ancestors a hundred thousand years ago? We are longer lived, more intelligent and have better technology.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    recedite wrote: »
    Yes folks, it's on the way; technology to make your descendants smarter and fitter. The type of genetic engineering currently practised in the western world (gene therapy) involves the making of changes to cells which are not involved in reproduction. So they may cure a disease, but the cure is not inherited by the next generation. The reason for this is ethics. The law does not allow scientists to play God.
    But what if the law was written by atheists, as in China?
    8 years later, the first genetically enhanced humans make their debut on planet Earth (In China, as expected).


    Thereby ushering in a new era; the future belongs to Homo sapiens GM+.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07545-0
    A Chinese scientist claims to have helped make the world’s first genome-edited babies — twin girls, who were born this month. The announcement has provoked shock and outrage among scientists around the world.
    He Jiankui, a genome-editing researcher at the Southern University of Science and Technology of China in Shenzhen, says that he impregnated a woman with embryos that had been edited to disable the genetic pathway HIV uses to infect cells.
    Humans with the HIV immunity enhancement.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    Has He Jiankui actually provided evidence of his claim. The last I heard he hasn't presented any verifiable evidence (he has also gone missing). It's also only some forms of HIv they'd be resistant to, if true.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Fourier wrote: »
    Has He Jiankui actually provided evidence of his claim. The last I heard he hasn't presented any verifiable evidence (he has also gone missing). It's also only some forms of HIv they'd be resistant to, if true.

    Apparently he's in Shenzhen and facing charges - and the possibility of the death penalty - for corruption, bribery, and for violating state research guidelines.



    https://gizmodo.com/chinese-scientist-who-created-crispr-babies-could-face-1831553751


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Anyone else here read 'A crack in creation'? it looks very much like low cost back yard gene-hacking is here to stay and we'll see much more of this in the future. Prometheus' little mud men may just have found their own pool of mud to play with.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    "Gene Silencing" is now officially a good thing.

    Doctors say they are "genuinely surprised" how successful it is and that the same approach could be used in previously untreatable diseases.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/health-47907971


Advertisement