Changing and correcting existing genes is not creating new genes that produce new proteins. It is not the topic at hand. It is not possible to make a living complex multi-cell organism produce entirely new enzymes that would destroy certain harmful substances. It would be possible to inject those enzymes, though that would be a lifelong therapy (that's how diabetes gets treated, for instance). Such treatments are very expensive and cannot be done on the scale you proposed (such as giving the treatment to everyone for certain effects such as immunity against harmful substances).
Referring to a gene that codes a protein incorrectly as corrupted is not incorrect? It is a disadvantage and bad mutation, if you want to put it that way. The terminology is understood so it is not necessary to nitpick it.
Genetherapy has been incredibly unsuccessful, as I said.
Most textbooks on the subject are going to say exactly that. Of course there are hopes that gene therapy will become a good thing in the future, just not on the scale you proposed.
Here is a source, if you desire one. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/conte...apy/gtsuccess/
This thread is not about gene therapy anyway. It is about gmo. They are entirely different. It is not possible to enhance a complex multi-cell organism with new genes.
It is not possible to add new genes to a genome because it requires heavy manipulation that literally involves cutting existing genes and adding new ones, to put it simply.
That is done with individual cells. After the procedure they have to undergo a process of selection which kills off cells where genes have been added incorrectly. It is not possible to add genes to organisms with a 100% success rate. That is because the process involves a lot of chance. There are many possible outcomes which are not desirable. That is why after that procedure a procedure of selection has to take place.
Here is a simple graphic that explains it in laymen terms:
http://www.littletree.com.au/images/dna3.jpg
There are gmo cows and sheep that produce certain human proteins for medical purposes, such as insulin. There the gametes are manipulated, not the whole living organism. Note that the graphic I provided is about e. coli, which are bacteria. Their cells are by far not as complex as those of cows.
I have upcoming exams about that exact subject. If you desire so I can give you some keywords you can look up in order to educate yourself.
What you provided so far does not convince me you know anything about the subject.
Referring to a gene that codes a protein incorrectly as corrupted is not incorrect? It is a disadvantage and bad mutation, if you want to put it that way. The terminology is understood so it is not necessary to nitpick it.
Genetherapy has been incredibly unsuccessful, as I said.
Most textbooks on the subject are going to say exactly that. Of course there are hopes that gene therapy will become a good thing in the future, just not on the scale you proposed.
Here is a source, if you desire one. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/conte...apy/gtsuccess/
This thread is not about gene therapy anyway. It is about gmo. They are entirely different. It is not possible to enhance a complex multi-cell organism with new genes.
It is not possible to add new genes to a genome because it requires heavy manipulation that literally involves cutting existing genes and adding new ones, to put it simply.
That is done with individual cells. After the procedure they have to undergo a process of selection which kills off cells where genes have been added incorrectly. It is not possible to add genes to organisms with a 100% success rate. That is because the process involves a lot of chance. There are many possible outcomes which are not desirable. That is why after that procedure a procedure of selection has to take place.
Here is a simple graphic that explains it in laymen terms:
http://www.littletree.com.au/images/dna3.jpg
There are gmo cows and sheep that produce certain human proteins for medical purposes, such as insulin. There the gametes are manipulated, not the whole living organism. Note that the graphic I provided is about e. coli, which are bacteria. Their cells are by far not as complex as those of cows.
I have upcoming exams about that exact subject. If you desire so I can give you some keywords you can look up in order to educate yourself.
What you provided so far does not convince me you know anything about the subject.
Last edited by Redundant; Feb 6, 2015 at 12:33 PM.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
You are arbitrarily deciding that /this/ is different to everything else that has happened in history.
It sounds like an iPhone advert; "This changes everything" - um actually apple it's just another phone it's not that new really...
GM is comparable because in the context of divisions of society it is identical as countless things that have happened before.
Quit bringing up the iPhone - you recognise that we're not talking about products, so quit bringing it up. It's irrelevant to the discussion.
Just because gm acts as a division in society doesn't mean it will have the same effect as different divisions. This is just common sense. There are issues intimately unique to gm, just as there as issues intimately unique to Sunni/Shi'a muslims.
Now, you suggested that "If our sample size is all of history, and in all of these events the outcome has not been dystopic then we can safely assume that one more similar event won't be the straw to break the camel's back."
First off, I never said that gm would result in dystopia. I said the very opposite. I said it is unknowable. The only reason I mentioned dystopic sci-fi was because you said you couldn't see anyway that gm could go wrong. Those books postulate ways that it could go wrong. You can't think of a way that gm could go wrong, those people can. They'll help you think of ways that it can go wrong. That's all that point was.
You said "Got any arguments that aren't in the realm of fiction?". Well, I'm not basing my argument on sci-fi books, as I just said. My argument, which I've reiterated so many times, is that we don't know, so asserting something as being completing good or completely bad is very myopic. I really have no idea how you can keep misrepresenting me so badly - I stated this exact argument in pretty much all of my posts in this thread.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
At least it's not based on the assumption that your favourite dystopian book will come real!
Maybe there will be zombies too!!!1 AND LIGHTSABERS!111
I hope, now, that you can see how far removed from my argument your representation of it is.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Hate to tell you this mate but Rome broke up a while ago. I don't think the 'capite censi' are still around :/
.
So?
You said, "Land/landless classes? First I've heard of it". I educated you. You're welcome.
Originally Posted by Ele
Quit bringing up the iPhone - you recognise that we're not talking about products, so quit bringing it up. It's irrelevant to the discussion.
Just because gm acts as a division in society doesn't mean it will have the same effect as different divisions. This is just common sense. There are issues intimately unique to gm, just as there as issues intimately unique to Sunni/Shi'a muslims.
Now, you suggested that "If our sample size is all of history, and in all of these events the outcome has not been dystopic then we can safely assume that one more similar event won't be the straw to break the camel's back."
First off, I never said that gm would result in dystopia. I said the very opposite. I said it is unknowable. The only reason I mentioned dystopic sci-fi was because you said you couldn't see anyway that gm could go wrong. Those books postulate ways that it could go wrong. You can't think of a way that gm could go wrong, those people can. They'll help you think of ways that it can go wrong. That's all that point was.
You said "Got any arguments that aren't in the realm of fiction?". Well, I'm not basing my argument on sci-fi books, as I just said. My argument, which I've reiterated so many times, is that we don't know, so asserting something as being completing good or completely bad is very myopic. I really have no idea how you can keep misrepresenting me so badly - I stated this exact argument in pretty much all of my posts in this thread.
I hope, now, that you can see how far removed from my argument your representation of it is.
So?
You said, "Land/landless classes? First I've heard of it". I educated you. You're welcome.
Your argument doesn't seem to have any substance. You don't commit to any position other than "you are wrong".
My argument that it is realistic to assume there will be no dystopic class warfare is apparently not good enough for you, but the scenario you propose is far less likely (as in, practically impossible).
Yes, there are no 100%, but let's try and be realistic about this ok?
The fact that a historical situation ended a while ago or existed only for a short time does not support the hypothesis for a dystopic future, it supports the hypothesis that nothing significant will happen.
Originally Posted by Redundant
Changing and correcting existing genes is not creating new genes that produce new proteins. It is not the topic at hand. It is not possible to make a living complex multi-cell organism produce entirely new enzymes that would destroy certain harmful substances. It would be possible to inject those enzymes, though that would be a lifelong therapy (that's how diabetes gets treated, for instance). Such treatments are very expensive and cannot be done on the scale you proposed (such as giving the treatment to everyone for certain effects such as immunity against harmful substances).
Referring to a gene that codes a protein incorrectly as corrupted is not incorrect? It is a disadvantage and bad mutation, if you want to put it that way. The terminology is understood so it is not necessary to nitpick it.
Genetherapy has been incredibly unsuccessful, as I said.
Most textbooks on the subject are going to say exactly that. Of course there are hopes that gene therapy will become a good thing in the future, just not on the scale you proposed.
Here is a source, if you desire one. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/conte...apy/gtsuccess/
This thread is not about gene therapy anyway. It is about gmo. They are entirely different. It is not possible to enhance a complex multi-cell organism with new genes.
It is not possible to add new genes to a genome because it requires heavy manipulation that literally involves cutting existing genes and adding new ones, to put it simply.
That is done with individual cells. After the procedure they have to undergo a process of selection which kills off cells where genes have been added incorrectly. It is not possible to add genes to organisms with a 100% success rate. That is because the process involves a lot of chance. There are many possible outcomes which are not desirable. That is why after that procedure a procedure of selection has to take place.
Here is a simple graphic that explains it in laymen terms:
http://www.littletree.com.au/images/dna3.jpg
There are gmo cows and sheep that produce certain human proteins for medical purposes, such as insulin. There the gametes are manipulated, not the whole living organism. Note that the graphic I provided is about e. coli, which are bacteria. Their cells are by far not as complex as those of cows.
I have upcoming exams about that exact subject. If you desire so I can give you some keywords you can look up in order to educate yourself.
What you provided so far does not convince me you know anything about the subject.
Judging a technology by the bureaucratic / legal barriers it faces is misleading. To say it is unsuccessful because there aren't enough trials/end products is bogus. As per your article, the technology is successful and advancing rapidly - although I don't think judgement on such small sample sizes is really relevant, you are the one who wanted to do that...
GT was brought up in discussion of GM as you well know, discussing it is fine.
There are many methods for genetic engineering.
If your aim was to convince me that you know what you are talking about, maybe you should steer clear of manipulating the facts and saying things that are incorrect.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Okay, point out where I even brought up bureaucratic and legal barriers.
I brought up technical issues and textbook knowledge.
Actually, don't bother. I just hope for your sake you are trolling.
Seeing as you responded very fast it is evident that you did not bother informing yourself. You just want to be right with the things you assume you know.
…sad
I brought up technical issues and textbook knowledge.
Actually, don't bother. I just hope for your sake you are trolling.
Seeing as you responded very fast it is evident that you did not bother informing yourself. You just want to be right with the things you assume you know.
…sad
Originally Posted by Redundant
Okay, point out where I even brought up bureaucratic and legal barriers.
I brought up technical issues and textbook knowledge.
Originally Posted by Redundant
Genetherapy has been incredibly unsuccessful
Here is a source, if you desire one. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/conte...apy/gtsuccess/
Assuming you weren't just randomly posting sources for the hell of it.
Read the link and find out why they said it is not successful.
Originally Posted by Redundant
Actually, don't bother. I just hope for your sake you are trolling.
Seeing as you responded very fast it is evident that you did not bother informing yourself. You just want to be right with the things you assume you know.
…sad
You responded faster therefore you are even worse informed.
Why do you hate discussion so much? Always shitposting.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
