Evolution, atificialy

**Silver Guard** · October 31, 2006, 09:37 AM

The Man Vs Machine thread had me thinking

Evolution is a gradual process, and no this is not a bait to creationalists, if we have any
What about speeding it up a little?
Yes, I'm speaking the unthinkable, artificialy altering mankind, whether it be genetic or physicly, whether it be to imporve man generaly or produce humans more capable of certain tasks then others
It can be done, genes can be spliced to add attributes not naturaly ours, already experiments on flies have shown it was possible, whether it be giving the fly a sting, or pincers. Equaly matirals can be built capable to tune in to nervous information, making new specialised arms to replace your own for example...
Your thoughts?

**Pnutmaster** · November 01, 2006, 06:05 PM

Allow evolution to take its course.

I firmly believe that tampering with human genetics is an art that is beyond us. Until we know precisely what each nucleotide sequence codes for in terms of human traits, I think it is foolish to genetically modify a human being.

Yes, we already alter the DNA of plants and animals, and have been practicing artificial selection (domestication) ever since the dawn of civilization, but there is something inhumane about creating an 'artificial' human.

Genetically engineering humans with natural immunities to diseases, for example, might strip them of unintentional immunities against (sickle cell anemia) diseases of the future. We can't possibly foresee every consequence of messing with nature...

**Sétanta** · November 01, 2006, 06:13 PM

No. I feel that tampering with genetics is a road to disaster. Not only because from a religious standpoint it is not ours to mess with, but even messing with what nature gave us. In the millions of years of human evolution we adapted to things we really need, we changed the way we are because we needed to change. Editing human genetics would probably lead to more harm than good in the long run, even though it might have short term benefits.

**the Eternal Cocoon** · November 01, 2006, 09:13 PM

Human genetic engineering is a definite achievement of the future. But until then we have no means of doing it right now. We know very little about the human genome, as as far as the genetics that would matter for human beings ( intellect), we know even less( not even taking into account that there is no smarter animal from whom we could splice genes). We will have to wait until biologists decode the human genome down to the nucleotide and promoter. Once that happens it might be possible for us to engineer the genome ourselves instead of splicing.

Originally Posted by Mudd

No. I feel that tampering with genetics is a road to disaster. Not only because from a religious standpoint it is not ours to mess with, but even messing with what nature gave us. In the millions of years of human evolution we adapted to things we really need, we changed the way we are because we needed to change. Editing human genetics would probably lead to more harm than good in the long run, even though it might have short term benefits.

actually there is no more human evolution. Once medicine and food production got to a certain level human beings began dying not of unadapted genetics but because of sheer luck. For example Charles II of Spain had down syndrome, and his ancestry was increasingly inbred as it approached him in lineage ( same could be said for all the hapsburgs, who were rulers of almost every important nation in Europe for several centuries, and interbreeded amongst themselves). Point is that good traits are no longer selected from the population, as someone that is succesful, such as a president or a buisenss tycoon, has no more chances for survival or passing on his genes than the average guy in the world, if not less ( which is probobly is considering that most asuccesful people nowa days dont have many children, while poorer people of the world do). Over an infinite amount of time human lineage would lead to a society so phisicly and mentally degraded it would not be able to maintain what we created for them much less improve on it, and would most likely die out after a while.

It would still technically be evolution, as evolution has no purpose to it, but a natural outcome of more adapted creatures passing on more genes to the population. Human beings are unique to this world in that we can have purpose. It was that purpose, however primordial, that dragged us out of the jungles and into the streets. And its that purpose that can guide us in genetic engineering. Engineering the human genome today would lead to more harm than good, as we would be taking stabs in the dark. But every day we learn more of our own genome and of exactly how DNA works. It is inevitable that if we continue research with time we will get to a point where out knowledge and capabilities will allow us to successfully create desired traits.

**Silver Guard** · November 02, 2006, 10:37 AM

Pnutmaster: It is not beyond us, the human genome project identified almost all of our genes for what they are, and what effect they have, we already geneticly modify bacteria to produce insulin, and rats to produce human ears.

Mudd:How could it possibly cause harm? How could changing the genes of one group of people to produce those perhaps less harmed by heat, be a bad thing? What in the end is more intelligent, blind striving for survival or the human intellectual capacity to know exactly what to change towards

**Siblesz** · November 02, 2006, 10:42 AM

If we ever want to survive and evolve as a species, yes. But as some have said, give it time and plenty of scientific research. Fifteen to thirty years will do to pull it off.

Pnutmaster: It is not beyond us, the human genome project identified almost all of our genes for what they are, and what effect they have, we already geneticly modify bacteria to produce insulin, and rats to produce human ears.

We broke the genetic code, yes, but there's a myriad of little intricacies in the code that we still need to figure out. It's not as clear cut as it might seem.

**Valentin the II** · November 02, 2006, 10:48 AM

Im all for it.
But I dont think we'r ready yet.
Alot of testing needs to be done, biotechnology is a very tricky buisnes (I should know).
I know the perfect "first alteration":
It apiers that scientists have found the aging gene.
It has alreasy been tested on mice, its alteration makes the mice live 6 times longer.
Imagine what efact can it have on us

!

**Bovril** · November 06, 2006, 01:32 PM

I think it should be bourne in mind that there is not a great deal about humans that we could conceivably change. Dreams of a Neitzschian superman built on getetic engineering are ill founded. Sure we can eliminate certain genes predispose us towards certain diseases (we could do that with eugenics). And maybe even increase life spans. But more fundemental alterations to humanity are inconceivable at the moment. For example, the human brain is of such a size and strucuture that if it were any larger or more complex, it would most likely make us less rather than more intelligent. The idea of adding physiological features, or altering the size of others would need immense amounts of trial and error style research (just as evolution works by trail and error (and there is a hell of a lot of error)) since huan physiology is so finely balanced, and even small abnormalities can be cripalling, or more often be the cause of huge amounts of pain.

**Lord Snibb** · November 07, 2006, 09:53 PM

It seems like a good idea. It's not.

That is probably the worst idea in the long, long, unbelivably long history of bad ideas. Overt genetic engineering on humans is a bad idea. Even from a strictly scientific standpoint, it is a bad idea.

We can grow human ears on mice. Good for us. Does that benifit the mice? I highly doubt that. There is a reason mice did not evolve human ears. Similiarly, there is a reason that mice do not lives six times as long. Reason being? There would be six times a many mice. That is not a good thing. Now what if we had six times as many humans? That would be an incrediblity bad thing, especially considering the fact about 85% would be old and just be taking up space (from an evolutionary standpoint. No disrepect to old people.)

Making large, overt changes in humans would also be a very low-percentage move. A low chance of success and horrible consequences of failure do not sit well with me. As was just said, their would be a lot of error that would cause (understatement of the year) "unpleasant side effects." And not only that, think about how humans bred with different abilities would interact. Polically, it would be hell. Its like communism and caste system on a stick. Plus, huge discrimination and hate between the groups. Because lets face it: humans as a whole are too intolerant. If they don't tolerate people of different races now, how do you think the strong-arms will treat the heat-restisters?

Note also: All these changes must be made before birth. If I want strong arms, and I'm not born with the trait, just giving it to me is basically impossible. You'd have to alter billions of identically DNA strans.

Even minor changes to gain immunity to toxins/disease are a bad idea. Why? Two reasons.

One: Not only to bactaria evolve faster than use, they evolve faster than our technology increases. Your grandparents were likely born 60-100+ years ago (depending on you age). The bactaria living on your scalp? His grandparents were born two days ago.

Two: Overpopulation is an issue. If disease is killing people, especially the elderly (who, again I have no disrepect for) they are cutting down the population. This is good. Is it a cruel, ruthless perpective? Yes. Is it benificial to the human race? Yes.

Of course, scientists won't listen to this. There're out to change history and make a name for themselves. I just hope I die before the negative effects of this kick in, which I undoubtedly will (it will take 100+ years for this to have any noticable effect.)

**Silver Guard** · November 08, 2006, 01:26 AM

It seems like a good idea. It's not.

That is probably the worst idea in the long, long, unbelivably long history of bad ideas. Overt genetic engineering on humans is a bad idea. Even from a strictly scientific standpoint, it is a bad idea.

You're opinion

We can grow human ears on mice. Good for us. Does that benifit the mice? I highly doubt that. There is a reason mice did not evolve human ears. Similiarly, there is a reason that mice do not lives six times as long. Reason being? There would be six times a many mice. That is not a good thing. Now what if we had six times as many humans? That would be an incrediblity bad thing, especially considering the fact about 85% would be old and just be taking up space (from an evolutionary standpoint. No disrepect to old people.)

Note how the population of Europe, minus Immigration, is at a standstill, in Germany and Russia it is falling. The birth rate is falling rapidly to such an extent in many countries the birth rate is now less then 1 per couple, and so the population falls. In china, it is marginaly more then one per couple. The population cannot rise under those conditions, no matter how long we live. We live 4 times longer? Our birth rate will fall.

Making large, overt changes in humans would also be a very low-percentage move. A low chance of success and horrible consequences of failure do not sit well with me. As was just said, their would be a lot of error that would cause (understatement of the year) "unpleasant side effects."

Go on, go through the unpleasant side effects you so knowingly proclaim as so much the majority effect.

And not only that, think about how humans bred with different abilities would interact. Polically, it would be hell. Its like communism and caste system on a stick. Plus, huge discrimination and hate between the groups. Because lets face it: humans as a whole are too intolerant. If they don't tolerate people of different races now, how do you think the strong-arms will treat the heat-restisters?

No differently that whites treat blacks, or straights treat gays, or Asians treat blonds. Discrimination is not nearly as rife as it was a hundred years ago, with a global culture it will continue to fall, these people will enter a society fit for them

Note also: All these changes must be made before birth. If I want strong arms, and I'm not born with the trait, just giving it to me is basically impossible. You'd have to alter billions of identically DNA strans.

only if you're after genetic modification, what of mechanical modification? Having your arms replaced with far stronger mechanical arms stimulated by the same nerves

One: Not only to bactaria evolve faster than use, they evolve faster than our technology increases. Your grandparents were likely born 60-100+ years ago (depending on you age). The bactaria living on your scalp? His grandparents were born two days ago.

Yes? And this matters how? These ideas are not going to cause a technological standstill, nor will immunity to a strain of bacteria harm our immunity to others

Two: Overpopulation is an issue. If disease is killing people, especially the elderly (who, again I have no disrepect for) they are cutting down the population. This is good. Is it a cruel, ruthless perpective? Yes. Is it benificial to the human race? Yes.

Birth control is also an issue, it occurs in China and India (to a lesser extent in the latter) in an attempt to control their population, as I said above, Europe is in no position to increace in population very rapidly

Of course, scientists won't listen to this. There're out to change history and make a name for themselves. I just hope I die before the negative effects of this kick in, which I undoubtedly will (it will take 100+ years for this to have any noticable effect.)

I am no scientist, I am a student, and it is due to the arguments above that they won't listen to you, or others far more informed then mine

**Lord Snibb** · November 08, 2006, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by silver guard

You're opinion

Yes.

Note how the population of Europe, minus Immigration, is at a standstill, in Germany and Russia it is falling. The birth rate is falling rapidly to such an extent in many countries the birth rate is now less then 1 per couple, and so the population falls. In china, it is marginaly more then one per couple. The population cannot rise under those conditions, no matter how long we live. We live 4 times longer? Our birth rate will fall.

The fact is the human population is increasing, and it is already too high. The world does not have the resources to support so many people on a modern technological level.

Go on, go through the unpleasant side effects you so knowingly proclaim as so much the majority effect.

If there is the slightest, most minute error anywhere in the genetic code, your odds of survival are next to zero. If one pair of nucleic acids is slightly out of place, the whole thing will be ruined.

No differently that whites treat blacks, or straights treat gays, or Asians treat blonds. Discrimination is not nearly as rife as it was a hundred years ago, with a global culture it will continue to fall, these people will enter a society fit for them.

The caste system this would undoubtedly lead to would cause much more discrimination than that. It would force people into rigid groups. That does not help create a global culture.

only if you're after genetic modification, what of mechanical modification? Having your arms replaced with far stronger mechanical arms stimulated by the same nerves

This is true. But that was not my arguement.

Yes? And this matters how? These ideas are not going to cause a technological standstill, nor will immunity to a strain of bacteria harm our immunity to others

The point is we cannot evolve immunity to specific diseases. It would be a logistic impossiblity.

Birth control is also an issue, it occurs in China and India (to a lesser extent in the latter) in an attempt to control their population, as I said above, Europe is in no position to increace in population very rapidly

Birth control would hardly be needed if there were fewer people to begin with. Granted, Europe is at a relative standstill, but the rest of the world is not.

I am no scientist, I am a student, and it is due to the arguments above that they won't listen to you, or others far more informed then mine

Scientists have invented terrible things that should not have been. Being a scientist makes you able to study and invent. Is does not make you able to decide what should and should not be studied or invented.

Edit: I'm sorry if I came across as a

in my first post. It did not mean to bash the posters, but overt genetic engineering of humans will most likely lead to terrible consequences. Remember, the atomic bomb seemed like a good idea.