Dangers in Genetic Enginering

I would like to know if genetic enginering is safe. I mean, is there a possiblity that some deformed creature of hell might accidently be created or some violent mutated rat that spits acid out of its mouth anc can grow to 7 times its normal size. I mean I am sure it is possible if you just put the right codes.Also, is it ethically moral? Is it right that we should take a human and try to mutate him into a super human with advanced thinking capabilities? What if we screw up a create a sick freak that wants to cut up his parents or some one who suffers from his own mind?I mean, if you can show that human being mutating human beings or any other creature is absolutley 100% safe, then I'll be the first one to go into the lab to have a mutation virus injected into me to make me into super-thinker, or somebody that can change my eye color or whatever stupid garbage genetic engineers are trying to do.I've heard they've made rats super strong compared to other rats. Now that is NOT safe for humans. Those body builders are in serious danger as it is, and your telling me that you gona make us like the hawk? I mean come one!This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 11-26-2005 10:46 AM

Guido, do you want to become a scientist or a science fiction writer or perhaps a teacher? What advice would YOU give to anyone wanting to pursue a degree in genetic engineering?This message has been edited by Phat, 11-26-2005 09:32 AM

Do you think that it would be ethically and morally right to eliminate certain genetic disorders?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think you should keep your reply material outside of the quote boxes. Your formatting makes it look like you're quoting replies to previous quotes. In general, I dislike quotes within quotes.You do it like this: I think it should be like this: You should write science fiction novels, Guido! From what I understand, Genetic Engineering is approached by science rather cautiously...they don't want any mistakes to ooze out of the lab, either!-----I had to tweek your type formatting a bit, to get it to display correctly in this message. What you are doing, is having two qs's, but only one /qs. I am surprised it works at all.Any further discussion of this should go to the "General Discussion..." topic.Adminnemooseus

---

I have lately been pondering over evolution , specifically human evloution . So we have a picture of where we came from , and that all life evolved from single celled organisms through whatever mechanisms . If you follow the line of human evolution you can pretty much get a good picture of our origions . After a while of though about this topic , one begins to wonder , we have evolved up to our current state , where to from here ?My thoughts on the future evolution of humans are centred around our societies and functions within our lives , and also the outcomes in evolution due to human intervention . The fact that we use technology and medicine to give everyone a chance in life , nomatter how weak or strong , i think , will determine the outcome to a degree . Obviously anyone with any hint of humanity will realise the preciousness of a human life and so our goal (in most circumstances) is to preserve it . This in turn gives genetic "weaknesses" a chance to carry on through the ages . As a result we may see a rise in illnesses and diseases due to people with weaker immune systems being supported through drugs which enable them to outlive such drawbacks .One can also note that with our exponential growth in technology we can change our future genetic makeup to compensate for this ,or atleast select which genes , aka - the strong ones , that we wish to pass on to our children , although this would seem like an extreme example i don't rule it out .So i have though a possibility for future evolution . As time goes on through the ages , and if we aren't completely wiped out from natural disasters such as asteroids , nuclear war leading to nuclear winter and a definate change in human lifestyles , or even the destruction of our own planet , we will see a rise in weaknesses and suceptability to illness due to our supporting of weak genes through technology and medicine advances . Through our intervention in natural selection , our genetics will give rise to a weaker race more suceptable to illness .Of course this is just one possibility i have come up with , and its by no means backed up with evidence of any kind other that my own thought processes .Please feel free to discuss my theory or any of your own or exhisting theories on Future Human Evolution .(please note : of course i dont think that the old saying "only the strong survive" is a favourable outcome , but this is what i think is a possibility . )

It's pretty hard to tell how we will evolve. I'm not too worried about that. A population doesn't suddenly fill up with bad genes. Moreover, there will be increasing emphasis on ways of avoiding children with some kinds of genetic effects, and that works the other way.But what we do at this level will probably have only marginal effects on the gene pool.The main effect will be a gene pool with more variability. Overall, that is a good thing.To me, the bigger concerns are with future disease problems. We already have many anti-biotic resistent germs. This problem is going to increase. Population growth will put pressure on the human population.As the human population expands, the human tissue will become the largest pool of exploitable material for other organisms. We can expect diseases to evolve to resist our treatments, and to find ways of attacking this human biomass. That could introduce strong selective pressures, as some may be less susceptible to the new diseases that evolve.There are other possibilities, of course, that could result in a period of strong selective pressure.Those are my opinion. They are different from yours. I will be interested in what others have to say.

I think the risks are pretty minor. Nature is already doing far more extensive genetic engineering than we will ever do. Pretty unlikely, I would think.I expect there will be some mistakes made. But they will most likely result in deficient creatures than in super creatures.That's my uninformed opinion.

If you think that every human being, or even the vast majority of them, have access to modern medical technologies - or even sufficient food - its time for you to take off the rose-colored glasses.Sadly, due to population stresses, famine, and disease, natural selection is still very active on the human race. For us tiny minority in industrialized nations, even we can't escape it - sexual selection still dictates the distribution and elimination of genes.Natural selection still operates on the human race.

You are right in this respect , some countries have poor health care if any . I suppose that is also a different path we may take , as if those nations stay as they are , they will continue to evolve as natural selection is still present there , whereas the more developed countries will be more varied and have no real defining characteristics in genetic strengths or weaknesses . You could say we might evolve to have different strains of humans if the current conditions remain the same . Thats what i think anyway .

The flu shot is another argument that I have heard concerning weaknesses and adaptibility. It seems that soon, we will have to take shots of increasingly complex antidotes to the bugs that our natural process once developed immunity towards.

Sexual selection. Unless you're telling me you live somewhere without mate choice?

Yes, and anyone who uses that as an example is either lying or willfully ignorant. It's another example of the con, the shell game that is used to trick the unwary.Once you have the flu, you are immune to that particular strain of the bug from then on. Your natural process developes the immunity. But the flu bug is, like everything else, evolving. It is a whole different critter the next year.Flu vaccines do nothing except trigger your natural processes. It is those natural processes that make you immune, not the flu shot itself. The shot is only a catalyst or trigger, the initiator of your normal bodily processes.Those who use that as an example of some weakening or lack of adaptability are using good old misdirection to take your eye off his hand as he palms the pea.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This link explains the issue of mistrust concerning flu shots. Im still learning...(A Chiropractor once told me about the immunization factor...(Jar, you mistrust everything!)Guido! Whats your comments on the mutations in everyday life?
I may even now be mutating into a whole new lifeform....(nah!)This message has been edited by Phat, 11-28-2005 12:04 AM

But surely you will admit that some peoples immune systems are stronger and more resilliant to flu strains and viruses than others . I dont know if immune systems are passed on through genes , but if they are then surely that scenario is possible due to the weak immune systems not being rooted out by natural selection and thus becoming more predominant .

I will admit that some peoples immune system works better than others. But that still doesn't help with your scenario, unless you can show that immune systems are an inherited trait and add some other catastropic selection process.If the state of medical care is allowing people with weaker immune systems then things like flu will be treated as they are now. If something comes along that we cannot develope a vaccine for, then the result will be a form of Natural Selection. Those left after the event will be those who have an immunity to the desease.For that to be a threat to all mankind, you need to show not just that people with lowered immune systems are part of the population, but that they are a majority of the population.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion