Vagrant0 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Not nessceceryly (cant spell....) over millenia the test subjects children would evolve slowly but surely ending up with hollow bones smaller figures and wing size an eagle has an 8-foot wingspan imagine how big the wings would have to be it is nonlikely but not impossibleErm, that's not how evolution works. For a dominant trait to be passed on, it has to both already exist to some degree in a given specimen, and provide an advantage toward reproduction that is not present in other members of that population. Even if you introduce this trait artificially, and force breeding, the trait has to be something which does not interfere with the maturation of a specimen. Many of the traits present in humanity, such as live birth, would directly interfere with the viability and longevity of the resulting sub-species. Even if this were artificially adjusted for (surrogate/test-tube offspring), other factors, like organ size, location, weight (brain, liver, intestines, heart specifically) would likely make mobility impossible, and likewise invite atrophy, disease, and death. If you shrink those too, well, you don't have anything remotely human anymore... Which was kinda the point I was making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbrophy2 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Not nessceceryly (cant spell....) over millenia the test subjects children would evolve slowly but surely ending up with hollow bones smaller figures and wing size an eagle has an 8-foot wingspan imagine how big the wings would have to be it is nonlikely but not impossibleErm, that's not how evolution works. For a dominant trait to be passed on, it has to both already exist to some degree in a given specimen, and provide an advantage toward reproduction that is not present in other members of that population. Even if you introduce this trait artificially, and force breeding, the trait has to be something which does not interfere with the maturation of a specimen. Many of the traits present in humanity, such as live birth, would directly interfere with the viability and longevity of the resulting sub-species. Even if this were artificially adjusted for (surrogate/test-tube offspring), other factors, like organ size, location, weight (brain, liver, intestines, heart specifically) would likely make mobility impossible, and likewise invite atrophy, disease, and death. If you shrink those too, well, you don't have anything remotely human anymore... Which was kinda the point I was making.What is so great about being human i hate being human i wish i could fly over oceans or swim to the bottem of the sea we are weak creatures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezdimona Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 . As I stated before for the pupose of creating body parts from your own DNA to say replace diseased organs and perhaps help heal injured limbs I personnally see no problem.My only thoughts of objection might be in the lines of creating super soldiers or beings for warfare, but creating an individual or indiiduals altered for long space travel capabilities does have some serious appropriate possa bilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monolithic0117 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 What is so great about being human i hate being human i wish i could fly over oceans or swim to the bottem of the sea we are weak creatures How would such a monstrous being that would result from the procedures you speak of be able to survive in normal society? I can't see a half-bird, half-human with an 8-foot wingspan walking around a mall, can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birrii Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I don't think genetic engineering should be allowed for any kind of living creature.At least not right now with the technical knowledge and science and stuff we have right now. This kind of knowledge will never succeed in our lifetimes.But if we would be that intelligent to be able to do that, I would only allow it to be used for healing, and not increasing power.Gen. engineering would be a nice way to heal mutated people and save people from nuclear bombs.But making people stronger will only give trouble. Sure, we'll have superheroes, but it doesn't mean that they will be one of the good-guys. The engineering may addle their brains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientSpaceAeon Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I agree if it's for serious healing, but now I'm thinking. But I don't think this will be cheap, and if it's not cheap . . . "The rich will getting a far better life, and the poor will get a far poor life." Especially if we have an economic crisis (wait . . . we do) right now. Even it's for healing, we should wait for the right time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezdimona Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I agree if it's for serious healing, but now I'm thinking. Even it's for healing, we should wait for the right time.And when is the right time? Who decides when? You? I? When you or a family member need it? How about some young innocent child? Do we make that child wait for the "right" time? Do we allow the old who are dying relief? Or shall we wait for the "right" time........*waits* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I agree if it's for serious healing, but now I'm thinking. Even it's for healing, we should wait for the right time.And when is the right time? Who decides when? You? I? When you or a family member need it? How about some young innocent child? Do we make that child wait for the "right" time? Do we allow the old who are dying relief? Or shall we wait for the "right" time........*waits*Are we done being melodramatic? The reality is that any large scale, significant application of genetic engineering for humans is still many years away. We'll probably solve most of those potential issues just between expanding conventional medicine, pharmaceuticals, nano materials technologies, and stem cell research. Maybe we should focus on not killing eachother for a piece of stale bread, or at least offering basic medical services to all people before we try to start screwing around with our own DNA. The reality is that most of humanity just isn't advanced enough to use that technology responsibly. Seriously, there are still people dying of leprosy and tuberculosis... And you don't need anything as complicated as genetic engineering to solve those. Gene therapy is one thing, genetic engineering is an entirely different ball of wax, and not one we are really prepared for handling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezdimona Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Are we done being melodramatic?who's being melodramatic.I responded to his post.nothing more nor less.Have I no right to respond to posts with my thoughts or feelings without being accused of something ?Please tell me I'm curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrosocial Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 hmm...well if we do have the abilitys to save an old man from dieing, we shouldent any way. if more people are living longer than the world will become over populated, and bad things will prolly happen. do we want the whole world to be like china were only two children (or less ) will be allowed per family? we would further deplete our natural resouces and kill our planet further Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now