Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options

Going against evolution?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Link

Is it just me, or does this seem horribly wrong?

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well you could argue its going against nature (not that I'm saying it is), but mixing two genetic codes to form new life doesn't strike me as going against evolution.
  • Options
    Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Yeah, what he said. Though I do think it shouldn't be done.
  • Options
    Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Bad Science, imho. This is wrong... it's all going to fuck up... like Dolly, the sheep.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    Well you could argue its going against nature (not that I'm saying it is), but mixing two genetic codes to form new life doesn't strike me as going against evolution.

    I agree with Jim here. It would be going against nature rather than evolution, but don't we do that everytime we take an anti-biotic or asprin anyway?
  • Options
    Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Yes... but, do you honestly think this is the right thing to do?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Yes... but, do you honestly think this is the right thing to do?

    Do i think it's morally the right thing to do? I've no idea.

    For me personally, the first thing i'd think about doing if myself or my partner were unable to have children would be adoption.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    Well you could argue its going against nature (not that I'm saying it is), but mixing two genetic codes to form new life doesn't strike me as going against evolution.
    Survival of the fittest? It is going against evolution.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Evolution is about random genetic alterations through the mixing of genetic code. Survival of the fittest is just how the survivours are determined, this wouldn't alter that, any more than when a previously starving animal learnt how to crack nuts rather than starve like the rest of its kind.

    Development of ability seems to be a natural reaction to enviroment in all creatures. We just live in a far more complicated world, progressed far beyond the basic tools and discoveries of other animals.

    After all, as was previously mentioned, if you are saying that anything that wouldn't occur in nature is opposed to the development of man and the idea of the survival of the fittest is some kind of goal to aim for (and I'd list the overcoming of nature's barbarity and cruelty as the most astonishing success of the human race), then you should turn off your computer, throw away your clothes and go and live in a tree.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Evolution is the process in which populations of organisms pass on traits from generation through to generation. Of course it's linked to survival of the fittest, heavily so... The creature that gets on in its environment best is the creature that lives to pass on its genes.

    I mean am I the only person here who is worried about the impact on the human race playing with genetics might have? That by piddling around with people's genes we'll end up with deformed children, or kids susceptable to certain diseases that are yet to evolve? Maybe 'going against' evolution was the wrong term... Maybe we are trying to create a new and faster evolution without considering what it could bring to the world.

    Personally I'm against cloning, I'm against a few of the progressions in science because in many ways I believe they are weakening us. Our immune systems for example... I don't believe we should all go back to living in trees obviously.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it nature which has taken us to this point, which has given us the knowledge to be able to do this? Surely everything we do is "natural"?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, surely us figuring out genetics n messing with it is just part of our natural development.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This isn't cloning, this isn't changing the genes, this is akin to an organ transplant (which also "isn't natural"). The child would still be the offspring of one father and one mother.

    As for it going against evolution, as MoK said, everything we do is natural. We evolved to do these things. In fact we probably now have more control over our evolution than nature does, which is both frightening and reassuring at the same time.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    only thing that annoys is that they dont actually say what mitochondria dna affects, they just say "oh it wont change their eye or hair colour"........

    here's what it does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA

    quite interesting that its reckoned mitochondria evolved differently then entered into a bacterial cell and formed a symbioitic relationship that continues to this day in multi celluar organism

    hmm all the possible diseases caused by impaired mtDNA though seems very small risk though and so i think theyre jsut investigating it because they can
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Braineater wrote:
    We evolved to do these things. In fact we probably now have more control over our evolution than nature does, .
    if you believe in the theory of evolution then ...you will realise that nature has no control over develpment ...it's all a series of accidents ...having control would suggest purpose and inteligence.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    if you believe in the theory of evolution then ...you will realise that nature has no control over develpment ...it's all a series of accidents ...having control would suggest purpose and inteligence.

    What do you believe in my good man? I've heard something about the nature of the eye that's made the theory of evolution a bit shoddy.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    What do you believe in my good man? I've heard something about the nature of the eye that's made the theory of evolution a bit shoddy.
    the eye ... genetic codes ...a human cell ...the universe ...all paint a beautiful picture of inteligent design to me.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the eye ... genetic codes ...a human cell ...the universe ...all paint a beautiful picture of inteligent design to me.

    Who designed it and why? Sick game or just giving life a chance to prosper?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Good old Timothy Leary had something interesting to say about this kinda thing -

    "The human brain is a product of DNA designed to speed up evolution"

    He also used to giggle a lot and spend a lot of time looking for all night garages so ..who knows?

    p.s. if you think the human eye is weird try those of the trilobite - a limestone eye that could also smell.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    Who designed it ?

    seek and ye shall find ...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seek and ye shall find ...

    Sounds a bit draconian to me!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    What do you believe in my good man? I've heard something about the nature of the eye that's made the theory of evolution a bit shoddy.

    could of been aliens then as well then :p

    thats why ID is not an actual theory since it doesnt try to explain everything

    evolution as a theory is continusly being revised like how some species enter into symbiotic relations instead of parasitic relations on a big and small scale

    ID doesnt try to show anything it works bt saying theres flaws in other theories and by a lack of disproof

    ill say aliens did it then :thumb:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So do I...but who made the aliens? I guess we'll never know, I think it's better that way, there's just some things in life that should never be answered.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    could of been aliens then as well then :p

    thats why ID is not an actual theory since it doesnt try to explain everything

    evolution as a theory is continusly being revised like how some species enter into symbiotic relations instead of parasitic relations on a big and small scale

    ID doesnt try to show anything it works bt saying theres flaws in other theories and by a lack of disproof

    ill say aliens did it then :thumb:
    there are many scientists etc ...who through their observations have come to the conclusion that ID has to be the answer.

    the theory of evoluion is indeed going through constant changes ...but not becuase of the usual scientific methods but more because it keeps coming up against brick walls.
Sign In or Register to comment.