Going against evolution?

Former Member

Link

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

Former Member

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.

Indrid Cold

Yeah, what he said. Though I do think it shouldn't be done.

Teh_Gerbil

Bad Science, imho. This is wrong... it's all going to fuck up... like Dolly, the sheep.

Former Member

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?

Teh_Gerbil

Yes... but, do you honestly think this is the right thing to do?

Former Member

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.

Former Member

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.

Former Member

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.

Former Member

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.

Former Member

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"?

Former Member

Yeah, surely us figuring out genetics n messing with it is just part of our natural development.

Former Member

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.

Former Member

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

Former Member

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.

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

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.

Former Member

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.

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

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?

Former Member

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.

Former Member

turlough wrote:

Who designed it ?

seek and ye shall find ...

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

seek and ye shall find ...

Sounds a bit draconian to me!

Former Member

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

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:

Former Member

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.

Former Member

wheresmyplacebo wrote:

could of been aliens then as well then

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.