Philosophy Now Forum

HexHammer wrote:You are right per se, but problem is that you too often demands silly irrelevant information which ruins the moments when you ask relevant questions.

No I don't, you make statements about future science that quite clearly demand some current evidence rather than the wishful thinking you often display.

Arising_uk wrote:

HexHammer wrote:You are right per se, but problem is that you too often demands silly irrelevant information which ruins the moments when you ask relevant questions.

No I don't, you make statements about future science that quite clearly demand some current evidence rather than the wishful thinking you often display.

../facepalm!!!

HexHammer wrote:../facepalm!!!

If your claim that we can just trade gene sequences is correct explain why genius parents don't appear to produce genius children any more than non-genius parents? Show me the research that identifies gene sequences with intelligence?

Arising_uk wrote:

HexHammer wrote:../facepalm!!!

If your claim that we can just trade gene sequences is correct explain why genius parents don't appear to produce genius children any more than non-genius parents? Show me the research that identifies gene sequences with intelligence?

Because the zygots randomly mixes with eachother ..THAT'S WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you force DNA sequences AFTER the mix, then you can have designer babies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HexHammer wrote:Because the zygots randomly mixes with eachother ..THAT'S WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By this logic we cannot have shared gene sequences, so how do we know that we share genes with the great majority of living things?

If you force DNA sequences AFTER the mix, then you can have designer babies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know, but you've not answered my question as to what gene sequences have been identified with intelligence?

HexHammer wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

HexHammer wrote:../facepalm!!!

If your claim that we can just trade gene sequences is correct explain why genius parents don't appear to produce genius children any more than non-genius parents? Show me the research that identifies gene sequences with intelligence?

Because the zygots randomly mixes with eachother ..THAT'S WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you force DNA sequences AFTER the mix, then you can have designer babies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wowowow. Look out bitch!! He looked up a word on the Internet:"Zygots". Now knows more than anyone else about "designer babies'!

"because the zygots randomly mixes with eachother (sic)" Now we are truly screwed.

Or are we.... What you say is not relevant, except that the unpredictability of genetic fertilisation from which genius derives makes it very hard to understand or predict.

GM has had some limited success with the introduction from one germ cell to another, via a bacterium, of single genes or short genes sequences. These small gene sequences are in situations where very specific know fucntions are present: such as a gene to make vitamin A; to produce known insecticidal alkaloids. All cases of success, are gradually turning to failure due to insects developing resistance.

Nothing of the kind has occurred with humans. It's clear you have confused "cytoplasmic transfer" with GM in humans (above), and laughingly offered "multiple legal parents" as some sort of proof os designer babies. I had to say that had me falling off the chair with mirth.

There have been some limited successes with GM animals such as goats whose milk contains drugs. But these again are chancy, and only involved the transfer of short gene sequences with specific known functions.
It is thought that eye colour and hair colour might be made available to parents, but there is nothing yet imaginable for anything more complex, and there is no doubt that there is no single simple gene sequence for intelligence, or genius.

With only 30,000 genes available for investigation in the human genome it is vanishingly improbable that something as complex as intelligence and its various types would ever be selectable.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Can we reverse the effects of aging?

Call this an update:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science ... s-DNA.html

PhilX

By what measure do you determine what's better?

The Inglorious One wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Can we reverse the effects of aging?

Call this an update:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science ... s-DNA.html

PhilX

By what measure do you determine what's better?

That's part of what I'm trying to determine in this thread, Inglorious. You can choose your own ideas.

PhilX

Arising_uk wrote:question as to what gene sequences have been identified with intelligence?

Ur demanding, u should be asking.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:It is thought that eye colour and hair colour might be made available to parents, but there is nothing yet imaginable for anything more complex, and there is no doubt that there is no single simple gene sequence for intelligence, or genius.

With only 30,000 genes available for investigation in the human genome it is vanishingly improbable that something as complex as intelligence and its various types would ever be selectable.

Rubbish, it's just a matter of time.
Gene sequencing can be done in matter of hours these days, and with future more powerful computers I'm sure it can be done in matter of minutes.

So it's just to compare all the genious people with that of not-so-bright-people, thereby you can find the genes that determine high intellectual values.

HexHammer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:It is thought that eye colour and hair colour might be made available to parents, but there is nothing yet imaginable for anything more complex, and there is no doubt that there is no single simple gene sequence for intelligence, or genius.

With only 30,000 genes available for investigation in the human genome it is vanishingly improbable that something as complex as intelligence and its various types would ever be selectable.

Rubbish, it's just a matter of time.
Gene sequencing can be done in matter of hours these days, and with future more powerful computers I'm sure it can be done in matter of minutes.

You are confusing reading a book with writing one. You can read the genome as much as you like, but no one understands much of it. And beyond that there is the problem of finding viable delivery systems.

So it's just to compare all the genious people with that of not-so-bright-people, thereby you can find the genes that determine high intellectual values.

Yeah hey presto, as easy as making pancakes.

You spell genius without an 'o', btw.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:It is thought that eye colour and hair colour might be made available to parents, but there is nothing yet imaginable for anything more complex, and there is no doubt that there is no single simple gene sequence for intelligence, or genius.

With only 30,000 genes available for investigation in the human genome it is vanishingly improbable that something as complex as intelligence and its various types would ever be selectable.

Rubbish, it's just a matter of time.
Gene sequencing can be done in matter of hours these days, and with future more powerful computers I'm sure it can be done in matter of minutes.

You are confusing reading a book with writing one. You can read the genome as much as you like, but no one understands much of it. And beyond that there is the problem of finding viable delivery systems.

So it's just to compare all the genious people with that of not-so-bright-people, thereby you can find the genes that determine high intellectual values.

Yeah hey presto, as easy as making pancakes.

You spell genius without an 'o', btw.

You know, GMO ..sciencetists has made very strange things these days by manipulating genes and take genes from animals and putting them in strange places that isn't animals.

I do think you need to update your knowledge on this field.

..I'm on a public libary PC, not my own that has English/Danish spell checker, so I can't switch to English here.

...........and! ..if you actually knew something importaint aboug genetics, you would know that I trapped you with wrong info, about how they implement genes, it's not the process after zygoth mix.

HexHammer wrote:]Ur demanding, u should be asking.

I am, I'm asking you, as you're the one who is making the assertion that there are genes for intelligence that could be spliced into others.

HexHammer wrote:You know, GMO ..sciencetists has made very strange things these days by manipulating genes and take genes from animals and putting them in strange places that isn't animals.

I do think you need to update your knowledge on this field.

..I'm on a public libary PC, not my own that has English/Danish spell checker, so I can't switch to English here.

...........and! ..if you actually knew something importaint aboug genetics, you would know that I trapped you with wrong info, about how they implement genes, it's not the process after zygoth mix.

Gibberish.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Can we reverse the effects of aging?

Call this an update:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science ... s-DNA.html

PhilX

By what measure do you determine what's better?

That's part of what I'm trying to determine in this thread, Inglorious. You can choose your own ideas.

PhilX

Thank you, PhilX.

Personally, I'm still trying to work that out, but as I see it, making things better is strictly an inside job. Taking on the way way nature does things can have disastrous consequences. For example, many of the invasive species doing tremendous damage to the environment were deliberately introduced in order to "improve" the existing order for the benefit of humans. I think you are talking about putting the same principle to work using genes.